HomeHistoryWin One For The Gipper Win One For The Gipper Kevin February 6, 2005 History 10 Comments Ronald Reagan would have been 94 years-old today. Trey Jackson has spent several days compiling a link rich Reagan tribute. Check it out. Thank You Jack Kelly... Fine Dining At The Super Bowl Related Posts It’s 1945 all over again CNN Anchor Says Founding Fathers Would Support Obamacare Because ‘It’s a Law’ Or Something Mmmmm History: Hillary Extols Abe Lincoln’s Senate Career (Hint He Was Never a Senator) About The Author Kevin Kevin founded Wizbang in 2003. He still contributes occasionally and handles all the technical and design work for the site. 10 Comments Rod Stanton February 6, 2005 The best American President ever. Bar none! melior February 6, 2005 Gosh, time just makes those fond memories hazier and rosier, don’t it? I agree it’s worth taking a moment to give notice to some of Ronnie’s bigger accomplishments: – tripling the budget deficit – LaRouche and the Strategic Defense Initiative missile shield (we’re so much safer, praise God) – 243 dead Marines and Iran-Contra treason – Voodoo economics (to quote Poppy) – Eliot Abrams and his death squads in Central America – Cap Weinberger and pretending to end the Cold War – Neil Bush, Silverado, and the Savings and Loan meltdown and bailout – Nancy, Just Say No, and buying astrology – an Administration chock full of dozens of highly placed felons for Poppy to pardon – the air traffic controller debacle – John Pointdexter and his Total Information Awareness – the secret deals with the Ayatollah’s terrorists – ignoring AIDS until it became an epidemic Now that’s a legacy, dammit! But GWBush looks to be on track to eclipse even the Great Disengaged Actor, if he can stave off the Alzheimer’s long enough (though he’s restricted funding stem cell research to stroke the fundies, so that’s by no means a given). Rod Stanton February 6, 2005 A note on R. *P.* Reagan. He hates his father and has for 40 years. When R. W. Reagan was Gov of Cal (67-75) the LAT ran several “news” articles telling us that he could not be a good Gov because he was a bad father and they would quote R. P. Regan. His comments: a. at the funeral b. at the DNC and c. relating the AOTU last week show he still hates his dad and will do anything to harm his party. -S- February 6, 2005 Interesting hate storm attacking Reagan’s memory…mostly links by and from Soros funded websites and web groups, using the same tiresome and irrational attack mode language (calling Reagan “a racist” and implying he was “a Nazi” and someone who promoted/defended “apartheid” and similiar deceitful statements from someone’s sickness straight to the internet). Seems that the larger principle and overriding quality that gets liberals all riled up is anything that refers to a human being as an individual. Not a generalization? Then you’re a threat to democracy. Not a discriminatory clog ina greater wheel of discrimination? Then you’re a ‘racist.’ The list goes on and on but mostly what I read is that Ronald Reagan spoke to individuals about personal responsibility and liberals just cannot stand that, then or now. The entire “rich and poor” argument fails when you examine individual motive and accomplishment, conditions and merits. To pursue grand generalizations about types of humans and human behavior is, in fact, discrimination based upon (name your generalization here). However, liberals never get that it is their very insistence on socialist generalizations toward the point of no individual variation that is, in fact, the worst discrimination going, and leads to, in reality, actual facsism. Ronald Reagan’s no more in “hell” than Soros is bound for heaven. It’s not about works, it’s about individual commitment and faith. Jim February 6, 2005 Blah…do we really have to go over these: “- tripling the budget deficit” Ronald Reagan felt he that with the congress in Democratic hands he could concentrate on one of two things: 1. Domestic Affairs (cut spending, taxes, ravamp the gov’t structure) 2. Foreign Policy (Attempt to force the destruction of the Soviet Empire). He felt he could not do both. Revenues increased hugely in the 1980s, but spending (at that means domestic spending too) increased more. Plus the Democratics broke promises with Reagan to control it. – LaRouche and the Strategic Defense Initiative missile shield (we’re so much safer, praise God) SDI was largely designed in the short term to cause damage financially to the Soviet Union. It was always intended as a long term project. Reagan said it could take decades. Reagan hated nuclear weapons and wanted a means to neutralize them. – 243 dead Marines and Iran-Contra treason I concede that the Lebanon was a mess. Oh! Iran-Contra was treason! Despite my dislike of it, the paying of Iran to influence for the release of hostage was not in violation of US laws. Additionally, even if persons under President Reagan (there is still no evidence that Reagan knew anything) it was a violation in the law but certainly not treason (read the constituion). In fact, there actions were designed to assist the United States. – Voodoo economics (to quote Poppy) Poppy isn’t a good source on this. After all he’s more of a demand sider himself. I prefer JFK. Maybe you like FDR (ten years of depression, broken up only by war), Truman (recession), LBJ (recession), Nixon (recession), Ford (recession), and Carter (recession). Even Mr. Clinton had what could be desribed as laizze fair economic policies (he had one notable supply side cut). – Eliot Abrams and his death squads in Central America Oh, as opposed to the Sandinista Goverment’s death squads? And the El Salvador’s marxist rebel’s death squads. Fact: Reagan put enough presure on El Salvador that it was having free elections before the end of his term. Without his policies you have 1. A marxist state with death squads or 2. A military state with death squads. Which would you prefer? – Cap Weinberger and pretending