What makes Reagan so great, anyway?

The best thing about Reagan is that he is, finally, dead.

Myrrander:
Yeah....It seemed as if he was made of plastic (a la Dick Clark).

Yeah....It seemed as if he was made of plastic (a la Dick Clark).

And in that you are wrong.  He did not ignore aids, the magnitude was unknown when he was elected.  He did not neglect the starving in Africa any more than any other president, but most of the starving is due to warms, and you cant feed people when you are getting shot at.

What made him great was several things.  Not the least of which his bringing down the USSR. Beyond that, you have to go back to the 70s.  We had Watergate, Vietnam, Double Digit Inflation and Unemployment.  And marginal tax rates of 70%.  He dropped the tax rates, which increased revenue (that is a matter of public record) and restored faith in the greatness of America.  He made America feel proud to be American again.  Plus he killed inflation and got America back to work.

Enough accomplishments for you?  Those were the highlights, but there were many more.

did not ignore aids, the magnitude was unknown when he was elected.

It became an epedemic in 1984....I do believe he was president from 1981-1988...

I was asking what made him a great president, not what he did before he was elected.

Exhibiting obvious signs of Alzheimer's while still in office...fake evangelical...by the time Reagan said "AIDS" in a speech, thousands had died from it...Grenada...Iran-Contra...and somehow this loon gets more credit for the end of the USSR than Mikhail Gorbachev.

But the right will worship teflon Ron forever. Because they seem to have a thing for crazies, idiots, and madmen.

It became an epedemic in 1984....I do believe he was president from 1981-1988

Then check out the funding for Aids in the Budget for the years from 84 onward.  You will be surprised, hopefully not sadly so.

And I gave you the reasons.  You can also choose to ignore them or deny them, but since I was around and voting then, I speak from experience, not ignorance as some of your posters seem to be doing.

I think the term "plausible deniability" came to fruition during his administration. As long as he could shield himself from the actual goings on in the White Wash, I mean House, by allowing Bush and Co. to do his dirty work, then he could just deny any knowledge of wrongdoing on the part of his administration. Does Iran-Contra ring any bells?

I think righties hang onto this made up image of what Ronnie was, so he could appear to be great. Kind of like what they're doing today with dubya. Elevate him and his failed policies on some kind of fantasy pedestal.

I agree with Myrrander. The best thing about Ronnie is that he's no longer president, but he really did die mentally a long time ago, likely while still in office.

dabe:
Very insightful....next thing you know Dubya will be the greatest thing to happen to the GOP (shudders)

Very insightful....next thing you know Dubya will be the greatest thing to happen to the GOP (shudders)

No he wont.  But it is apparant your question is rhetorical and not inquisitive.

I like how compassionate liberals are happy that a man is dead. And they say liberals aren't compassionate loving people!

With this, and the open-minded article that pigeonholes millions of people into two terrible stereotypes, it's a shame that people don't understand how super enlightened you guys are.

Alright...Let me post another one about Clinton and let's see if you guys are willing to keep an open mind.

Reply #11 By: alison watkins - 1/26/2005 6:02:11 PM Alright...Let me post another one about Clinton and let's see if you guys are willing to keep an open mind.

For ALL his faults Reagan never lied under oath.

JFK did the same thing and everyone thinks he's so great.....

Reply #13 By: alison watkins - 1/26/2005 6:15:58 PM JFK did the same thing and everyone thinks he's so great.....

Show proof of this please. And don't post someones opinion. I looked and looked and found nothing to substantiate your claims. Plenty of opinions but no verifiable proof.

Fake Doc #1: 'For ALL his faults Reagan never lied under oath.'

Actually, he did:

On 1-26-87 President Reagan told the Tower Commission (under oath) he approved the arms-for-hostages sale in advance. This opened up Don Regan to perjury charges.

