When Ronald Reagan took office in 1981 I was outraged. Reagan wasn’t just a Republican (which would have been bad enough), he was a conservative Republican. That made him even worse than the despicable and hated Richard Nixon. When I heard the election results I was shocked. I couldn’t believe so many Americans were stupid enough to choose this mean old geezer over the kind, sprightly President with whom I shared a last name.
At the time, I couldn't have explained why I held these views. In '81 I was only twelve years old and wasn’t fully aware of why the new President warranted such derision. But I took my cues from my family of yellow-dog Democrats who scoffed at the mere mention of Reagan. They scoffed, so I scoffed too. In fact, I spent the next eight years, from grade school to college, mocking the “amiable dunce" completely unaware of what I was missing.
I didn’t know at the time that this “crazed loon" with his finger on “The Button" was, in reality, the person mainly responsible for keeping a Soviet nuke from landing on my trailer park.
I didn’t know that his ludicrous “Reaganomics" was the reason that my working class family was able to move from the edge of poverty to a solid lower middle-class existence.
I didn't know that the “dangerous old man" didn't have us teetering on the brink of World War III but instead had the Soviet Union leaning toward collapse.
I didn’t know that this warmongering codger who was haphazardly throwing money into Defense spending was transforming the military into an institution that I would soon be proud to join and serve.
I didn’t know what I was witnessing -- what I was, in truth, not seeing at all -- was the tenure of one of the greatest Presidents in modern history.
I didn't know that I was going to grow to appreciate, respect, and love the old man.
Mainly, though, I didn't know I was going to miss him this much.
Well written.
Question: Did the rest of your family ever learn the lesson you did?
One of the most beautiful tributes I have seen on the blosphere. Would that all the people who spent every waking moment cursing Reagan during the 80's had your intellectual honesty. Some of their "tributes" today have made me positively sick.
Bithead,
Question: Did the rest of your family ever learn the lesson you did?
It took them longer to catch on but they eventually all came around and renounced their allegiance to the Democratic Party.
My brother, for example, couldn't believe I had become a "turncoat" and started voting Republican. Then he went into business for himself and everything changed. It became hard for him to support a policy of "soaking the rich" when he realized that the "Rich" were classified as anyone who had their own small business.
I too learned to appreciate Reagan more later. I do count him as one of the few Presidents who worked to change the coarse of History. As I've gotten older I've come to realize ...There are no perfect Presidents . They all make mistakes . So I guess the difference is the types of mistakes and how the citizens react to those mistakes. Many are over reacting now as they did then . It is only as we write history that we will learn to appreciate just how what we are unsure of at the time saved us from something much worse in the future. Such as the fall of the Soviet Empire . Once ...that seemed impossible. Yes I'm going to miss Reagan too.
I had a similar experience to you as well. Our family was on the verge of poverty but during the eighties moved into the working class status. My family despise him even until this day. I am now just starting to learn about him, who he was and what he stood for. Basically he is the greatest man America has ever known. This could be argued but I believe he stands for basically everything I now do. It is hard to go against your family and tell them that they are wrong, misinformed and misguided. Even though we experienced the most well-off times during the eighties, my family still speaks of the times as if they were impoverished, famine and oppressed. They really didn't know what they really had. Many of us didn't and still don't. I hope with his death his true legacy will be brought forth and kept alive forever more. God Bless
My entry into the world of politics came during the 1988 Republican Presidential Primaries, when I mistook Bob Dole for Scotty from Star Trek.
I've been a Republican ever since.
I have to agree with MorningSun. While I disagree with some of Bush's policies, the small reports that go under the radar of the major media outlets give you both an indication of his personal character and depth of his true genius (yes, genius...anyone who wants to pollute this thread with hateful rhetoric can stop now). Reagan was very much the same way. He was plainly himself, had nothing to prove, and really didn't give a damn if people thought he was smart or not. They also both share the same Christian faith.
Why is it that the Presidency seems to attract heroes (Reagan) and despots (Clinton) with equal strength?
Oh, I don't know if Clinton was a despot-he was just a dyed-in-the-wool big government liberal.
I was even younger than Joe in the years of Reagan, but I have noticed one thing... I grew up liking America, and being proud of our military and government. I think that if I had been raised in the 70s, or even the 90s, I would have had quite a different view of the government, at least in my early years. Thus, though I hardly realized it at the time, Reagan was an inspiration, that is with me to this day.
I was just old enough to vote in 1980, and my reaction was similar to yours, Joe. And you pretty well summed up my political transformation, too. Thanks.
Joe,
As I peruse the blogosphere's reaction to Reagan's death, I'm struck by how many of us initially believed the garbage that was being put out about him, and how we woke up, eventually, to the truth...
