I saw this little piece by Robert Reich in the NY Times the other day.
1. 11/4/80 : U.S. elects its first far right, senile POTUS & Senate goes GOP for 1st time since '56, accelerating decline of the U.S.
2. 12/8/80 : John Lennon is assassinated.
Wonder if the 2 events were related-------paging mein !-----------
-- Modified on 9/6/2011 9:33:01 AM
John Adams passed the first Alien & Sedition acts. Andrew Jackson was such an authoritarian that he disregarded the Supreme Court while waging a war of choice. James K. Polk lied to the American people to wage a war on Mexico, and allowed business cronies to supply American soldiers with boots that fell apart and rancid cans of meat. Grover Cleveland fucked over labor so bad in the middle of a Depression that he passed a federal Labor Day hoping just to appease them. William McKinnley got us involved in the Spanish American war just to take away Cubans trying to win their own independence, and turned the Philippines into a ghastly horrorshow that Mark Twain documented in "The War Prayer". Warren Harding lowered taxes on the rich lower than anyone in US history. And Hoover even sent the National Guard after homeless veterans during the Great Depression.
But you are right about one thing. Reagan was the first President that I'm aware of that was senile.
Nov. 4, 1980 was clearly one of the greatest days America has ever seen.
Trust, respect and competency returned to the White House and our country had elected its finest leader of the 20th Century.
And the U.S. has never declined. It remains, and always will be, the strongest country in the world. Even with the occasional liberal in the White House . . . . . lol.
I think the country has been in inexorable decline for nearly 50 years. PW, I'm sure many of your far right "kool-aid drinkers" will agree with me on this, the only difference being when they think the decline started.
-- Modified on 9/6/2011 11:08:28 AM
I try to keep it simple for ya, so you'll have some ability to answer.
Reagan was the finest leader of the 20th Century? Okay, here's the question. Ready?
By what measure?
They're all brainwashed. Don't bother.
Although RR does have a lot of baggage to contend with (as we've discussed before), he definitely outranks FDR. I'm surprised you put DDE so high.
But for sure, TR is top of that short list.
What measure?
That is simple. He was elected handily in 1980 and garnered so much respect and trust from the American electorate that he won in 1984 in the biggest landslide in American Presidential Election history.
Americans felt safe under President Reagan's leadership. He attacked issues and dealt with them. As GaG said in another post, he never blamed his predecessors for what ailed America. He just took the action he needed in order to alleviate those problems.
His leadership was so solid that he was able to work with a Democrat controlled House and get things done.
He never backed down to the Soviets or to any other challenges thrown America's way during his terms.
He was far from perfect. He made his mistakes. He was human, but he always did what he though was best for the American people.
And that, at least in my opinion, is why he was a great leader and was so well respected by so many Americans.
...that I'll bite at anything, perhaps with the exception of Tini.
Winning a re-election is the measure by which you determine a success? So how does Reagan fair against, say...FDR?
He dealt with a Democratic (there is no such thing as the Democrat party) controlled House and got things done? What did he get done?
The point in asking you this, PW, is to separate policy achievements and their consequences with Republican idolatry.
If Reagan was as fabulous as you claim, then the facts should be on your side. State them.
numbers, statistics or amount of legislation passed. Leadership is an intangible quality. It is measured subjectively due to that.
And President Reagan wasn't just reelected. He was elected for a second term by the widest margin of electoral votes in American history.
It is my hypothesis that your view of Reagan's "leadership" is based solely on the Republican party idolizing the guy to no end. Republicans used to do this with the Founding Fathers, but since they can't name any of them anymore, they jump on Reagan.
I submit to you, PW, that leadership is not an intangible quality. Not when you're the chief executive of the world's most powerful nation.
Would it sound absurd if someone said that Dick Fuld or Jeffrey Skilling showed leadership, while ignoring what happened to the organizations they led?
side note: Reagan didn't win his 2nd term by the widest margin in American history. Not by the popular vote, and not by the electoral vote. You know who was re-elected by a bigger margin (in both popular and electoral votes) than Reagan? FDR in '36. 
My opinion of President Reagan has absolutely nothing to do with how Republicans feel or felt about him. I lived through his two terms, voted for him twice, followed his political path from his California governorship to the White House.
I don't Idolize President Reagan. I respect him and all that he did for our country.
I normally vote Republican but never consider myself a blind loyalist to the Party.
I can make up my own mind and don't have to be influenced by others' views.
