# Pitting all you Reagan bashers **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 6, 2004, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-all-you-reagan-bashers/248970 "2004-06-06T16:55:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2004, 6:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-all-you-reagan-bashers/248970/181 "2004-06-10T06:06:45Z")
**Mr. S** : I don’t see how this can be settled, because the origin of the dispute is the _original source material_. Reagan claimed that he was misquoted. I don’t see how there can be more evidence one way or the other. All I’d say is that if Reagan disputed it early on, is it really fair to hold it against him? Even if he did say it, if he immediately afterward said that that wasn’t what he meant, why hold it against him? People misspeak sometimes. Or they say something stupid and then immediately regret it. The bottom line is that the source of the quote himself says he was misquoted. It’s his word against the author’s. ---
**Author:** ![Rune](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e68b1a/32.png) [@Rune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rune)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2004, 7:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-all-you-reagan-bashers/248970/182 "2004-06-10T07:02:11Z")
> [@Boo Boo Foo](#): > > It’s worth noting too that Mikhail Gorbechev’s standing WITHIN Russia is not exactly universally a stellar one. I consider Gorbechev the single most important figure in the ending of cold war, however Gorbechev never intended for communism to end or the Soviet to collapse, though I have very much respect for him, he is in fact a politically failed man. > [@Boo Boo Foo](#): > > My contention remains unwavering - the Soviet Empire would have crumpled under it’s weak economy at some point regardless. Very possible so – though “at some point” is a very broad time frame and if the collapse was hastened by a decade that is something that is very positive by itself. Hard to say since it belongs in alternative history, but why do you think the Soviet Empire could not have limped on much like Vietnam or Cuba or, God help us, North Korea? Especially considering they would not have been as isolated as those nations, their economy was much stronger and they had their own oil sources. I think you strongly downplay Gorbechev’s (and to a lesser extend Reagan’s) hand in defusing the Soviet empire in a non-violent way. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2004, 10:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-all-you-reagan-bashers/248970/183 "2004-06-10T10:03:17Z")
> [@Svenlisha](#): > > I know what Reagan claimed. I’m asking you if you believe that Reagan’s memory could have been askew, or if you believe that the quotes taken from [americanpresidents.org](http://americanpresidents.org) and other sources on the web are false. They quite possibly are wrong. For one thing, many sources often simply borrow from one another. As you know, an assertion made on the Internet can take up a life of its own. Consider, for example, the ridiculous assertion, absurd on its face, that you cannot prove a negative. That began, as far as anyone can tell, in an atheist news group in the 90s. In no time at all, people were stating the assertion as axiomatic despite the simple common sense observation that the inability to prove a negative means the inability to prove the assertion that you cannot prove a negative. Reagan was an accomplished rhetorician and legendary story teller. There is no logical reason whatsoever to doubt his recounting of events in favor of third party sources who were not there and who might plagiarize one another. ---
**Author:** ![World\_Eater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@World\_Eater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/World_Eater)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2004, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-all-you-reagan-bashers/248970/184 "2004-06-10T13:27:53Z")
I’ve been doing some Reagan hating as of late. GO HAUNT CNN, FOX, MSNBC, ET ALL AND TELL THEM NOBODY NEEDS AN UPDATE OF THE LOCATION OF YOUR ROTTING DUSTY BONES EVERY 3 MINUTES! \ Thank you. ---
**Author:** ![squeegee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/squeegee/32/14537_2.png) [@squeegee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squeegee)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2004, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-all-you-reagan-bashers/248970/185 "2004-06-10T13:34:26Z")
The most interesting thing for me about Reagan’s passing and the right’s adoration of him, are the harsh light it throws upon GWB’s era. On the one hand, we have Carter and the failures of the Iranian hostages and Desert One. Then we get Rightious Ronnie, getting the hostages back and getting us out of that mess, ending the Cold War, being a so-called stand-up guy who Made America Great™ And now, today, we have GWB and Iraq. Seemingly Desert One all over again. The Carter Malaise comparison with GWB seems to fit better than his admin being Ronnie II. Bush would do well not to hold his candle too close to Reagan’s legacy. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Svinlesha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/22d042/32.png) [@Mr.Svinlesha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Svinlesha)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2004, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-all-you-reagan-bashers/248970/186 "2004-06-10T19:26:21Z")