Are there similarities even now with W.?
I wonder...
God rest Ronald Reagan... God bless Nancy and the rest of his clan as they mourn...
In 1968 I worked at the grassroots level for Hubert Humphrey (a fine man who would have made, I still believe today, a good president).
In 1972 I worked at the grassroots level for the McGovern campaign (I still have great respect for Mr. McGovern as an American).
In 1976 I voted for Jimmah the Nukular "Engineer" (a good ol' boy Southern Baptist with lust in his heart - just like me).
In 1979, with every intention of voting again for mortgage rates in the teens, the misery index, thermostats at 65, and malaise, an actor came on the stage speaking some very simple truths and stole my vote. He was not nuanced. He spoke truths that I had known in my heart all my life. He was a breath of fresh air.
I mourn his passing. Being born in 1949, I remember presidents from Eisenhower to W. Ronald Reagan will stand astride history like no other president in my memory, so far.
He is now, truly, a citizen of the Shining City on a Hill. God blessed America with his presidency.
I just happen to be reading "The Real Jimmy Carter," right now the chapter on foreign affairs during the Carter presidency, and my oh my, what Reagan had to save us from. The flashbacks are painful: Carter was an unmitigated disaster. Don't forget that the Ayatollahs were so freaked at his being elected that the first big thing for Reagan was the release of the hostages by Iran. Sure, there were problems, but those of you who were children then don't know how truly awfully horribly awful the Carter years were: America in defeat and retreat. Thank God we had Reagan to follow Carter to make up for that dreadful term.
I have collected some tributes including Thatcher, Blair and Bush's
I was in college during the Carter Years.
You know it was bad when you remember talk about joining the Communist Party "to be on the winning side".
Seattle:
Don't forget that the Ayatollahs were so freaked at his being elected that the first big thing for Reagan was the release of the hostages by Iran.
That's putting it politely. There's still a lot of suspicion (from both ends of the political spectrum) that deals were made. That the hostages were released on the very day of Reagan's inauguration seems awfully convenient. And as we were to later find out, the Reagan Administration had no qualms about making deals with the likes of Iran when it suited their agenda.
You have to take the bad with the good. Reagan's arms race pushed the Soviet Union into bankruptcy and effectively ended the cold war. But many of our current problems were born of Reagan-era foreign policy. Saddam Hussein was their baby, for example, as were Afghanistan and the Taliban. And while the specter of an opposing nuclear superpower was gone, we now face the equally troubling prospect of a bunch of small, less-than-modern former Soviet republics that have nuclear capability.
And if Joe's family benefited long-term from "Reaganomics," then they got lucky. Because that economic policy marked the beginning of the end of the blue-collar middle class. And whatever they success they did enjoy came at the cost of their childrens' future -- much like our current president, Reagan accelerated the rate at which this nation goes into debt.
A lot of people feel the need to say only nice things about a former president when he dies. While I don't feel the visceral hatred for Reagan that many on the Left do, I feel no compunction to sugar-coat his legacy.
tgirsch---what else did you want in 1980? Did you want more double digit inflation, double digit interest rates more malaise talk?
We had elected a very bad leader in our usual over-reaction to the Watergate scandal. Anyone could have been elected against Ford (remember, he barely lost). So we have four lousy years of wondering in the wilderness. I wonder what another term of "Carterase" would have produced twenty years later?
Instead we have another large job increase, low inflation and have finally decided to kick some terrorist butt. Let's re-elect a leader and not someone who reminds me of Carter.
Fed up with all of you socalists!
Joe,
I just listened to Paul Harvey ask us to please give him time to say a few words about Ronald Reagan. He would like to spare us and him the embarassment of his tears. Somehow I can't help but think there were a few sniffles on your end writing this wonderful tribute.
God Bless you both.
tgirsch, I'll take this point by point. Thank you for actually making a coherent statement, unlike many liberals who post on this site. Actual discussion! Wooyoo! Anyway...
"That's putting it politely. There's still a lot of suspicion (from both ends of the political spectrum) that deals were made. That the hostages were released on the very day of Reagan's inauguration seems awfully convenient. And as we were to later find out, the Reagan Administration had no qualms about making deals with the likes of Iran when it suited their agenda."
There is also some reliable info that some higher-ups sold out our Vietnamese POWs, except those negotiations (and a settlement of $11 billion, supposedly) kept them there. What ever negotiations went on with the Iranians brought Americans back.
And I find "their agenda" to be something of a straw man. Every administration has an "agenda." They have a set of goals they want to reach in their term and methods their willing to use. Now you may not agree that we should be negotiating with such scum, but the people doing the negotiating could point the alternative and make us all collectively shudder.
