Remembering The Gipper

This is why the older and older I get the more respect I have for the elderly. Maybe because I’m getting older. But the truth is that America has faced many difficult challenges, with great sacrifice including death by the thousands. I’m constantly in awe of how great the WWII/Great Depression generation truly was. You can hear it in the wisdom of my grandfather. However, I don’t hear the same kinds of wisdom from the Baby Boomers or Gen Xers. We are a self-absorbed sort. Too bad the Gen Y and Zers will have to pick up the pieces for our laziness and “if we just ignore problems, they’ll go away” attitude. If we had the same John Kerry’s around when Pearl Harbor, we’d surely loose that war. Good thing Democrats of that day were not the Democrats of today. In fact, if we had Democrats during WWII, here’s how it would go:

  1. They would demand that FDR applogize for Pearl Harbor.
  2. They would call hearings to determine what FDR knew and when he knew it.
  3. They would blame FDR for going to war with Germany, because, hey, wasn’t it Japan that attacked us? There are no Japanese in Europe!
  4. Congress would contantly fly back generals with more than two stars to pander to special committee hearings on POW conditions.
  5. They would constantly blame FDR for how bad the war was going. I mean, hey, thousands were dying.
  6. They would fly out Jesse Jackson to meet with Hitler for special inside interviews.
  7. They would cozy up to Hitler just like in the 1980s with Gorbachev. Dems would call Hitler the real hope to peace. They would give him a Nobel Peace Prize.
  8. They would equate FDR to Hitler.
  9. They would say he secretly allowed Pearl Harbor.
  10. They would call the military corrupt.
  11. They would say, “I support the troops, but I don’t support the war.”
  12. Dems would demand to know from FDR when the troops were coming home.
  13. And my favorite (drum roll please): We should hand this Nazi thing all over to the UN to decide.

STOP THE sugar-coating of Ronald Reagan in the US media, says a Boston Globe columnist: i think she has a point! Enough already! He was not Camelot!

QUOTE: At death, loyal family members and a compliant US media turn human beings like Ronald Reagan into superheroes.

This is partly an outgrowth of modern media’s willingness to hijack itself for days around any theme with potential for drawing a large television viewing audience. It is also a tribute to Jacqueline Kennedy and her success in framing the myth of Camelot almost from the moment of her husband’s assassination. The attention to detail, history, and legacy illustrated by a grieving widow in 1963 set a high standard for all future wives.

Family loyalty is one thing. The media have a different duty. Why is it unfair to point out the myth versus the reality of a person’s politics and personal life? What’s wrong with celebrating flawed humanity – which describes us all – rather than promoting false sainthood?

Sounds like the Iraqi prison photos that were on the front page of CNN.com for … how long? 60 Minutes liberal Bush-bashing Book of the Month club? Come on now, don’t piss in the pool. These people are your friends.

Yes, to get Bush out of office. And if that’s not possible, prep Hillary for 2008.

It depends on who’s telling it.

BINGO! You got it right. You just, in one phrase, defined the culture war. You defined liberalism vs conservatism. You defined what the spilt in America’s culture is all about. Conservatism (as an ideology, not to be confused with the Republican part) seeks to model that which is noble and honorable, despite the flaws people have. Liberalism seeks to celebrate the lowest common denominator. This is why liberals so often “throw the baby out with the bathwater”. They look to discredit the model by showing humans as incapable of reaching or sustaining the model. Therefore, in their world, moral relativism rules. If no one can be perfect, they why try? Let’s just all celebrate being substandard. You see it in their policies that punish achievement or despise superpower status. They aren’t comfortable praising role models … as it is uncomfortable for them. They have already thrown in the towel and have decided that there is no right or wrong … or who are you or I to judge? So whenever they see someone deviate from the model, they don’t just attack the model, but they attack the concept of the model itself.

Is this the same Boston Globe that ran Iraqi rape pictures by US soldiers that proved to be off a porn site? If so I would read what they said, but definitely take it through my own mental filter.

Reagan came along at a time that US power, prestige and ability were all in seeming decline. He changed that. Were all his policies good, no. Did his policies make things better or give the impression of doing so, definitely. This man had the cojones. Could you name a president that would ever dare stand up to a union like the air traffic controllers union and fire them when they went on strike. Bush Sr. maybe, Clinton and Gearge W. no way in hell. Reagan called Communism evil, he called for tearing down the Berlin Wall and the defeat of the Soviet Union. Communism is evil and The Soviet Union and Berlin Wall did collapse.