And I wasn't trying to be picky about my statement about Reagan's lopsided win. Maybe FDR's percentage was slightly higher. But I think winning 49 of 50 states and only losing in the opponent's home state and the District of Columbia is pretty fucking impressive.
"My opinion of President Reagan has absolutely nothing to do with how Republicans feel or felt about him."
I didn't say any such thing. My hypothesis here is the opposite. That Republican idolatry of Reagan, and all the propaganda they've pushed to that end, has affected you. When you succome to hero worship, it leads to worshipping an idol for reasons that you can't define. You can't define why Reagan was a "great leader" because of that hero worship.
You'll notice I have no such problems. It causes me zero cognitive dissonance when I say that in my view, FDR was the greatest POTUS of the 20th century, and yet he was an asshole for putting Japanese Americans in concentration camps. You'll notice I don't call them "internment" camps. If I idolized FDR, then I might say all Presidents have their faults, but adopting one of Hitler's policies is worse than a fault. It was and still is, a shame upon this nation.
So again, what happened to this nation under Reagan? Don't ask yourself that question as a craven hero worshipper. Ask that question as a man, and a patriot of this great nation.
Have you ever come to a conclusion that was right in your life?
Just because I have great respect and admiration for President Reagan, you think I worship him like an idol.
I also have great respect for Hillary Clinton but I sure as hell don't worship her.
What happened to this nation under President Reagan also included one of the greatest periods of patriotism and pride in our nation by its citizens. America, at least a strong, voting majority, thought very highly of him. He was a true leader in every sense of the word.
And my feelings have zero to do with propaganda or what you have mistakenly referred to as "Republican idolatry."
And I don't get involved in the game of rating Presidents. My only statement and true belief is that Reagan was the finest leader among our 20th Century Presidents. And that is nothing more than my opinion.
example. Another one was Beruit. However I can make many agruments as to his greatness, most notably the end of communism. President Reagan and Chairman Gorbachev wrote and executed the only agreement to reduce nuclear armanents in history. I spent a whole day at President Reagan's library and that was not enough to learn his many achievements. Any discussion here on this board would not do justice to his Presidency.
Willy respectfully, you are misunderstanding Pitching Wedge's and mine agruments about leadership. What we are expressing is that "great leader" goes beyond statistics and a list of accomplishments; leadership is also about character, inspiration and an offering a vision for the country and individuals. President Kennedy was a great leader.
My respect and admiration for Reagan is a personal one. I served in the uniform for the US Armed Forces under three Commander-in-Chiefs: Reagan, Bush and Clinton. I would have taken a bullet for all three. Before I joined the US ARMY I was undisciplined and with no direction. I suppose after losing a father at an early age I needed a father's discipline. President Reagan and his commanders offered to me surrogate fathers. Under Reagan, I felt if worked hard, was honest and humble I would be rewarded. The only true meritocracies I have ever known was on the football field and the US Army. Since, I was never considered for a football scholarship; that is all you need to know about my success on the gridiron. THat motto of be strong and be humble was President Reagan's vision. I learned from Reagan a since of humor can go a long way and that heroes exist but we don't know where to look. His lessons have served me well in life.
Some of those heroes President Reagan unearthed for me and this nation were those who served in the Vietnam War. I miss President Reagan.
the malaise period and the 80's as the "can do" era, anything was possible. Advertisements from Apple, Hewlett Packard all had the 'can do" spirit. Remember the "what if" campaigns? Innovation was the word in the eigthies from cellphones to computers. 1984 with the Chicago Bears was perhaps the funnest year in the NFL. The eighties under President Reagan was really the last fun decade we have had in this country and that is no coincidence.
On a more serious level. I enlisted in the US ARMY in the eighties and what the old soldiers told me was this. That in the late 70's, discipline began to slack, training was not as rigorous. A soldier said to me pride was just not there, and it showed by the little things like shoes not being shined. What Reagan had said about the weapons not having bullets, and planes that could not fly was all true.
President Reagan repolished the pride of the uniform that had lost it's luster. The use of drugs were under a zero tolerance policy. One strike and you were out. In boot camp and AIT I saw soldiers discharged from having dirty pee. IN return for your service, the service took care of you.
I was at Fort Sam Houston at Brooks Medical Hospital when five sailors were admitted with burn injuries from a steam explosion in a submarine. Two died. When burns cover more than fifty percent of your body, death is the usual result. Burns are the nastiest painful injury one can suffer. Now, I don't know the exact details of the accident. I do know those five sailors were treated as though the Commander-in-Chief himself was being treated, because the President himself would actually call the doctor to check on the progress on those sailors.