"But many of our current problems were born of Reagan-era foreign policy. Saddam Hussein was their baby, for example, as were Afghanistan and the Taliban. And while the specter of an opposing nuclear superpower was gone, we now face the equally troubling prospect of a bunch of small, less-than-modern former Soviet republics that have nuclear capability."
Lets correct something. The Taliban was not a product of the Reagan Administration. The Mujahideen, existing before we got involved and made up of a broad cross-section of Afghans, gave birth to the Northern Alliance AND the Taliban. I remember an interview with one Northern Alliance fighter and how he talked about wanting peace and a better life for his children. He wanted them to get an education. We gave the Afghani resistance weapons. How that broke into various factions, good and bad, was not our doing.
We can talk about the aftermath of the Soviet collapse with cynicism, saying "look at what it left us with", but let us remember that Cold War was not the good ol' days. We had the persistent threat of Communist forces trying to do away with the West as a whole. And don't get waxing philsophic about the common human experience and all that. Their stated goal was "World Communism." China still as that goal and they're nuttier about it than the Russians were. So, terrorism now and Communist Chinese later. Liberty and Justice require "constant vigilance." That means that we won't ever be threat-free. So, blaming Reagan for someone else's persistent evil doesn't make a lot of sense.
"And if Joe's family benefited long-term from "Reaganomics," then they got lucky. Because that economic policy marked the beginning of the end of the blue-collar middle class. And whatever they success they did enjoy came at the cost of their childrens' future -- much like our current president, Reagan accelerated the rate at which this nation goes into debt."
Let's get something strait, "Reaganomics" is not theory, nor did it begin with Reagan. Indeed, any economist worth his salt will agree with Reagan. Do you get paid for a job? Do you buy groceries? Do you own your own business and pay employees? The basic relationship between individuals and entities is "Reaganomics", even when spending money on something frivolous. The maxim "you have to spend money to make money" is the perfect embodiment of how it works. The rish in this country get rich because they invest the right way.
And as to the death of the blue collar class, I would say that isn't true. I live near Minneapolis, right in a metropolitan area with foreign immigrants from all over the world and thriving tech sector. I was crossing the street one day and had to wait for a farm tractor to pass...
"A lot of people feel the need to say only nice things about a former president when he dies. While I don't feel the visceral hatred for Reagan that many on the Left do, I feel no compunction to sugar-coat his legacy."
I suppose to each man, his own. Remember him how you will, but I think your missing out.
Factoid: Reagan graduated from college as an economics major.
Correction: The basic relationship between entities and individuals and entities in an economy is "Reaganomics."
Same sentiment here; different emotion. I was scared witless. Ronald "back to the rear of the bus" Reagan was a much-feared person in my childhood.
Until I common sense kicked it.
Pete:
How truly insightful your comments were. :-|
First, I never said that Carter was the greatest thing since slice bread, so I fail to see why you feel the need to re-hash long-dead criticisms of his administration. Nor did I say that Reagan was some wholly evil guy who wrecked the country. I was merely pointing out that it wasn't all wine and roses, either. There were very real problems with his administration; he didn't earn the name "Teflon Ron" for nothing.
Instead we have another large job increase, low inflation and have finally decided to kick some terrorist butt. Let's re-elect a leader and not someone who reminds me of Carter.
Last I checked, we're still at a net loss of nearly two million jobs under W. Hardly what I would call "another large job increase" unless your memory doesn't extend back before January of this year. And how much do you want to bet that the new jobs that are being created, as a whole, pay a lot less than the old ones that were lost?
David:
Thank you for actually making a coherent statement, unlike many liberals who post on this site.
You're welcome. I try to be rational about such things, even if I don't succeed all the time. Doubtless some here (like Pete) would still disagree with your assessment. :)
What ever negotiations went on with the Iranians brought Americans back.
But the suspicion is that the negotiations weren't to procure the release of the hostages, but rather to delay that release until inauguration day, such that the outgoing president wouldn't receive any of the credit.
Every administration has an "agenda." They have a set of goals they want to reach in their term and methods their willing to use. Now you may not agree that we should be negotiating with such scum, but the people doing the negotiating could point the alternative and make us all collectively shudder.
Negotiating is one thing. It's the kinds of deals that were made that call the integrity into question. How the administration managed to come away relatively unscathed in Iran-Contra (and how Ollie North became a hero to some on the right) remains beyond me. And that latter was beyond me even back when I considered myself a Republican.
Lets correct something. The Taliban was not a product of the Reagan Administration.
Actually, it was, if not directly. We (the US) helped to create the conditions under which a group such as the Taliban could thrive. The USA and USSR share culpability in that matter.
We had the persistent threat of Communist forces trying to do away with the West as a whole.