On 2-11-87 President Reagan told the Tower Commission (under oath) he had a talk with Don Regan and this caused the president to change his story. Now Reagan tells the commission he did NOT approve the arms-for-hostages sale in advance. So President Reagan lied - and that's a pretty big lie - to protect his buddy from perjury.

Not to mention that if you believe all of those permutations of plausible deniablility ("I can't recall", "I have no recollection", "Mommy is it time for bed?", etc.) he told the Tower Commision, then I have a poker game I'd like to invite you to.

Getting back to the actual point of this blog, the guy was senile, a blind man can see that. Here in the reality-based community, having a mentally incompetent head of state is somewhat of a bad thing.

Crediting Reagan with the fall of The Wall, which is often cited as his greatest "accomplishment", is like crediting the rooster with the sunrise; correlation is not causation. Fiscally, he dragged America so deep into deficit it took years - and a Democrat - to fix it. Lloyd Bentsen said it best: "You know, if you let me write $200 billion worth of hot checks every year, I could give you the illusion of prosperity too."

David St. Hubbins

Reply #15 By: David St. Hubbins (Anonymous) - 1/26/2005 6:32:00 PM Fake Doc #1: 'For ALL his faults Reagan never lied under oath.' Actually, he did: On 1-26-87 President Reagan told the Tower Commission (under oath) he approved the arms-for-hostages sale in advance. This opened up Don Regan to perjury charges. On 2-11-87 President Reagan told the Tower Commission (under oath) he had a talk with Don Regan and this caused the president to change his story. Now Reagan tells the commission he did NOT approve the arms-for-hostages sale in advance. So President Reagan lied - and that's a pretty big lie - to protect his buddy from perjury. Not to mention that if you believe all of those permutations of plausible deniablility ("I can't recall", "I have no recollection", "Mommy is it time for bed?", etc.) he told the Tower Commision, then I have a poker game I'd like to invite you to. Getting back to the actual point of this blog, the guy was senile, a blind man can see that. Here in the reality-based community, having a mentally incompetent head of state is somewhat of a bad thing. Crediting Reagan with the fall of The Wall, which is often cited as his greatest "accomplishment", is like crediting the rooster with the sunrise; correlation is not causation. Fiscally, he dragged America so deep into deficit it took years - and a Democrat - to fix it. Lloyd Bentsen said it best: "You know, if you let me write $200 billion worth of hot checks every year, I could give you the illusion of prosperity too." David St. Hubbins

This just goes to show what you don't know. And BTW....If you don't care to adress me correctly then do NOT address me at all! I'm trying to keep this civil in deference to allison. But you are severly trying my patience.

correlation is not causation.

Keep that in mind when you perpetuate the lie about Clinton and how his policies (or was it his lack of policies) brought about the boom of the 90s.

Guys, the title of the blog is "What makes Reagan so great, anyway?". I've taken the time to research and type out my thoughts on the matter. Rather than sniping, which I believe to be motivated by your personal feelings towards me from other discussions we've had, why not try writing a short essay on why Reagan was a good president?

David St. Hubbins

"by the time Reagan said "AIDS" in a speech, thousands had died from it...

The propaganda about Reagan and AIDS is sickening misinformation.

In 1981, AIDS didn't even have a name yet. In 1982 500 people died of AIDS in the US, and Reagan spent $8,000,000 on research. That's eight million dollars to research a disease that had killed less than 1000 people, in the same year it was even named. There wasn't even a test for AIDS until 1985...

Between 1981 and 1990 77,000 people died of AIDS in the US, the entire decade. In 1985 alone 771,000 people died of heart disease. Yet for some reason Reagan was supposed to see into the future and just KNOW that all our resources had to be devoted to it before we even knew what how to start researching it.

Can you really imagine that Johnson or Carter would have done anything any differently? Not. They probably wouldn't have done as much.

This has been done to death. Feel free to visit this blog if you want information on Reagan's record with AIDS.