Your right you can show all the statistics you want. All I know is that if President Reagan would have asked me to march to hell, my only question would have been; how soon can I begin, SIR!
I have spoken with two different retired Secret Service agents that worked security detail for President Reagan and his family during his two terms.
Both said, without any provocation, that they and just about every member of the Secret Service would unquestionably and without hesitation take a bullet for the President. Not just because it was their job, but because that is the way they felt for him.
He was clearly not only respected but beloved by those who served for him.
a Lemmings club.
God-----the blind obediance to authority you guys cite--------you'd both be at home in Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia or Mao's Red China.
does not translate into "blind authority."
But, hell, I know that anything you can think of that gives you a reason to post a stupid fucking cartoon is good enough for you . . . . .
...you and Breaker are bordering on sycophancy.
You're Secret Service comments were most illustrating. What you're not admitting, but is patently obvious to me, is that you would be willing to take a bullet for Reagan...I mean, if he wasn't already a corpse.
-- Modified on 9/7/2011 8:50:17 AM
Using 1979 as a bench mark of US prosperity is like using 2008, You both must have smoked up all the brain cells devoted to memory.
A lesson that Obama should learn is from RR. We were nowhere near out of the abyss created in the 1970's when RR ran for reelection in 1984, but Ronnie had a plan, he didn't blame his predecessor everything that was broken in the country, and he cruised to victory in an unprecedented landslide.
Obama would be wise to follow Ronnie's lead if he doesn't want to follow in the footsteps of LBJ and Jimmy Carter.
'84 & 12 are not analogous election years. At this point, looks like a BHO-Perry matchup which is even WORSE than RR-Mondale contest. I didnt think that possible; I sat out '84 election & strong possibilty will do same in '12.
The hell with political scumbags-----I'm fed up with ALL of them & the corrupt system---- think I'll book a provider soon--------at least THEY deliver------
BHO is a weak substitute for a leader looking to blame everybody else for his own lack of vision. The only actual idea he has had and got enacted is a huge disaster and will more than likely be ruled unconstitutional.
84 was the only election where I can remember enthusiastically voting FOR a candidate instead of picking the lesser of two evils.
-- Modified on 9/6/2011 12:28:36 PM
I'll ask you the same question I asked PW. By what measure? And stick to the facts.
It is measured in terms of respect, character and integrity.
President Reagan was held in the highest regard in all three of those categories.
It will be decades, maybe centuries before America has a President with his leadership skills again.
We are still parying for the fucking mess he created. WTF did we gain from the so called fight gainst the Soviets? Truth be told they were falling apart. Truth be told, good old Ronnie created Al-Queda and the Taliban and they turned against us. But, hey, who wants the truth while drinking Kool-Aid.
No matter how many facts I throw at you, none of them will register will you, so why bother?
Either you see it or you don't, and since you can't see that Reagan pulled us back from the abyss and launched decades of prosperity, not to mention ending the cold war without firing a shot, I don't plan on wasting anymore bandwidth making the same points over and over again.
Jesus, the amount of dicksucking by grown men on this site (a site about pussy for sale) is fucking amazing.
I mean you dither on this site all day with no signs of a real life anywhere in sight, so that can't be it. You're a fucking unpaid moderator, for crying out loud. I mean if *that* doesn't scream "I'm a loser without shit else to do…"
You don't have the *ability* to articulate why the late, great Reagan was such a godsend. All you have is a pitiful homoerotic fascination with him, and that doesn't pass the smell test when it comes to rating a president's performance. Reagan was just a guy that appealed to simpletons because he was just so fucking simple. There wasn't anything complex or professorial about him. He was a half-ass actor that didn't know or use a lot of big words, so dumbasses like you you lap up his cum by the barrel. He made you all feel good because he didn't bother himself with the intricacies and complexities of running a country in crisis. He didn't try to engage people on the real problems and solutions to said problems, because hell, he didn't know what they were himself. And if you can slap on a couple bandaids and put on a good show with useless shit like Star Wars and wars on drugs, they'll ignore facts. Even 30+ years later while the country is suffering economically in no small part because of his bullshit, they'll ignore the facts.
Haha. Thanks for that. I love reading the weak, untenable bloviations of the faux-informed who are far more opinionated than they are intelligent. Always give me a good belly laugh.
