I'll refrain from distracting you with my skeptical remarks. I know the "better tomorrow" attitude. What's the policy? How is it so broad that a war on terror didn't change it?
If you think I'm an appeaser, refer to my posts about putting four nukes on Mecca. I just don't think we should fight in Iraq.
Being negative about Bush, Chenney and Rumsfeld, is not being negative about America. America is what we make it, and I have to love that. Meanwhile, Bush, Reagan et. al. are not what we can make them, and they are not entailed in loving America.
It sounds like Kerry did exactly what I did with the war: he followed his commander and chief till it came time to evaluate him, i.e. an election. Exactly the way it should work in wartime in America. Unless you think a citizen is a spectator, a very un-American notion.
I have linked the whole commentary.
COMMENTARY
A Bit Too Early for Sainthood
By Jonathan Turley, Jonathan Turley is a law professor at George Washington University and is writing a book on Alexander Hamilton.
The last paragraph is about a law that has been passed in regard to Memorials on the National Mall.
"The effort to replace Hamilton and Roosevelt proves the need to have a moratorium on any government memorial to a president for 25 years after his death. There is already such a moratorium for Mall memorials, which some members are seeking to override. It was a law signed in 1986 — by Ronald Reagan."
I am aware how many on the left feel about the Reagen legacy, and I've seen posts on this board as well as the articles in the papers. Well, let's face facts, from the turnout we have seen this week and the outpouring from the public, this debate is over in the eyes of most of the American people, you lose.
Please feel free to continue to express your feelings, as this is the America way, but you should remember that you do so as a vocal minority (a position you should be used to based on the House/Senate/White Hose/Supreme Court) Life is sweet!!
dead Presidents. Even Ronnie understood this. That's why he signed the bill about a 25 year moratorium on proposing national monuments on the Mall. And yes, there have already been Republicans expressing sentiments about building a monument to Reagan on the mall, and I don't think they were saying in 25 years. Of the whole article, which is well written and researched, that is why I included the Last sentance, that being the crux of what I was expounding about.
Any memorial put up in haste will only be the center of controversy and discension that will ill serve the memory of the person that the memorial honors. Once time and history has filtered a president's contributions, then any memorial which is erected would not only be fitting but will have the force of unified public opinion behind it.
I think that people from different viewpoints on our most recent presidents can argue until they are blue in the face about which one was the best, but the debate will accomplish nothing. Time will reveal the flaws and strengths of all our recent presidents, the ones who are worthy of greatness will clearly emerge from that test and be memorialized by us, the ones that were not worthy of greatness will forever serve as historical benchmarks.
-- Modified on 6/11/2004 6:27:57 PM
I don't support changing Rushmore. That's just plain idiotic.
I don't think we'll see anything on a grand scale like Rushmore again. Too expensive and a loss of reosurces.
I would prefer two options.
If a memorial to influential Presidents in this latter century is desirable, it should include: FDR, Truman, JFK, and Reagan.
FDR for seeing the nation through WWII, Truman for the finality of ending WWII and launching a new age in warfare, JFK for standing up to Kruschev (Cuban missile crisis), and Reagan for finalizing the fall of the USSR. Note I did not say these were great accomplishments since there seems to be a varied interpretaion of what constitutes greatness. I said influential, and these 4 were the most influential.
BTW - As to Reagans influence with the fall of the USSR, yes, they were already rotting from within, but according to actual Russians II work with who lived under that regime, Reagan is credited (by Russians) with driving home the final nail in the casket. He was seen as a formidable and respected adersary by the Soviet government.
What I would really like to see done, probably in Virginia, is a hall of presidents. Similar in one sense to what they have at Disneyworld, without the animatronic crap. Just a large facility with areas set aside to tell the story of EACH president. A couple classy (not any of this contemporary crap) painted portraits and a formal bust. Maybe pop a document from each presidncy that has historical significance from the Library of Congress or something. It would be a living museum, as a president retires, he would automatically be inducted into the hall.
None of the nasty political BS. It doesn't matter who the president is, each one has contributed something valuable to this nation, and it should be recognized.
crap in there. I can show many articles where the people under the Iron Curtain pooh pooh your statement. Russia and the whole Soviet Union was already imploding during the Reagan presidency. The most he should be credited with is hastening it's demise, not being responsible for it.
You show me your articles, I'll show you mine.
