0
   

Ronald Reagan Has Died at 93

 
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jun, 2004 08:25 pm
I suggest you look at the whole history NeoGuin before making a final judgment. At the time we were propping up a collapsing Iraq, the much larger, better financed, and far more dangerous Iran was a much more serious problem.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2004 12:29 am
foxfrye, it is only one side of the population that has started to fantasize about the greatness of ronald reagan in order to bootstrap their own current agendas.

Ronald Reagan's own son has even spoken out against the comparisons between GWB and his father.

I am not saying he was the worst president ever, though I do think he should have had to pay for the Iran Contra thing. I am just saying that that the way some go on about him is out of whack.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2004 08:27 am
Foxfyre wrote:
Revel writes:
Quote:
I think Reagan's approval ratings grow the longer he is out of office and now that he is dead I imagine he will be put in the catergory of the greats.


It is generally some years after a president is out of office before the objective history is written. I indeed believe Reagan was and should be in the category of the 'greats'. And while I know the liberals, most particularly the liberal media, hated him with obsessive hate, enough of us loved him that he carried 49 of 50 states in his second term of office.

I suspect 99.9% of those who voted for him then would vote for him again.


I think most would still vote for him in November over either Bush or Kerry...
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2004 08:35 am
I loved the man then and I still do. He was truly one of the greats with vision that even his own party did not always appreciate and with courage of conviction that was unparalleled in this century. Reagan rarely played politics. Actor or not, he cared about the right stuff and he had the right stuff.

And yes, I would vote for him again over any contenders presently out there.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2004 08:38 am
yes indeed I am sure if Reagan were able to run for election he would win, again, but then I think that also applies to Clinton. interesting isn't it?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2004 08:46 am
I think a matchup between Reagan in his prime and Clinton would be no contest however. Reagan would win.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2004 08:50 am
I am pretty sure that would be a safe bet but only because it can't happen. I never voted for either of them.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2004 08:59 am
dys -- same here. Didn't vote for Reagan or Clinton.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2004 09:02 am
I didn't vote for one of them. Wanna guess which one. Smile
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2004 09:04 am
Wondering about the outcome of Reagan vs Clinton is a kind of a parlor game, isn't it? Sort of like Superman vs. The Hulk. But fun, I guess.

Keeping to the spirit of speaking kindly of the recently departed, I admired the man for making sure we knew he wasn't a workaholic. Always had a good night's sleep and maybe a nap, as well.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2004 09:45 am
Well when you do it right the first time, you have time for naps. Smile
0 Replies
 
NeoGuin
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2004 10:00 am
Of course, imagine what would have Happed to Ragean if things like MoveOn, etc were around?
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2004 04:56 pm
A bit late to this thread, with a personal reminiscence:

In the winter of 1975 Governor Reagan gave a speech at the Circa 100 Dinner restaurant in Beaumont, Texas, where I was a 16-year-old busboy. He was testing the waters for a run for the Republican nomination for President, against the incumbent Gerald Ford.

This action was more brazen than brash in those days; to make things more interesting, the area of Southeast Texas where he chose to make his remarks was as rabidly Yellow Dog Democrat as any place you could find on the face of the Earth. Jefferson County went for Adlai Stevenson (twice), Kennedy, LBJ, Humphrey, McGovern, and Carter in prior election years. But there were still a handful of Rockefeller Republicans around, and they knew they could pull a good crowd together (and they did, about 500 people on a cold wet evening in a town of about 90,000 folks).

I was promoted to waiter for the occasion, and the twenty or so of us staged a last-minute wildcat strike to get an extra .20 an hour out of those rapid GOP dogs of managers we had.

We served, they ate, he spoke.

It was the most impressive speech I ever heard. Ever.

Notice I didn't say 'greatest'. I couldn't tell you today one phrase, one sentence, of what he said. I can tell you that I stood at the back of the room spellbound for over an hour, and I can tell you that during that time I did not hear a cough; I did not hear a fork clink on a plate; no one talked to their neighbor. They laughed at the punch lines and applauded a number of times, and wildly at the end.

Being a student of oratory (I was competing in the UIL and Optimist contests at that age) I was in awe of his command of the room. He wound his stem completely around us all.

I wasn't the first Reagan Democrat in Texas but I was probably the youngest.

Ronald Reagan was the reason I abandoned my family's legacy of union-member solid Democratic upbringing.

Ronald Reagan was also the reason I abandoned the Republicans and returned home (and one of the myriad of reasons I scorn them today) but that's fodder for another thread. :wink:

As with all great leaders he provokes strong feelings from opposite ends of the spectrum.

I salute his legacy -- mixed as it is -- and extend my sympathies to his family.

edit: off by one year, so corrected that (and my age).
0 Replies
 
NeoGuin
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2004 06:08 am
P:

Please do so and create another thread on this.

It's odd for someone to go over to the "Dark Side" and then "See The Light"
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2004 07:05 am
Isa feeling kinda flip-floppy with Venus in transit across Earth today, Neo.

Can I just add to this one?

(Who you callin' odd, BTW? You talkinna me?)

About this "most popular President" revisionist history:

Quote:
(Texas) GOP Sen. John Cornyn called Mr. Reagan "one of our greatest presidents" - an assessment shared by more and more historians over the years. "He left the Oval Office as the most popular president in the modern era. Ronald Reagan loved America - and America loved him back."