Tear down this man’s image all you want, but he did take a stand and follow it through. The shame I imagine is having to explain this again in another 20 years when that generation goes on how evil and terrible of a president he was. I’m waiting for the day now that the CBS writer’s quote is permanently attached to him through constant repitition.

CYA
Okami

[quote=“pinesay”]9. They would say he secretly allowed Pearl Harbor.
[/quote]

That’s funny because many Republicans did indeed say so at the time and that’s been a popular conspiracy theory for years.

Yes, but not one taken seriously. It is probably up there with “the lunar landings were done on sound stages.”

I wouldn’t say that. I’ve heard lots of otherwise sensible people buy into the claim that FDR knew about Pearl Harbor and let it happen to instigate war with Japan. And it was fact that FDR was trying to deliberately provoke Japan into a war. I don’t believe FDR would have sacrificed half the navy in order to do that, though.

Here is something my brother wrote yesterday after he vistied the Ronald Reagan Library to pay his respects:

[quote=“Benjamin Hopkins”]Yesterday I stood in line with a friend of mine at Moorpark College in Simi Valley, California. We arrived at 6:05pm with little traffic. We followed those in front of us, not being able to see the turns and bends ahead. All we knew was that those wishing to pay their respects to the family of the late President Reagan would gather at the college, and wait to be shuttled to the nearby Ronald Reagan Presidential Library.

Five hours later at 11pm, we found ourselves very familiar with the campus, as the line had snaked for over a mile, two to five persons wide. Our feet hurt. Our backs hurt. We were hungry, not having thought about dinner beforehand. It was the same for the thousands before and behind us, yet I never heard a complaint uttered. What amazed me was how many children were in line with their parents. Even they could understand that what they were a part of was out of the ordinary, where special attention was necessary. I’ve been in public with children before, and this crowd was on their best behavior.

We had plenty of time to step out of line and look at the tables that were overflowing with gifts, flowers, poems, tributes, personal notes of thanks and cards to the grieving Reagan family. Many were from emigrants thanking the President for paving a way for them to find freedom in this great American land. One man had left an original 8x10 signed photograph of his one time meeting with the President, returning the gift with his own heart felt words to the Reagan family. And of course, there were jars, bags and boxes of jelly beans everywhere you looked.

We passed through a security checkpoint at the five-hour mark. There were metal detectors to walk through, and each handbag was searched. My belt must have warranted a wanding. Out of service Metro busses came to pick us up. But there was no rush. Every bus was carefully loaded until all the seats were taken. A few too many boarded our bus, and an elderly couple was left standing. I was touched when a man quickly gave up his seat for the woman, saying, “It just wouldn’t be right for me to sit instead of you.”

The bus ride was 25 minutes to the Library. We waited longer for our chance to unload and join another line inside the entry courtyard. It was 50 yards square with covered walkways around the edges protected by a colonnade. We were ushered in to the right and slowly made our way to the far side where President Reagan’s casket laid in the lobby. The Red Cross lady came by every few minutes with cups of water for the thirsty, and the library docents who must have been up all day long, greeted us warmly. The time was 12:06am. We had waited 6 hours for this moment. The Room was silent. It was about 50 feet square with an open ceiling that looked up to a second story 360 degree balcony. A photographer poked his camera through the blue velvet curtains that closed off the balcony area from the spectacular view below. A large US flag hung down vertically on the far upper curtain. There was also a blue velvet curtain that covered the entire far wall below. The side walls were beige stone with the names of trustees and donors engraved on them. The entrance we had just walked through was mostly glass.

Six service men, honor guards from the five branches of the armed forces, stood guard around the president’s casket. There was a marine centered near the entrance, and another marine opposite him at the far end of the room. This second marine was at the head of the casket, army to the right, coast guard, I believe, to the left, all facing the entrance of the lobby. Opposite them at the foot corners of the casket stood navy to the left and air force to the right. They were young men, all with strong solemn faces. The line was held up exiting, and as we were told that we’d have 30 seconds to a minute in the room, it must have turned into five minutes.

