Ronald Reagan was a great man

Cypress said:
Like I said, rightwingers have created a cottage industry to creating a mythological hero out of Reagan. There’s no one else movement conservatives can even plausibly put forth as a great American populist hero. Ayn Rand, Jesse Helms, and Strom Thurmond are what they got.

It’s fascinating to see rightwingers beg us to concede how great Reagan was; they’re adoration of him appears to be mostly on an emotional level….. But when presented with the actual facts of Rayguns presidency they are reduced to responding on this thread with gibberish about how ”Clinton was just as bad as Raygun!!!”. Hilarious!

The emotional ties to Reagan and the myth of his presidency don’t comport with the facts. And people who were still in third grade when Raygun was president are probably unaware on any personal level of that era, and evidently not quite clear on the what went down.

Ronnie was a charismatic dunce, and had significant personal appeal, mostly to working class and upper class whites. Gay, blacks and minorities, in large measure, detested the guy.

The myth of Raygun’s popularity?? Made up out of whole cloth. His approval ratings were fair to middling, at best, when compared to other presidents.

vwpo38.jpg


His record high approval rating never even matched Clinton, Obama, or even Carter. And his average approval ratings were totally middle of the pack, to be charitable. He had charisma and personal appeal, but his policies were never popular. You can look at virtually every economic metric since 1980, and see what the Raygun theology of corporate deregulation, corporate “free trade”, and a blind faith in the magic of markets and pulling yourself up by your bootstraps has done to this country. You don’t even have to mention his abysmal fiscal management, his constitutional crimes, or his abhorrent ties to rightwing dictators and illegal wars on central Americans to know that the lasting legacy of Raygun is highly mixed (to be charitable), or alternatively has been an unmitigated disaster for America in the long run.

Yes, Ronnie was charismatic in a Hollywood dunce kind of way, he had personal appeal and likeability (especially among whites), and he trounced two of the absolute worst and weakest Democratic presidential nominees in the history of the country.

But, as you, Taichi, and Pendergast note, it’s all smoke and mirrors. Transient personal popularity, and emotional appeal does not mitigate the long term consequences and disastrous mismanagement of the nation the Raygun presided over.
Click to expand...

:clap:
 
Crashk said:
There's good news from the graveyard! Reagan is still dead!
Click to expand...

Of course, we should observe a moment of silence for the passing of Ronald Reagan…his week-long funeral viewing and procession was attended by thousands of fans and political supporters along with seemingly endless coverage by the Big 3 TV networks and international media coverage, with Nancy playing the stoic widow all the way. Yep, ever the performers, the Reagan’s knew that to pull that type of box office, it’s just a matter of giving the people what they want.
© 2008 VJ
 
Taichiliberal said:
Of course, we should observe a moment of silence for the passing of Ronald Reagan…his week-long funeral viewing and procession was attended by thousands of fans and political supporters along with seemingly endless coverage by the Big 3 TV networks and international media coverage, with Nancy playing the stoic widow all the way. Yep, ever the performers, the Reagan’s knew that to pull that type of box office, it’s just a matter of giving the people what they want.
© 2008 VJ
Click to expand...

raygun should have been given a posthumous Oscar for his performance in office. The way he was able to put one over on a gullible electorate shows that his acting talent was seriously underrated.
 
Threedee said:
People must have been retarded in the early 60s to have given Kennedy an average approval rating of 70.1%.
Click to expand...
Well if he had not been assisinated and if he had expanded the US involvement in Vietnam as Johnson had, then he would be viewed pretty much in the same light as Johnson was/is.
 
Southern Man said:
Reagan did give people what they want most: freedom.
Click to expand...
Oh brother. I liked Reagan. Voted for him twice. Don't regret that either. But give me a break. In the long run Reagan will be measured by the legacy of his policies and most of them failed or the've been exagerated or have been done away with. Same with Clinton. Outside of his trade agreements most of his policy achievements disappeared within a few years of his being out of office. They were both good Presidents but in the grand scheme of things they were nothing special.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Oh brother. I liked Reagan. Voted for him twice. Don't regret that either. But give me a break. In the long run Reagan will be measured by the legacy of his policies and most of them failed or the've been exagerated or have been done away with. Same with Clinton. Outside of his trade agreements most of his policy achievements disappeared within a few years of his being out of office. They were both good Presidents but in the grand scheme of things they were nothing special.
Click to expand...
The largest and longest economic expansion in US history, reduced taxes and regulation, resurgence of military power and morale, end of the Cold War, reductions in nuclear arms, the vision of missile defense, reunification of Germany and freedom for millions of Eastern Europeans: nothing special. :rolleyes:
 
Southern Man said:
The largest and longest economic expansion in US history, reduced taxes and regulation, resurgence of military power and morale, end of the Cold War, reductions in nuclear arms, the vision of missile defense, reunification of Germany and freedom for millions of Eastern Europeans: nothing special. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
You're apparently not a student of history. You're wrong on almost all of those.

The largest and longest expansion in our Economy occurred during the Rosevelt administration on through Truman (e.g. during WWII and the post war era). The second largest was under Clinton, the third largest was under Ike. Reagan reduced taxes, then turned around and raised them. The cold war ended under Bush 1. The actuall reduction in nuclear weapons/war heads and dismantling of cold war military bases occured under Bush I and continued with Clinton. Also, the reunification of Germany occurred again under Bush I and same with the liberation of most of eastern Europe.

Seems to be a whole bunch of mythology about Reagan that the far right seems to want to believe that's just not true. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Mott the Hoople said:
.....The second largest was under Clinton, the third largest was under Ike. Reagan reduced taxes, then turned around and raised them. The cold war ended under Bush 1. The actuall reduction in nuclear weapons/war heads and dismantling of cold war military bases occured under Bush I and Clinton. Also, the reunification of Germany occurred again under Bush I and same with the liberation of most of eastern Europe.