One question about the memorial. Who would write the Presidents's history? Again, a GREAT IDEA about a Presidential memorial to ALL Presidents!
as I said in the post, I work with Russians who were there.
I'll take the word of people I can speak with directly and who tell me what daily life was like over any articles written in any media source.
Those of you on the left scream that Fox is so conservative biased, yet the right side of the coin continuosly points to other media outlets as left leaning.
In both cases, I have found glaring inconsistancies in the reporting of Fox, CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, printed news media, etc.
At least when I speak face to face with someone, I can get a better grasp of their motives from vocal inflections, body language, etc.
I believe I also said that Reagan was credited with being the final nail in the proverbial coffin of the USSR. I acknowledged that the core was already rotting away. Think about the recent fires and the reports of the trees. Recall that the forests looked healthy but the trees were basically dead from the inside. This is what my direct co-workers reported to me. Communism in the USSR wasn't totally gone, but it was on shaky ground and Reagan IS credited with pushing it over by most Russians.
As far as writing history, maybe rotate among the more scholarly universities that have generally well regarded history departments. Isn't there some type of hsitorical research group at the Smithsonian?
that they laugh when people say that Reagan was responsible for the fall of the Soviet Union. He was part of the equation, but not the defining factor you give him credit for.
of communism. But for any catalyst to work effectively there must be another factor and the late president Reagan can be credibly called that factor. I do not think that he deserves as much credit as some would give him for the fall of communism, but at the same time his contributions to it's demise were significant.
People who I meet who are Russian and eastern European do not talk about what ended communism, they seem to simply be glad that it is gone.
Hung low dude, Colin Powell just about pooped in his pants when he saw the speech where Reagan told Gorby to "tear down this wall." 20 plus people in the state department wet their pants.
Reagan met Gorby at that summit in Iceland and said "no" just no he wouldn't even negotiate with him. Reagan had enormous presser to give Gorby something for good faith and Reagan gave him nothing but his ideas, a handshake and a smile with kind words but not one concession!!!!!!!
Gorby walked away empty 5 plus times in 5 years but he kept coming back and gave Reagan everything Reagan wanted!!!!
The Gipper's da man!!!!!!!!!!! YEEEAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!
jb, i think this is a wonderful idea to honor all presidents and their contributions and it doesn't exculde anyone.
deserves to be remembered. A hall of presidents, where all who serve go in would be a fitting tribute. The ones that the lens of history anoint as great will get their individual memorials also.
Do you have a demographic breakdown ? You say ``most of the American people'' but I'm not so sure about this. I suppose you think most of America voted for your Hero the fighter pilot.
Oh, and thanks for your permission to express my feelings. That is mighty White Republican of you - tank u massa uz 2 kind to meeze.
Most of the electoral college voted for GWB, that's what counts. Read the Constitution...
Jar Jar! My Man!
Look at the current numbers. I believe this should settle the argument regarding Majority.
And no, Al Gore won the popular vote, he just couldn't carry his home state which cost him the Presidency. Bush won the electoral votes, you know, the ones that ACTUALLY GET YOU ELECTED!!
the dialect associated with the African slaves held against their will in bondage and subject to forced labor and many other inhumane acts in the South. BTW, Wasn't it a "mighty white Republican" that went to war over multiple issues, but one primarily being the demise of slavery? And is it right to accuse Snowman of being a rascist slave owner/boss? llcar, you've really got some issues to deal with.
of starting AIDS and now I'm accusing Snowboy of being a rascist slave owner. Wow, I really do have much to discuss with my therapist.
As far as Lincoln goes, I would like to suggest that he would not associate himself with the Republican party of TODAY.
We can name the national debt after him. It's the most enduring of his legacies.
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Reagan cut taxes and raised them. He promised defense boosts and domestic cuts but settled for increasing both. He set out to balance the budget but helped create worse deficits than any previous administration.
With budget deficits spiraling ever higher, Reagan signed a major tax increase in 1982, and others later. Even so, the federal budget deficit hit $208 billion in 1983, which at 6 percent of the U.S. economy stands as the worst ever, UNTIL GW BUSH took the title. Reagan had railed against the $79 billion deficit produced by President Carter's last budget. And the cumulative national debt nearly tripled, from $909 billion just before Reagan entered the White House to $2.6 trillion when he left in 1989.