The casket lay on a three foot base which was covered by a black curtain decorated with tassels. A US flag had been draped over it, revealing only its glossy brown lower contours. All the neighborly chatter that helped us bear the previous six hours in line had now turned to solemn reflection. I glanced up to see a woman with her young teenager shedding a tear. I spent the first half of my time in this room noting all the detail. The second half I spent thanking Jesus for His providence and for Ronald Reagan. And I confessed to Him that His ways and thoughts are greater than my own.

An hour later the bus had dropped us off back at the college. We walked the long mile back to our car, passing thousand of others waiting in line for their turn to say goodbye. We reached the point where we had entered the line seven hours earlier, and it kept going for at least another quarter mile. We knew the line had slowed down too and that these people may have to wait nine or ten hours. But we also felt that it would be worth it for them, standing in line with their neighbors to pay their last respects to the Reagans and to hopefully thank the Lord for this great leader.[/quote]

[quote=“pinesay”]Democrats of that day were not the Democrats of today. In fact, if we had Democrats during WWII, here’s how it would go:

  1. They would demand that FDR applogize for Pearl Harbor.
  2. They would call hearings to determine what FDR knew and when he knew it.
  3. They would blame FDR for going to war with Germany, because, hey, wasn’t it Japan that attacked us? There are no Japanese in Europe!
  4. Congress would contantly fly back generals with more than two stars to pander to special committee hearings on POW conditions.
  5. They would constantly blame FDR for how bad the war was going. I mean, hey, thousands were dying.
  6. They would fly out Jesse Jackson to meet with Hitler for special inside interviews.
  7. They would cozy up to Hitler just like in the 1980s with Gorbachev. Dems would call Hitler the real hope to peace. They would give him a Nobel Peace Prize.
  8. They would equate FDR to Hitler.
  9. They would say he secretly allowed Pearl Harbor.
  10. They would call the military corrupt.
  11. They would say, “I support the troops, but I don’t support the war.”
  12. Dems would demand to know from FDR when the troops were coming home.
  13. And my favorite (drum roll please): We should hand this Nazi thing all over to the UN to decide.[/quote]

I liked your post below about libs/conser and models/myth-destroying.

but I think your list is unfair. That’s my first reaction, so let me backtrack and verify somethings first.
your logic is:
Pearl Harbor = 911
Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. We know this for a fact. Therefore, the US declared war and retaliated against Japan.

Hence, we should also attack the attackers of 911 instead of the appeasement, committee, wavering, etc that you list.

So my question is:- Who attacked the US on 911? Who should be responsible? Did Iraq attack New York?

[quote=“Jack Burton”]Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. We know this for a fact. Therefore, the US declared war and retaliated against Japan.

Hence, we should also attack the attackers of 911 instead of the appeasement, committee, wavering, etc that you list.

So my question is:- Who attacked the US on 911? Who should be responsible? Did Iraq attack New York?[/quote]

Jack,

Have you not been paying attention at all?

Bush stated VERY early on (please go read his speeches) that the War On Terror would be different from all other previous wars. He said thatw e would attack the terrorists themselves and also those states that assist and or support terrorism. Bush calls this was the “War On Terror”… not the “War ON al Qaeda”. Iraq supported terrorism and terrorists in Palestine and in the Philippines.

Its not that difficult to understand. You might disagree with the plan, but I don’t believe you do not understand it.

I don’t think Pearl Harbor == 911. I think Pearl Harbor was Pearl Harbor. 911 was 911. They are uniquely different. However, there is a real and very serious threat with 911 that has to be addressed, and addressed now. Clinton was, for the most part, able to ignore it, but the “war” has been brought to our doorstep … and if we just deal with it at our borders only, we will get hit again and again and again, eventually with a nuclear device … which then has the real threat of destabaling the entire globe economically and politically.

Fighting terrorism is a worldwide war. Some governments support them. Some governments run them. Some don’t. Some host them only. Some oppose them, but have a hard time getting rid of them. And some countires from the above are freindly or not friendly with the US … It is all very complicated and involves a mixture of force and diplomacy.

Who is the enemy? Hard to say. There is always the threat of a sort of “George Orwell 1984” kind of conflict, where the enemy has no face or country or boundary … a perpetual war. This I am very worried about.