You know, I wonder how much of that is true, and how much of that is propaganda. That could just as easily be turned around, and it would be largely true: lots of anti-Communist forces trying to do away with Communism as a whole.
So, blaming Reagan for someone else's persistent evil doesn't make a lot of sense.
Absolving Reagan of blame doesn't make much sense, either. You could argue that the world might not be any better -- or that it might be worse -- had it not been for Reagan-era foreign policy. But the fact remains that much of what we're dealing with today is a direct result of it. Just like Clinton's policies will ultimately be accountable for what comes out of Somalia and Bosnia, the Reagan and Bush I administrations have Afghanistan, Iran, and Iraq to answer for, for better or worse.
As for Reaganomics, perhaps you use the term differently than I do. I refer largely to "trickle-down" theory, and supply-side economics. These are things which no serious economist actually believes work. If "the rich" are investing in ways that don't create or improve domestic jobs, then the money they make has very little positive impact on our economy, and probably has negative impact.
And as to the death of the blue collar class, I would say that isn't true. I live near Minneapolis, right in a metropolitan area with foreign immigrants from all over the world and thriving tech sector. I was crossing the street one day and had to wait for a farm tractor to pass...
Really? A tractor? We still have those? Wow, I guess that absolutely shatters my theory that the blue-collar middle class is disappearing. :) Had I seen the tractor, I would have known better than to make such a silly statement.
Look one state to the East. And that trend is nationwide:
When those manufacturing jobs are replaced, they're often replaced with part-time, low-wage retail jobs. This is a side rant, but I've always hated how jobs are tracked in this country -- in absolute numbers. If I lose my IT job and move over to a job as a Wal-Mart greeter, there's no net loss in jobs reflected, even though quality of living is dramatically decreased. That's why I think we ought to be giving more press to things like median income versus cost of living indices, etc. [/end side rant]Remember him how you will
I choose to remember the whole picture. I must admit that I still crack a smile whenever I think about the "bombing begins in five minutes" joke.
David:
Maybe you should tell these people about that tractor you saw. :)
Joe said
"I didn’t know what I was witnessing -- what I was, in truth, not seeing at all -- was the tenure of one of the greatest Presidents in modern history."
If modern history begins in 1970 and ends in 1992, that is an accurate statement. Otherwise, you can bet that the only history books which will reflect your opinion will be those written by Republican cranks.
I very much agree about tracking median income. If owners make enough extra money by shipping work overseas, then mean income can stay roughly even while median income drops like a rock.
I would like to point out however that liberal icon Bill CLinton did us more harm in that direction than any president in history. Bill Clinton removed all limits on technology transfers to Communist China, which enabled a society barely above subsistance farming to become a manufacturing powerhouse. (And, allowed his contributors to pass satellite deployment/rocket technology to the ChiComs, turning their ICBMs from 20-ton acrobatic oddities into serious weapons threatening the USA.)
Job loss is a fact of life in free-market economies, worsened in my view by the inequities we accept in our restrictions versus their restrictions. Job loss to cheap overseas labor was historically highest under Clinton; it was merely covered to a large extent by the stock market & technology bubble which, unfortunately, proved to be based mostly on lies.
MW
>
PossumKing:
Clinton was no saint on matters of mythical "free trade" and outsourcing, and I've never claimed he was one. The "giant sucking sound" of NAFTA was probably the only thing I agreed with H. Ross about. And the China "most favored nation" deal was a giant corporate giveaway, the kind that I expect from a Republican, not a Democrat. (I remember Howard Stern -- of whom I'm not a big fan -- once saying that the reason Clinton was so popular was because he was a "Reagan Democrat," and I think the analogy works in a lot of ways.)
If modern history begins in 1970 and ends in 1992, that is an accurate statement. Otherwise, you can bet that the only history books which will reflect your opinion will be those written by Republican cranks.
Well, my college textbook calls the modern era 1985-to present...
What's so special about Lyndon Johnson, by the way? Or was the 1970 cutoff a random choice?
Reagan was the first President for whom I voted. I liked the old guy. Still do, actually, although his politics bear little resemblance to my own. Unlike Reagan and many of you here, my conversion went the other way: conservative as a young man, liberal as a - well, less young man. Reagan's optimism and humor were what drew me to him. I also think the man was sincere and had great personal and professional integrity. He will be missed and fondly remembered even by those of us on the other side of the political fence.
There's a lot of tears from those who appreciated a man who did what he thought was right and jeers from those who disagree. Some have even suggested he had Alzheimer's in office. A cheap shot.
I remember a man who I thought was the worst thing to happen to America until I awoke to the lies I had eagerly gobbled up back in college because it was cool and could get me laid by "that smarty brunette hoty in the mini with that oh-so-cool tube top." Brains with a bod just made it more exciting. Collegians aren't so idealistic once you throw sex into the equation, so don't rush to nominate them for sainthood.