"It would be appropriate to rename the U.S. Bureau of Public Debt" after him, said Rep. David Obey, D-Wis.
---------------------------------------------------------------
PS #1 - to, Puck, we can't name the National Debt after Regan, because we had a certain President that actually elimnated it and left office with a Budget SURPLUS, maybe the National Debt will be G.W. Bush's claim to fame 
PS #2 - to, buddym, I hope you are open minded enough to see that this is from a well respected fair and balanced newspapper "THE NEW YORK POST", and not some left wing garbage wannabe rag like the NY TIMES, LA TIMES, or WASHINGTON POST. LOL, DOH ! ! !
Be proud of your new hero. Bush showed everyone how much that means.
No, we haven't lost. There's no time limit. This isn't the 9th inning.
You've made a principled argument argument in favor of your hero, summed up: you lose, I win. Put a Reagan smile over it, and that's as deep as your principle gets.
/Zin
Millions? Zin, a little over the top don't you think? Or maybe you were one of the NY Times reporters who counted the "millions" at the Million Man March (AKA, the hundreds man march)!
Either way, the left was wrong then and its wrong now, per usual.
The constant negative, anti America, blame America first mentality of your left is why it will be deposited on the dunghill of bad ideas. You guys ad nothing to the discussion with the exception of negative platitudes about Bush, Chenney, Rumsfeld, etc. Kerry votes to go to war, then when we go to war he (big fucking surprise) is against going to war. This negativism, this self loathing, is why Bush will win and win big in November in the same manner Reagan did in both of his elections. Why? Unlike Carter (read Kerry), Reagan, (read Bush) saw a better tomorrow for America and he was right!
Appeasement with terrorist is much like trying to talk sense to a coiled rattlesnake, sooner or later someone is going to die. I disagree as to who that must be, to most American's its pretty obvious.
of the country, do some reading and research on previous wars (and conflicts) and you'd be amazed at how far back it goes. Hitler had quite a following in America and the protests endured in the days leading up to the revolutionary war weren't pretty either.
Freedom is not Free
Freed men are not equal
and equal men are not Free
They are but a market segment buying "Morning in America" cigarettes.
The rest have 199 other brands and channels to choose from.
/Zin
I'll refrain from distracting you with my skeptical remarks. I know the "better tomorrow" attitude. What's the policy? How is it so broad that a war on terror didn't change it?
If you think I'm an appeaser, refer to my posts about putting four nukes on Mecca. I just don't think we should fight in Iraq.
Being negative about Bush, Chenney and Rumsfeld, is not being negative about America. America is what we make it, and I have to love that. Meanwhile, Bush, Reagan et. al. are not what we can make them, and they are not entailed in loving America.
It sounds like Kerry did exactly what I did with the war: he followed his commander and chief till it came time to evaluate him, i.e. an election. Exactly the way it should work in wartime in America. Unless you think a citizen is a spectator, a very un-American notion.
"What's the policy? How is it so broad that a war on terror didn't change it?"
The policy is to destroy the purveyors of terrorism, to attempt to develop a democratic republic in Iraq. One man, one vote, with protection for all under the law. I believe that you are being disingenuous with your "didn't change it" remark, in that this conflict is just a little over 18 months old and President Bush never alluded to this being a quick victory.
A better tomorrow at the very least would be our nation being free from continual attacks like 9/11 in the future.
The negativism being brought against the administration is without any constructive alternatives! "Anybody But Bush" is hardly an intellectual exercise in constructive criticism.
Kerry did far more than just oppose the war in Vietnam; he accused the military of war atrocities on a unilateral level! That was a vicious lie, told for shock value to further his political agenda. It was destructive to the men who had answered their countries call and I believe his lies were treasonous. I was there as it seems you were, tell me zin, did you see any?
I know many people who I respect who were against the Vietnam war, I have no problem with them. It is their right and their responsibility to voice that opinion. Some of those people when we first met had that "baby killer" mentality, instilled by John Kerry. Once they got to know me, listened to actual accounts, they realized it was bullshit. Once the Vietnam Vets Against the War were exposed for the lying bottom feeders that they were, one would think that America would remember their most gutless leader, John Kerry was the one to promote such lies!
Evaluate, fine. Unfounded accusations, personal attacks, back biting and undermining, making shit up to fit an agenda, that's the lefts policy in a nutshell! America will not fall for it.