But, what are the options. If we had listened to the Democrats during the 1980s, the Iron Curtain may still have been up today. They preached that it was impossible that the USSR would collapse. They preached “co-existence” and “management” … Just as Chirac did the other day when referring to Islamofacists. I am grateful that Reagan called a spade and spade. He was pretty much one of the only that knew the USSR would collapse some day. When all the Democrats were blaming him for trying to start a war, he stood the course. Reagan was right. The Dems were wrong … as they usually are.

Who is going to stay the course with this Islamofacist issue? This problem may last as long as the Cold War … even longer. It could last generations. BUT, who is going to put a stake in the sand and say, “enough”. All the Dems are saying the EXACT same things about terrorism as they did about the Soviets. “It is impossible!” “We need to get along.” “We need the UN.” “We need to just show them how much we care.”

Remember when Khrushchev said “we will bury you”. Well, Osama & Co. and said the same thing … and their ideology is so-called “heaven-sent”. This is a duel to the death for these people. They want us dead and extinct.

I wonder what will happen when the next 911 happens. Will we sober up any more? Will we get serious? Will we be willing to sacrifice anything … maybe just our daily Starbuck’s coffee?

Anyway, your point is well taken, … but to me it is a paralyzing question to ask. I don’t know who the real enemy is from day to day. That’s why we loosely trust our leaders/military/spies to figure it out. It is a good thing none of us have direct veto power in these matters, as nice as it would be. Nothing would ever get done.

One thing I loved about Reagan was the way he illustrated the idiocy and arrogance of the intelligensia. This is even funnier because the intelligensia mercilously derided Reagan as an idiot.

For instance, historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. comments in NEWSWEEK that Reagan’s admirers assert that Reagan’s costly re-armament program caused the Soviet collapse. He goes on to state that perhaps Reagan’s program did push the Soviet collapse, but then asserts that certainly the cause of the Soviet collapse was that communism had proven to be an economic, political and moral disaster.

Of course, he didn’t think that in 1982 when he stated:

Yeah, that Reagan was a great kidder… :laughing:

Many left-leaning intellectuals still refuse to credit Reagan’s policies for helping to hasten the end of the Cold War. Instead, they assert that communism’s chronic economic problems caused the Soviet collapse. However, these intellectuals who derided Reagan’s ideas as simplistic and naive never predicted the sudden collapse of the Soviet Union while Reagan was in office. The intellectuals (just like those today) are pretty smart when viewing events in hindsight).

Back in 1982, one prominent intellectual had this to say:

And these folks called Reagan an idiot… :laughing: Actually, they still call Reagan an idiot… I guess they hate being demonstrated fools.

Another sophisticated Reagan critic stated the following:

This brilliant intellectual was obviously way off the mark. But that idiot Reagan was correct. Go figure???

During the 1980s, many of these experts and intellectuals derisively criticized Reagan and his “idiotic” policies. Another example of the experts’ opinion:

Whew… The expert missed what the idiot Reagan saw as obvious! Later, as an official in the Clinton State Department, the expert Talbot stated:

Hindsight again, eh? The experts’ best analytic tool… :laughing:

Then, the King of Hindsight brilliance stated:

What bunk! What arrogance! These folks haven’t the decency to admit that Reagan did indeed predict (correctly) and assert that the Soviet Union would soon fall… and that we could hasten its collapse… These intellectuals all derided Reagan as an idiot for his foresight, which they all regarded as ignorance.

Reagan during the 1980s made the following statements re the Soviet Union:

Reagan asserted that if the we dealt firmly with the Soviets we would produce a “march of freedom and democracy which will leave Marxism-Leninism on the ash-heap of history.”

Reagan concluded that “freedom is the victor.” Then He said:

Shortly thereafter, the wall did come down, and Reagan’s predictions, so derided by the experts as simplistic ignorance, all came true.

TM

Do we take it you have something of a soft spot for Reagan?

PS I think it is a little simplistic of those on the right to view all liberals as appeasers. I think you’ll find that many liberals see a need for both a carrot and a stick approach. It is just easier for the right with their ‘Bring it on’ president to mischaracterize the left in this way so that they can feel they are the only people prepared to stand up to the tourists, oops, terrorists.