The fact is our world is better than it was before Reagan. The Soviet Union is gone and the Cold War is over. Some say he was a lucky SOB who happened to be in the right place and time when Margeret Thatcher and the Pope got communism overturned. Like the Soviets were really impressed over Maggie and John Paul. That argument is pure idiocy. Nothing of the sort could have happened without American influence. Reagan clearly understood that whereas other American "leaders" were willing to accept the status-quo.
What really intrigues me about the tears is how they are for us and not Reagan himself. For Mr. Reagan, I'm reminded of a time I attended an AME memorial (open casket) for a co-worker. Not knowing what to expect, I was astounded to hear the following declaration of faith:
"We're here to celebrate this man's life and show support for his family. But if anybody came here for a funeral, well you can turn around and go home, because there ain't nobody DEAD here. Least of all Terry. He's alive with the Lord!!" I remembering having what my brother-in-law calls "A White Moment" and ducking as the congregation hollared out their "Amens!" Recovering from my 'moment,' I let out a vocal "Oh FAR Out Man!" to massive agreement from all around me.
I don't grieve for Reagan because he now lives with the Lord. FAR out Man! He's already traveled the path home that we all are on. I grieve for us because we lost a leader who understand the path home. Far too many today have taken detours.
Rob:
My conversion went the same direction as yours, although I was not old enough to vote for Reagan either time. 1992 was my first election of eligibility, and I abstained.
One thing about Reagan that often goes unmentioned, especially by conservatives, but by liberals as well, is that when it became clear that the budget projections that led to his tax cuts were overly optimistic, he did the right thing and raised taxes to compensate:
This is to be admired, and is far better than the path taken by our current leadership, even if Reagan did it in a way that shifted the burden more heavily onto the lower and middle classes:
Again, these numbers underscore my claim that Joe's family "got lucky."
Tgirsh
"as a share of G.D.P., the increase was substantially larger than Mr. Clinton's 1993 tax increase."
No doubt about it. And adjusted for inflation, it was larger than Clinton's tax increase. Recall that Clinton's tax increase was derided by many Republicans, including Ronnie and Rush,, as "the largest tax increase in human history". What a bunch of crapola.
It's also worth remembering that the evil Clinton's approval ratings were, on average, a lot better than Ronnie's. And, as a President, Clinton is currently held in higher regard than Reagan (or at least he was prior to the recent infusion of more disinformation about the flowery smell of Ronnie's bowel movements).
The reason all this seems counterintuitive is because of the loudmouthed but ineffective propaganda campaign of the Ronnie Worshippers and the favorable view of Ronnie held by the Beltway elites. We all know what to do when the media starts pushing a trope down our throats, right? Just say "no".
Distiller:
Yeah, OK. The Democrats who controlled the Legislative Branch had nothing to do with the tax increase under Reagan. Give me a break.
And it's wonderfully easy to have high approval ratings when the media have a 'see no evil' policy towards you. I'm sure even Hitler and Saddam had 'high approval ratings' as though that is ANY measure of the greatness of a president. Again, give me a break.
Do us all a favor and stuff your liberal tripe in a garbage sack where it belongs.
David
What's with the hot air? It's not my fault that the facts aren't on the side of ol' Ronnie.
"it's wonderfully easy to have high approval ratings when the media have a 'see no evil' policy towards you."
Huh? Who is the "you" to which you are referring? Do you you really need me to show you that the media did not have a "see no evil" policy towards Clinton or will you retract that completely bogus statement? Do you really need me to show you that the coverage of Reagan's "legacy" over the past week has been filled with fawning inaccuracies about his policies and legacy, or will you retract your completely bogus statement?
"Liberal tripe," my ass. Just show me that I'm wrong and stop whining.
Distiller,
You have been the primary purveyor of hot air around here.
All that typing and you did not actually refute anything I said.
It would not matter to you if the facts were or were not on the side of "ol' Ronnie". You are going to believe what you want because that confirms your warped world view. It makes you 'feel' better.
The point is that your statement about approval ratings is meritless. Approval ratings do not a great president make.
And the only place where Clinton is held in higher regard than Reagan is among you whiny liberals.
"And the only place where Clinton is held in higher regard than Reagan is among you whiny liberals."
No, actually, it's in the United States of America, the only place that really matters. Maybe Reagan is considered a greater President than Clinton in Russia, but I doubt it.
We'll see what history has to say about Reagan and all the "great" things he accomplished, David. For now, I'll stick with public opinion, which shows that Reagan is not as highly regarded (and was not as highly regarded even during his Presidency) as you fantasize he was.