On the occasion of Ronald Reagan's death, I wrote an article on his legacy. Please feel free to read it and critique as you will. Link: http://kupe.joeuser.com/index.asp?aid=17482

As far as I am concerned, the AIDs rap against Reagan is nothing but smoke, 20/20 hindsight. The question is not, knowing what we know NOW, should we have done. The question is rather, what could have been done then. I have commented on this before. I worked in a New York City Hospital from 1980 to 1985. We simply lacked the knowledge. One can assert that we should have thrown more money at the problem, but to what end? Medical research takes time as well as resources. We don't have a cure for cancer yet. Would more funding have solved that?

Iran Contra, including Oliver North refusing to answer questions, was real and troubling. But that is not what was significent at the time. The release of the hostages from Iran, the end of gas rationing, the resurgent economy, the peaceful end of Soviet Communism, those were memorable.

Alison, you said that you were born in 1981. So you have no memory of drills in school for the event of a nuclear attack. We had those under the administration of John F. Kennedy. You don't remember seeing people machine-gunned for trying to cross the Berlin Wall. The simple fact is that after Reagan, the world was a safer place.

Americans, all Americans even if they didn't like President Reagan, felt a new pride and purpose after the Reagan years. Vietnam was finally and truly behind us. The future looked bright. That is how I remember it.

No he wont. But it is apparant your question is rhetorical and not inquisitive.

It seems to more resemble a statement (true or or otherwise) than a question.

I like how compassionate liberals are happy that a man is dead. And they say liberals aren't compassionate loving people! With this, and the open-minded article that pigeonholes millions of people into two terrible stereotypes, it's a shame that people don't understand how super enlightened you guys are.

I like how I am now happy that a man is dead because my opinions fall on the left, thanks to sweeping generalizations.

I like how I am now happy that a man is dead because my opinions fall on the left, thanks to sweeping generalizations.

Latour, you are probably the only person I know (well, on this blog site) who has more contempt for generalizations and partisanry from both sides as I do.

I happen to think that Reagan was a good president, who helped our economy and helped to speed up the decline of the Soviet Union. I also think that, for what he knew at the time, he did what he should have with AIDs. But wait, I'm on the left, so I'm glad he's dead. Oh well.

JFK did the same thing and everyone thinks he's so great.....

JFK Never lied under oath.  And much to the chagrin of Mr Hubbins, neither did reagan.  Ony one president did, and he was impeached for it.

I happen to think that Reagan was a good president, who helped our economy and helped to speed up the decline of the Soviet Union. I also think that, for what he knew at the time, he did what he should have with AIDs. But wait, I'm on the left, so I'm glad he's dead. Oh well.

Latour and NJ, it is unfortunate that in the heat of debate such a statement was made.  However, the catalyst was made by a leftie,albeit a whacko one.

And you both are correct.  Generalizations are never accurate, just uninformed.

As I said, that fantasy pedestal thing. Alison, people are as divided by their perceptions of ronnie as they are about politics in general. I never wished ronnie to be dead, by the way. What I said was the best thing about him was that he was no longer president. As for dying, what I said was that mentally he went bye-bye while still in office.

He was a dolt. He and his buffoons invented that trickle down economic fiasco, that proven failed policy that just transfers money into rich people's bank accounts, while sinking the country into miserable deficits. That's a given. Now, dubya is doing the same thing.

Notice how the ranks of the poor in this country are growing?
Notice how those poor are getting poorer and poorer?
Notice how the rich are getting richer and richer?
Notice how the gap betweein the poor and the rich, that being the middle class, is shrinking?
Notice that we are now experiencing the worst deficits in history since dubya's tax scam, I mean cuts, I mean scam?

This is all indicative of the failed policies of trickle down economics. It's just a money transfer scam, and why I consider those who support it, generally republicans and conservatives, to be selfish. Yeah, it may benefit a few middle income people, but the cost to society at large if huge. It's just a fucking scam.