Nope. Not according to Gallup:

http://media.gallup.com/POLL/focus/sr040210_3.gif

Not according to CNN, and USA Today, in conjunction with Gallup:

Quote:
Who would have thought it? Some two years after he left office hounded by right-wing detractors and stained by his affair with Monica Lewinsky, Bill Clinton now ranks as this nation's third best chief executive, according to a recent CNN/USA TODAY/Gallup Poll.

Only Abraham Lincoln (chosen by 15%) and John F. Kennedy (13%) finished ahead of Clinton (11%) in the April poll, which asked Americans who was "the greatest" president. George W. Bush managed to tie Clinton for third place.

Ronald Reagan, a conservative icon, garnered 10% of the vote, followed by Franklin Roosevelt, George Washington, Harry Truman and Jimmy Carter. Bush's father, the 41st president, was chosen by just 2% of the respondents, tying with Theodore Roosevelt and Thomas Jefferson.


USA Today

Now, that poll's a year old. How do you think it would look today?

How do you think it will look a year from now?

How many angels is it that can dance on the head of a pin, again?

Need I remind anyone about the utility comparison of public opinion polls to toilet paper?

Who would win if the Alien fought the Predator? If Jason Voorhees squared off against Freddy Krueger? If Kareem and Hakeem, or Jordan and Havlicek, or any other crap fantasy matchup was dreamed up? The answer is always the same: why the hell should anyone care?

Of course he did win 49 of 50 states as Foxy has posted at least four different times, but then again so did Nixon, as joe from chi-town has reminded. I think Saddam Hussein and Adolph Hitler and Benito Mussolini probably also won by similar electoral landslides, thereby proving their greatness (but only by Foxy's logic, of course).

Back to the facts. From those crack reporters at NPR (specifically, Neal Conan):

Quote:
Growing up in the little town America of Dixon, Illinois, during the Great Depression, Ronald Reagan was interested in sports and acting.


Reagan was 18 years old when the stock market crashed in 1929.

"Great Communicator"? How about "The Great Taxer"?

Quote:
But Ronald Reagan does hold a special place in the annals of tax policy, and not just as the patron saint of tax cuts. To his credit, he was more pragmatic and responsible than that; he followed his huge 1981 tax cut with two large tax increases. In fact, no peacetime president has raised taxes so much on so many people. This is not a criticism: the tale of those increases tells you a lot about what was right with President Reagan's leadership, and what's wrong with the leadership of George W. Bush.

The first Reagan tax increase came in 1982. By then it was clear that the budget projections used to justify the 1981 tax cut were wildly optimistic. In response, Mr. Reagan agreed to a sharp rollback of corporate tax cuts, and a smaller rollback of individual income tax cuts. Over all, the 1982 tax increase undid about a third of the 1981 cut; as a share of G.D.P., the increase was substantially larger than Mr. Clinton's 1993 tax increase.

The contrast with President Bush is obvious. President Reagan, confronted with evidence that his tax cuts were fiscally irresponsible, changed course. President Bush, confronted with similar evidence, has pushed for even more tax cuts.


New York Times

Listen, it's appropriate for everyone to show a modicum of respect for a President at his death, and remember the good, the bad, the influence, the impact, etc., etc.

ad nauseum.

For an entire week. Including an immediate federal holiday. (Be sure and go shopping to combat the terrorists, folks. Don't forget to buy Jelly Bellies to honor our Fallen Father...)

Remember that the respect we on the left are paying this icon of the right will be far, far greater than any respect shown at the passing of, say a certain other former President.

They are allowed to grieve. They can also do the creepy Lenin thing, displaying the body at the Capitol for a few days.

But we're not going to let them make **** up. Cool
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2004 08:19 pm
PDiddie,
Your own post contradicts itself.
I quote..."Who would have thought it? Some two years after he left office hounded by right-wing detractors and stained by his affair with Monica Lewinsky, Bill Clinton now ranks as this nation's third best chief executive, according to a recent CNN/USA TODAY/Gallup Poll."

But,looking at the graph you posted,Kennedy,Eisenhower,and Bush the elder all finished ahead of Clinton.That makes Clinton fourth,not third.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2004 08:36 pm
Look again, Marine.

Two different polls.

Semper Fi.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jun, 2004 07:30 am
PDiddie wrote:
Look again, Marine.

Two different polls.

Semper Fi.


Its hard to tell that,because the graph you posted is from gallup,but then you quote a poll from CNN and USA Today "in conjunction with Gallup".
That makes it seem like the graph is the poll you meant.
0 Replies
 
roverroad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jun, 2004 07:43 pm
I really wish people would hurry up and get over him. It's embarrassing to me that our country is lingering on this for almost a week. Now tomorrow is supposed to be a national day of mourning. I can't take much more of this...
0 Replies
 
buffytheslayer
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jun, 2004 08:30 pm
I will be glad when the appropriate time of mourning has passed and people - including the media - remember all of Reagan's admin, not just the warm fluffy stuff.

I appreciate the media showing restraint this week, I have no issue with a temporary moratorium on objective retrospection. But - as usual - the media overdoes everything. 24/7 wall to wall coverage is unbelievably excessive and unnecessary. I've tried to avoid the TV this week.

I purposely watched the arrival ceremony, tranfer of casket to caisson and procession through DC and the service at the Rotunda. It was - all in all - nice. And I will watch the service on Friday at the National Cathedral. I wasn't alive for either JFK or Johnson funerals, and am fascinated by the pomp and circumstance and believe Reagan deserves the honor as would all presidents.

But gawd, enough already with the ridiculous efforts to immortalize this man as if he were God himself. No Reagan on money, no Reagan on Mt Rushmore, it's insane.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/26/2024 at 07:03:44