Distiller,
For now, I'll stick with public opinion, which shows that Reagan is not as highly regarded (and was not as highly regarded even during his Presidency) as you fantasize he was.
Actually, a Gallup poll taken last November shows that people regard Reagan as the 3rd greatest President in U.S. history (and his standing has remain unchanged since '99).
What evidence do you have that he isn't highly regarded?
Joe:
If you're being generous, that means that it took a while for people to appreciate Reagan's accomplishments, explaining the increase in his approval since leaving office. If you're not being so generous, it indicates that the GOP propaganda machine has done a great job of glorifying Reagan post hoc. The truth, I suspect, lies somewhere squarely in the middle.
Oddly, I suspect the Alzheimers improved the public's opinion of Reagan. After all, we now know that when he said he didn't recall anything about arms sales to Iran, he might have been telling the truth. He really might not have recalled it.
Joe
"Actually, a Gallup poll taken last November shows that people regard Reagan as the 3rd greatest President in U.S. history (and his standing has remain unchanged since '99)."
Not true.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/2003-05-26-wickham_x.htm
And while Reagan's death will swing memorial-obsessed Americans to his side for a short time, you'll see him drop back down to his proper status as a doddering out-of-touch homophobic economic ignoramus once again. Just watch.
More evidence that Reagin is not held in high regard (from http://www.andrewsullivan.com/)
REAGAN AND AIDS: Sorry to continue about this, but I just got sent the following transcript of a press conference by Larry Speakes, presidential spokesman, on October 15, 1982. It speaks for itself:
Q: Larry, does the President have any reaction to the announcement from the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, that AIDS is now an epidemic and have over 600 cases?
MR. SPEAKES: What's AIDS?
Q: Over a third of them have died. It's known as "gay plague." (Laughter.) No, it is. I mean it's a pretty serious thing that one in every three people that get this have died. And I wondered if the President is aware of it?
MR. SPEAKES: I don't have it. Do you? (Laughter.)
Q: No, I don't.
MR. SPEAKES: You didn't answer my question.
Q: Well, I just wondered, does the President ...
MR. SPEAKES: How do you know? (Laughter.)
Q: In other words, the White House looks on this as a great joke?
MR. SPEAKES: No, I don't know anything about it, Lester.
Q: Does the President, does anyone in the White House know about this epidemic, Larry?
MR. SPEAKES: I don't think so. I don't think there's been any ...
Q: Nobody knows?
MR. SPEAKES: There has been no personal experience here, Lester.
Q: No, I mean, I thought you were keeping ...
MR. SPEAKES: I checked thoroughly with Dr. Ruge this morning and he's had no - (laughter) - no patients suffering from AIDS or whatever it is.
Q: The President doesn't have gay plague, is that what you're saying or what?
MR. SPEAKES: No, I didn't say that.
Q: Didn't say that?
MR. SPEAKES: I thought I heard you on the State Department over there. Why didn't you stay there? (Laughter.)
Q: Because I love you Larry, that's why (Laughter.)
MR. SPEAKES: Oh I see. Just don't put it in those terms, Lester. (Laughter.)
Q: Oh, I retract that.
MR. SPEAKES: I hope so.
Q: It's too late.
Nothing I could write could be more damning than this, could it?
I usually don't get into these tit for tats, and other silly blatherings BUT...
"There you go again," regarding:
"Oddly, I suspect the Alzheimers improved the public's opinion of Reagan. After all, we now know that when he said he didn't recall anything about arms sales to Iran, he might have been telling the truth. He really might not have recalled it."
By "again" I mean:
"Some have even suggested he had Alzheimer's in office. A cheap shot."
I rest my case
Distiller,
You're right. The polls did fluctuate. According to Gallup, Reagan ranked:
Tied for #2 on Feb. 1999
#4 on Feb. 2000
#3 on Feb. 2001
#5 on Apr. 2003
#2 on Nov. 2003
Also, on the poll you mentioned, Clinton was tied with Bush for #2.
The Gallup site also says:
Distiller,
You probably shoud have included Sullivan's later clarification:
Joe, well Sullivan is bowing to pressure from his "fans." The disease had already been declared an epidemic by the CDC (as noted by the questioner) so whether most Americans knew about it or not, what's to laugh at? The reaction of the Reagan Administration to this news is evident from the Press Conference.
As for the Washington media and its members, I think little has changed. They were tools then. They are tools now.
Jockofan:
The footage I've seen of Reagan towards the end of his presidency is entirely consistent with him suffering from early stage Alzheimer's. Again, there's nothing "cheap" about it. He was President of my country. I helped pay his salary. He was sick with Alzheimer's for a long time. A cure for Alzheimer's has not been found. Some scientists believe embryonic stem cells could be used to develop a treatment for Alzheimer's. George Bush is opposed to such treatments because someone told him that God doesn't approve of the creation of human embryos unless they are going to be injected into a woman's uterus.