On the One Hand
1) Reagan was not stupid and was actually an astute student of political history, as shown in his hand-written notes for his radio show after he was Cal. governor.
2) Reagan's bold, personal diplomacy at the Rejkavic summit with Gorbachev changed the dynamics of the relationship between the two countries.
3) He was a great communicator and did help to restore the country's optimism.
On the Other Hand
1) He committed the U.S. Marines to Lebanon where more than 200 of them were killed in a terror bombing, then he pulled us out of there with our tail between our legs, proving terror bombings worked.
2) He fell into senility during his second term, allowing Ollie North and John Poindexter to run a blatantly illegal scam from the National Securiy office that violated an law passed by Congress.
3) While Reagan deserves some credit for pressing the USSR towards its inevitable demise, to give him all the credit is ludicrous. The USSR died because it was based on a false premise, and because every US President from Truman on held to the policy of containment.
Of course, there's lots more on both sides. Bottom line: Reagan is not Pri's "Worst POTUS ever," but he also sure as hell wasn't a great one either.
As for PW's belief we may not see his like for centuries? I sure hope you're right!
-- Modified on 9/6/2011 8:07:13 PM
In fact, he doesn't even make "my bottom 6"
What I DID say was that he was the 20th century's most overrated POTUS.
tried to take pages out of the Ronald Reagan presidential book.
There will never be agreement on subjects like this. But, the bottom line is that Reagan was beloved by many and one of the most popular Presidents -- based on his two easy election victories -- of the 20th Century.
This is the man that left the largest deficit. Decades of prosperity, WTF are you talking about. You are right though, you can only teach it pigs keep on trying one day they may surprise you.
Facts, they are not, personal hallucination, they are.
1. We got rid of the worst POTUS in moern US history
2. John who ??
those 5 graphs to explain why the US economy stinks. Rethink it a bit WW. Think global then incorporate global data into some graphs and see what you come up with. The US has a fantasy economy when viewed from the context of global markets. Think in terms of 1 billion people starving in order to keep
the price of agricultural commodities profitable.
once govt wakes up, economy will pick up, but i guess university of chicago has smallest scholars in worls and we know who voted for them. who remembers pelosi JOBS JOBS JOBS.
Our taxes are the lowest they have been since the middle of the 20th Century. By your logic our economy should be booming!!!!!
Taxes were higher in the 50's. 60's, 70's, 80's, and 90's.
We have no jobs because corporations have moved jobs overseas.
massive increases also in taxes on homes, increase in education, like 24 yrs ago from 5k to 40k a yr for fuckin college where you have no jobs unless you are stripping at scores in nyc. , salary have dumped, you dont say thats fuckin insane. all crazy people who voted for him where hell are jobs how do you like unemployment forever, how many minorities have lost there job and have no chance of a job in 5 yrs. you really think the people from ivy league are struggling these days, you tell me who is smoking white stuff, me or you. go to new orleans and see where jobs are.
productivity in the 60's and were in full fledged decouple by the 70's.
so why do libs blame reagan?
he was'nt even elected yet.
Fact is, the industrial base of the world was destroyed in the 40's while ours remained intact. we were the factory to the world in the late 40's and 50-60's. No one seems to want to acknowledge this was an anomoly and it still being unwound.
The key question facing America today is what do we have to do to once again make products the world will buy? What conditions do we need to create which will make American manufacturers build factories HERE and ship THERE? The answers are a combination of wages and other compensation, regulations, environmental and work place related and taxes.
You can get your Norma Rea on all you like but until ALL of those factors are addressed, factories will close and move.
What made the economy work was the optimal combination of risk balanced by roi. In global markets the US competes for investments based on those factors. At this point in time roi in the US is lower than in some other markets and due to wall st weirdness risk is a bit higher in the US. The us govt can alter this but it will take a bit of time. Wall st and the feds arent on the best of terms these days and members of the capitalist class aren't loosing any real money so there is a stalemate of sorts going on. The rest of the world has lost faith in the US govt.'s ability to control the American capitalist class. Until the feds demonstrate that they can control the running dogs of capitalism all bets are off.
and clamping down on those over compensated, pension bloated unions.
Here's to hoping the trend continues!!!!
I think these economic debates are crap when people start talking about "the wealthy". Isn't that supposed to be the whole point of our system? ANYONE had the possibility to become wealthy with the right work ethic and and mindest. Nither of which you will find in a UNION!!!