One thing I did not love about Reagan was how his administration made drastic cuts in mental health funding (in order to engage in an arms race with the soviets), resulting in the closing of mental hospitals and other such facilities, dramatically increasing the number of mentally ill people living on the streets or in jails where they receive no treatment and only get worse.

Another thing I did not love about Reagan was his open contempt for protecting the environment as evidence by his appointment of James Watt, who systematically opened millions of acres of government land to commercial exploitation as head of the Dept of the Interior, and Ann Burford, who used the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to protect corporations that were dumping and poisoning.

As the Great Communicator infamously said, “If you’ve seen one redwood you’ve seen them all.”

I posted a link above to what I think is a fair assessment of Reagan’s presidency.

I would never claim that Reagan was a saint or infallible. Certainly there were problems with and during his presidency.

However, regarding the matter of the collapse of the Soviet Union and Reagan’s predictions and prescriptions re the same, he was right and the smarty-pant experts were wrong. I think it rather amusing to look at their (the experts’) statements from the time of Reagan’s presidency and contrast with those what they have been saying ever since Reagan’s views proved correct.

[quote=“butcher boy”]TM

Do we take it you have something of a soft spot for Reagan?

PS I think it is a little simplistic of those on the right to view all liberals as appeasers. I think you’ll find that many liberals see a need for both a carrot and a stick approach. It is just easier for the right with their ‘Bring it on’ president to mischaracterize the left in this way so that they can feel they are the only people prepared to stand up to the tourists, oops, terrorists.[/quote]

As usual Butcher Boy, you attack others assumptions, BUT YOU OFFER LITTLE OF YOUR OWN OPINIONS. It is safter to attack others’ sincerety, consistency and intellectual honesty than it is to actually stand up for a position and weather the storm from your own convicitons. I just went through all your posts in this thread and can’t find anything that is concretely … concrete on anything. We still don’t know what YOU think about this or that.

For example, in this post of yours, it would be nice is you would come out and state your position clearly on whether you are or aren’t an appeaser. Maybe you are somewhere in between? Maybe throw in some examples of liberals you know who aren’t appeasers (I could even give you some examples … Liberman on Iraq for example).

Don’t do what I refer to as “intellectual terrorism” … Where you come in, detonate a verbal bomb and then run. No plan. No vision. No proposed solutions. Just come in and make a mess of everything intellectually, causing as much casualiteis as possible, and then run back behind the tree.

You’ve punched enough holes in everyone else’s ideas. What would you do as Grand Puba?

Another thing . . . pardon me TM. . . that I did not love about Reagan were the massive budget cuts that he made in education and other domestic programs in order to fund his games with the soviets, including the ridiculous folly of Star Wars, and justified by his faulty policy of trickle-down, supply-side voodoo “Reagonomics.”

Speaking of voodoo, another thing I did not love about Reagan was his reliance on Nancy and her astrologer. :unamused:

Excuse me, MT, but this process began in the 1970’s and was instigated by the liberals, who felt that “eccentric” people were being “imprisoned” for being “different”. They pushed the psychos onto the streets so that the nutcases could “do their own thing”.

While you’re at it, please blame Reagan for hyperinflation and the 1974 oil crisis.

No worse than clinton and his “leadership by following the poll numbers”. Or Al Gore and his “a tree told me to do it” decision-making strategy.

[quote=“Mother Theresa”]Another thing . . . pardon me TM. . . that I did not love about Reagan were the massive budget cuts that he made in education and other domestic programs in order to fund his games with the soviets, including the ridiculous folly of Star Wars, and justified by his faulty policy of trickle-down, supply-side voodoo “Reagonomics.”

Speaking of voodoo, another thing I did not love about Reagan was his reliance on Nancy and her astrologer. :unamused:[/quote]

Again, you use cliches. No reasons for why you don’t like “Reagonomics” or this or that. Just cliches. That’s all. Cliches. No support. No logical thought processes to put on display. Just cliches.

By the way, under the currrent president, spening for education has increase more than in any time in history. Bush let Kenney co-write the bill. Democrats pretty much got all they wanted this term. BUT, now you have the Dems blaming Bush for not doing enough for education. Typical. Doesn’t matter what Bush does … he’s Republican and must be destroyed. More cliches.