All of the above are facts. Deal with it.
Also true is that no President besides Reagan has ever had a more aggressive bunch of fanatics monitoring and promoting every aspect of his legacy. Mount Rushmore??!! That was seriously considered and is a great example of the blind fanaticism of the fervor of the Reaganytes. And then there was the brou-ha-ha over the movie based on Nancy and Ronnie's life. Remember that? All that crap about "Ronnie was never reluctant to say anything about the AIDs epidemic" ??? The facts take a back seat to the fantasy.
"Morning in America." What a joke. Maybe after Bush Jr. and his crooked Administration are impeached we'll have a morning. But first, how about some mourning for those who deserve it: a half-dozen more US troops killed since Ronnie died. Remember them? http://antiwar.com/casualties/list.php
(*sigh*) Okay I’m in this now so here goes
Distiller:
Deal with what? Just what is it that I should deal with? Your personal observation on Alzheimer’s? Is that a professional medical opinion? Is that established medical fact? If so, don’t leave all these good people hanging, say so. Fill the internet audience here with your intelligence. Or is it just one of the opinion polls that everyone on this link is so fond of throwing about as established fact? If documented, why aren’t Dan Rather and Tom Brokaw splashing that all over the screen? They have about as much love for the man that you appear to.
Regarding fetal stem cell research, yes it may, MAY deliver a cure for Alzheimer's and a host of other cruel ailments, but at what cost to us? You rage that “George Bush is opposed to such treatments because someone told him that God doesn't approve of the creation of human embryos unless they are going to be injected into a woman's uterus.” Well just where does this fetal tissue come from?
Let’s suppose for a moment that you have a point – that a woman’s body is hers to with as she pleases. What is to prevent a woman from realizing her uterus is an industrial facility, opens her own business and starts renting it or selling her eggs out as a “Fetal Factory” to the highest bidder worried about their own Alzheimer’s or Parkinsons, etc, etc? That would be none of your or my business in this worldview. You have no right to judge. Let’s kick that up a notch, and talk about human spare parts and medical advance. A modern Howard Hughes in what should be his sunset years hires a variety of woman to supply fetal tissue grown into replacement parts for his decrepit body. Where’s justice for the less fortunate in this “Brave New World?”
“Oh Jockofan, that’s just a right wing fantasy by fascist Reaganytes like you.”
Is it really? Everyone thought Christian Barnhard was nuts to attempt the first human heart transplant and now it’s assembly line work. Who decides how far is too far Distiller? You? Me? I wouldn’t trust your judgment anymore than you would trust mine. So how about the “majority.” Well what about them? A less than 50% majority delivered us the good of Bill Clinton in your view. A much, much slimmer voting majority of the German people unleashed Adolf Hitler on Europe and the world. The concept that majority rule ALWAYS brings social good is a lie. So who then? There are absolutes in this realm for a reason. Left to “Our” way, we bring upon ourselves the freedom to decline into anarchy and once the right person corners the market on power - tyranny. Don’t believe me? Ask victims of Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, and yes, even Saddam. The common denominator in all those cultures is they abandoned God or He left them to their own devices. We abandon God and we’ll suffer the same fate. The Law delivered to us by God is not the law of a tyrannical, cruel God but the Law of love. Our “way” delivers madness and death; He knows this. Hence He gave us His Word to save us from that fate. His way delivers everlasting joy and life. His law says abortion is murder. That’s what can’t be spun away by you or anyone else, fetal stem cell research means a human being to be had to be denied life.
And this hatred on Reagan because he wouldn’t says “AIDS.” Well let’s talk about that word a bit. Let’s talk about AIDS and other fatal diseases like cancer, like MS, like Parkinson’s, like heart disease, and like Alzheimers. Where should the federal government pour its medical research dollars? Into incredibly cruel and incurable killers like pancreatic cancer or AIDS? Have you ever watched anyone die of pancreatic cancer Distiller? I’ve watched two. How does AIDS compare to that cancer? You don’t get AIDS by being exposed to toxins. You don’t get AIDS due to family heredity. You don’t get AIDS from congenital defects. The primary difference here is AIDS is PREVENTABLE as long as people engage personal restraint and self control.
“Jockofan, you just exposed your homophobic ignorance. AIDS can be caught from blood transfusions.”