to end the Cold War Oh? I see that tensions never actually lessoned between the United States and the Soviet Union? Reagan never went to Moscow and said that the Russians weren’t “the Evil Empire” any more? The eastern block didn’t collapse? – Neil Bush, Silverado, and the Savings and Loan meltdown and bailout Reagan had nothing to do with the Savings and Loan meltdown (which occured in the 70s and 80s). You can put partial blame on FDR though and his FSLIC (look it up) for encouraging risky loans. And Neil Bush? Come on! The President’s brother?! Billy Carter was payed by the Quadyfi and struggled with alcohol, and Roger Clinton was an idiot but that isn’t a negative on them. – Nancy, Just Say No, and buying astrology Leave his wife alone, she isn’t a politician. And “Just Say No” I admit was rather naive but it’s better giving addicts what want need in clinics. The “establishment” thinks that is smart! – an Administration chock full of dozens of highly placed felons for Poppy to pardon The Clinton Administration. Plus if the Johnson administration had ever been torn into like they tore into politicians today who knows how many would have wound up in jail. – the air traffic controller debacle Reagan fired federal union members who were striking in violation of an agreement that they had signed, and were (in addition) violating the law. What do you advice we do? For lawbreaking? Give in to their demands? Like the left ALWAYS does when gov’t employees illegally strike. Of course not. Fire them, and hire new people. “There is no right to strike against the public safety by anybody, anywhere, any time.” -Coolidge – John Pointdexter and his Total Information Awareness Forgive me, It’s been too long but I can assure you that your wrong. – the secret deals with the Ayatollah’s terrorists I can say I disagree with Reagan on what he did strongly. It was not illegal. He certainly didn’t do it to “arm terrorists.” The primary purpose was to influence other terrorists to release hostages (one hostage was released). The flaws of this idea are obvious, and the Ayatollahs took over the process quickly. The secondary aspect was improve relations via the underground channel (any benefits would be long term). – ignoring AIDS until it became an epidemic Perhaps another President would have done something quicker, but AIDS was not what it was early in the Reagan administration what it was midway through the Reagan administration. Making huge budget support for research for viruses that have taken a relatively small number of lives (compared to today, and other diseases of the time) is not a simple issue. AIDS very quickly in the Reagan administration got priority funding far beyond it’s statistical rate/infected and fatalities and is now the most funded of any well known disease per/capita to infected and fatalities. -S- February 6, 2005 Ah, see, after reading Jim’s comments (^^), I now recall that the hate mongers where Reagan is concerned is all centered in the AIDs issue. Once again, gay activists run amok, spreading hate and animosity everywhere, and when you examine just why, it’s always gays against and about Christianity. It is always about that, every single issue, where liberals go wonky about anyone in any public area who is a Christian, and all the rest is just hyperhateicing on their cake of discontent. Rick February 6, 2005 Um… What Jim said. Oh, as a side not to all those people that believe that Reagan had no effect on the 90’s boom and that it was all because of Clinton. How much money did people lose in the Dot Com Bust? How many companies without significant products or services simply disappeared, erasing people’s holdings having arguably comparable damage to enron and mci with their mismanagement and hyped statements? I’m repeatedly told in class how Reagonomics failed. I’m repeatedly told how evil foreign policy was during the cold war without any mention of the goal to drain the Soviet Union’s strength and influence. Terrible choices were made and continue to be necessary. President’s like Reagon will continue to make them and take liberal heat for ultimately making a choice and saving us all from the worst scenario. If foreign policy was easy clinton would have solved the Isreal-Palestinian question back when Arafat was handed damn near everything he had ever asked for. Its not simple and liberal bashing won’t make it simpler. Reagan was great man, end of story. -S- February 7, 2005 Rick: just examine the source of who it is advising students of that today, and you can easily see why they’d despise Reagan and, worse even, be so wrong and out of touch with what Reagan accomplished and/or be so bent out of shape about what he did accomplish. Reagan took a life-long stand against Communism and that’s like pouring salt on an open wound to liberals, in my experience. Have you read about Reagan’s work in that regard with the University of California? Reagan exposed a bed of communism among faculty and regeants at the U. of CA, many of whom, unfortunately, are still comingled with that system. But Reagan brought their presence and effects to light and it’s made him the nemesis to liberal academics nationwide. julie February 7, 2005 – ignoring AIDS until it became an epidemic You mean the gay community activists who ignored, if not openly campaigned against, any measures to stop it from becoming an epidemic, don’t you? Back then, God forbid if anyone sought to discourage having sex with 12 or more anonymous men a night. That was a violation of their civil rights. Jack Tanner February 7, 2005 ‘pretending to end the Cold War’ WTF? Did I miss the last 16 years? Is there still a big communist country called the USSR? Is all of eastern Europe still behind the Iron Curtain? All the lefty losers can whine all they want Reagan brought more people freedom and helped more people than all the dogooders in history combined. You would have to be as dumb as a rock not to realize that Reagan changed the world.