...
Click to expand...
Remember that you said "In the long run Reagan will be measured by...".

None of these would have occurred without Reagan's initiatives and vision. Specific to the economy, Reagan's economic expansion lasted through the Clinton years. Bush 1 raised taxes which cause the growth to decrease, but it still grew. :palm:
 
What the fuck happened to you Mott? You lived through this shit. What made you forget the real history to believe the revisionists version? A drug overdose; car accident; nervous breakdown cured by electroshock therapy? :palm:
 
Southern Man said:
Remember that you said "In the long run Reagan will be measured by...".

None of these would have occurred without Reagan's initiatives and vision. Specific to the economy, Reagan's economic expansion lasted through the Clinton years. Bush 1 raised taxes which cause the growth to decrease, but it still grew. :palm:
Click to expand...
You're rationalizing. Reagans economic policies resulted in two recesions and forced Bush 1 into a tax increase to pay for Reagans legacy of debt which cost him re-election.

How comes Reaganites and their cult of personality seem to want to shit all over the accomplishments of Bush I?

I mean Bush I may not have had Reagans personality and ability to deal with the media but he was a vastly superior administrator then Reagan (or his son).
 
Bush I got into that "New World Order" crap and lost faith in supply side. These are the reasons why he raised taxes and caused a dip in Reagan's economic growth curve.
 
Southern Man said:
Bush I got into that "New World Order" crap and lost faith in supply side. These are the reasons why he raised taxes and caused a dip in Reagan's economic growth curve.
Click to expand...
Oh for Christ's sakes. Don't get into that paranoid brain dead one world order nonsense. An don't talk to me about supply side economics or reverse socialism as it should be called and it has just about as much economic validity as socialism. I mean where do you guys keep comming up with these mythologies about Reagan.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Oh for Christ's sakes. Don't get into that paranoid brain dead one world order nonsense. An don't talk to me about supply side economics or reverse socialism as it should be called and it has just about as much economic validity as socialism. I mean where do you guys keep comming up with these mythologies about Reagan.
Click to expand...

Eat shit and die. Bush 41 mentioned New World Order in a speech, and the result was a huge loss in confidence. What the fuck is this "reverse socialism" crap? Supply side works, I happened to be taking economics during Reagan's term from one of the only sane economists in the Northeast.

Bullshit on that Keynesian crap that you liberals espouse. Obama's trying that with the stimulus package. HAS IT WORKED?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
You're apparently not a student of history. You're wrong on almost all of those.

The largest and longest expansion in our Economy occurred during the Rosevelt administration on through Truman (e.g. during WWII and the post war era). The second largest was under Clinton, the third largest was under Ike. Reagan reduced taxes, then turned around and raised them. The cold war ended under Bush 1. The actuall reduction in nuclear weapons/war heads and dismantling of cold war military bases occured under Bush I and continued with Clinton. Also, the reunification of Germany occurred again under Bush I and same with the liberation of most of eastern Europe.

Seems to be a whole bunch of mythology about Reagan that the far right seems to want to believe that's just not true. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Actually, the left likes to exagerate the era of Reagan more than the right. Just look above at Cypress's idiocy.

The largest period of economic growth in this country was from Nov. 1982-March of 2000. The only blip during that time was the 8 month recession of 90/91. Conversely, there were four recessions during the time of Roosevelt through the end of Trumans term. To be clear... the boom that began under Reagan had more to due with Volcker than Reagan. But it most certainly is the longest period of economic growth in our countries history.

The cold war was essentially done before Bush ever took over... thanks to a multitude of players.... Gorbachev, The Pope, the polish people, the East German police, Reagan, Thatcher etc... that said you are technically correct in that it officially ended under Bush. Bottom line, the USSR was on the brink of collapse when Bush took over. In large part due to the talks between Gorbachev and Reagan. The reversal of Reagans hardline stance provided Gorby with at least one foot on solid ground when performing his reforms of the USSR.

I know the left likes to harp on his tax increases... bottom line is this... yes, he compromised with Tip on a lot of issues. The gas tax and SS taxes surely rankled conservatives at the time. While they butted heads, they treated each other with a respect between parties that has been lost since Reagan left office.

One thing the left ALWAYS harps on is the deficits under Reagan... yet they forget to mention that bailing out SS was roughly 1/10th of the total deficits under Reagan. That the early deficits were to combat a recession (much as Saint Obama has done during the current downturn). Add in defense spending to help drive the USSR over the edge and there is the bulk of those deficits. ALL done with the approval of Tips House. The Dems could have blocked ANY of the bills to hit Reagans desk... but they did not. Just as Reagan could have vetoed any he wished... but in most cases did not.

The economic upturn during the 1990's was a result of policies and procedures put in place during Reagan's tenure... again, Volcker deserves a lot of the credit. Clinton simply stayed out of the way (after getting his ass handed to him on Hillarycare)... as it turns out... the policies of Clinton (and approved by the Rep Congress) actually were a large part of why we are where we are today.

Reagan's human rights positions seemed dependent on location... he ignored violations in Central and South America and fought for human rights in the Soviet Bloc. To be sure... his ignoring what was occurring south of us is a black mark on his tenure.

As for Cypress's idiocy with regards to 'popularity'.... call us when Obama has a Reagan like landslide re-election... Somehow I doubt he dominates his opponent the way Reagan slapped down Mondale. Because like him or not... Reagan was a good leader. This country came back from the brink during his tenure. The population as a whole was far better off in 1989 than they were in 1981.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top