How did it get there? AIDS was brought to us by “Patient Zero” who had the same morals as those men he encountered in his travels about the country. Where he got it in the first place, I prefer not knowing some things. The rest of us have the right to take offense to people with no self-restraint exposing the rest of us to hideous death. Self-indulgence does not impress me as an “alternate lifestyle.” I find no moral equivalence between a married couple (a man and a woman, that is) who have an intense, heated enjoyment of each other sexually versus a bunch of guys running around sticking their sex organs into anything and everything that moves as often as they can.
“Jockofan, who are you to judge a person’s personal lifestyle choice?”
The head gorilla mates with every female in its tribe. The Alpha male in the wolf pack does the same. Female dogs in heat will have multiple sex partners. The ensuing litter will have one mother but can have different fathers. Sound familiar? Why should I find it spiritually uplifting or a celebration of diversity for humans to behave as animals? Deal with this Distiller: AIDS can be prevented. I find offensive the notion that medical research funds should be diverted from a cure for cancer, a cure for MS, a cure for heart disease, etc, etc to be poured down a rathole so men can continue to engage in loathsome behavior with abandon and without fear of consequence.
“Jockofan, AIDS is ravaging Africa and India. Where’s your compassion and where’s your GOD for them you hypocrite?!?!”
Why is it ravaging those places? “Here we go again.” Because men with no self-restraint doing as they please with whom they please and as often as they please spread it about the continent(s). I sponsor a Hope Child in Uganda through Worldvision (http://www.worldvision.org I can post web links, too). A Hope Child is one who lost their parents to AIDS. Worldvision provides them education, support, hope, and a chance for a future. The pictures she has drawn for us in letters, I will cherish for all my time on this Earth. Worldvision also attempts to educate the men of Uganda that once they have AIDS they cannot cure themselves by having sex with virgins, among other important life lessons. Put your money where your mouth is (or your fingers are in the case of web logging) Distiller and make a positive difference to a true victim of AIDS. Otherwise, spare us your bile.
"If documented, why aren’t Dan Rather and Tom Brokaw splashing that all over the screen? They have about as much love for the man that you appear to."
Are you joking? Rather recently admitted that they didn't push Reagan harder on Iran-Contra because the press didn't want to put the country through another Watergate. Gee, thanks, Dan. I thought you were a journalist.
"You rage that “George Bush is opposed to such treatments because someone told him that God doesn't approve of the creation of human embryos unless they are going to be injected into a woman's uterus.” "
No rage, Jockofan. Just the facts. That's the point of my post.
"Well just where does this fetal tissue come from?"
Fetal tissue? Who said anything about fetal tissue? Embryos come from sperm and eggs. We can make them in test tubes. Embryos are not people. People can't divide into 16 individual organisms. Embryos can. But of course, they won't be allowed to develop into anything remotely resembling a fetus.
I stopped reading your post after I got to the part where you put, in quotes, the following statement: "“Oh Jockofan, that’s just a right wing fantasy by fascist Reaganytes like you.”
As far as I can tell, no one here called you a fascist. It appears that you made the quote up so that you could argue with yourself. Well, keep it up. So far you've haven't persuaded me but you might persuade yourself eventually.
Distiller:
You can't seriously argue that Reagan "is not held in high regard." You can certainly argue that he's not universally held in high regard, or that it's unjustified to hold him in such high regard, but the fact remains that many people, and not just conservatives, do hold him in high regard.
Jockofan:
I was not suggesting that Reagan suffered from Alzheimer's while still in office, although he may have. What I was saying, rather, is that the later announcement that he did have Alzheimer's, regardless of time frame, would have the effect of making people think that maybe he did while in office, and as such, be more forgiving of memory lapses. Perception is a large portion of reality I'm afraid.
No Distiller, those are actual quotes from others directly to me or others on the subject topics. You sound to be from the same camp, so thought you'd appreciate them.
I've said my piece to this matter. To coin a phrase, I'm going to "Move On" now. See you somewhere else on the ether, no doubt. I'm praying that you will explore the web link attached to funnel your passion to something truly good.
See you
"No Distiller, those are actual quotes from others directly to me or others on the subject topics. You sound to be from the same camp, so thought you'd appreciate them."
Oh, I see how it works now!
"God hates fags and they're all going to burn in hell."
I'm sorry to hear that you feel that way, Jockofan. Please continue to spend your money treating the symptoms of your ignorance and bigotry.
Did Clinton ever win the presidency with > 50% of the vote?
Mick:
Did Clinton ever win the presidency with > 50% of the vote?
Nope. 49.23% in 1996 was the most (popular vote-wise) that he got. But even if you add every last one of the Reform and Libertarian votes to Dole's (Republican) total, he still wouldn't have had 50%, either.
Personally, I'm in favor of runoff elections. In any state in which no candidate receives at least 50% of the popular vote, a runoff is held between the top two vote-getters.