**Brutus** : Perfect timing! Thanks for providing an illustrative example. **Sam** : > [@](#): > > _I don’t see how this can be settled, because the origin of the dispute is the original source material. Reagan claimed that he was misquoted. I don’t see how there can be more evidence one way or the other._ ? Well, it might require a bit of work, but we would need to track down the source the story. The only attribution I’ve been able to locate thus far is this [archived editorial](http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost_historical/128361292.html?did=128361292&FMT=ABS&FMTS=AI&date=Aug+17%2C+1980&author=&desc=Reagan%2C+Spare+That+Tree!) in the Washington Post. It would appear to support your version of events: > [@](#): > > **"PREPOSTEROUS" seemed about right for the statement that Sen. Kennedy attributed to Ronald Reagan in his speech Tuesday: “80 percent of air pollution comes from plants and trees.” But immediately from Reagan headquarters in California came word that the senator had misquoted the former governor. What Mr. Reagan had in fact said, his deputy staff chief informed the press, was that "80 percent of nitrogen …** This is from August 17, 1980, and might be a reference to the following mysterious quote… > [@](#): > > \*\* “Approximately 80 percent of our air pollution stems from hydrocarbons released by vegetation, so let’s not go overboard in setting and enforcing tough emission standards from man made-sources.”\*\* …once available on the _[americanpresidents.org](http://americanpresidents.org)_ site, but now lost in the mysterious depths of cyberspace. The statement **“Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do”** is dated variously as being from August of 1980 (in the [Washington Monthly](http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0309.mendacity-index.html), among other sources) and from 1981. I’ve not yet found the original source for the quote, and it is always presented out of context, as a single line. As a result, I’m beginning to suspect that you may be right: it might be apocryphal. I’ve also located this short discussion at the [Snopes Message Board](http://www.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?/ubb/get_topic/f/32/t/000007.html#000004). Their conclusion? > [@](#): > > \*\* Here’s what Reagan said, in September 1980: "Approximately 80 percent of our air pollution stems from hydrocarbons released by vegetation, so let’s not go overboard in setting and enforcing tough emission standards from man-made sources.’’ > > A month later, he denied what he had said: "First of all, I didn’t say 80 percent. I said 92 percent, 93 percent, pardon me. And I didn’t say air pollution, I said oxides of nitrogen, And I am right. Growing and decaying vegetation in this land are responsible for 93 percent of the oxides of nitrogen.’’ > > OK. In the first place, hydrocarbons are not an air pollution problem. Trees decay into nitrous oxide, which are not a serious health threat. On the other hand, oxides of nitrogen are a serious problem, and are regulated by the EPA. But, of course, Reagan’s "facts’’ had little to do with the truth. Industrial sources – not trees – are responsible for 65 percent to 90 percent of the oxides of nitrogen in this country. > > Source: Ronald Reagan’s Reign of Error, based on information gleaned from the Sierra Club, the L.A. Times, and the Environmental Defense Fund.\*\* As you can see, the dates don’t match up at all. So take it for what it’s worth. > [@](#): > > _All I’d say is that if Reagan disputed it early on, is it really fair to hold it against him? Even if he did say it, if he immediately afterward said that that wasn’t what he meant, why hold it against him? People misspeak sometimes. Or they say something stupid and then immediately regret it._ Well, there are gaffes, and then there are GAFFES. To claim that trees cause more pollution than automobiles do seems to me a bit more than an innocent misstatement. And I really find it unbelievable that this accusation against Reagan – that he said this incredibly stupid thing – has, if untrue, gone unchallenged for so long, despite being so widely reported. **Lib** : > [@](#): > > - They quite possibly are wrong. For one thing, many sources often simply borrow from one another. As you know, an assertion made on the Internet can take up a life of its own.\* That’s entirely possible, although this quote seems to have had a life even prior to the advent of the internet. > [@](#): > > _There is no logical reason whatsoever to doubt his recounting of events in favor of third party sources who were not there and who might plagiarize one another._ Disagree. If Reagan did say this incredibly stupid thing, then he has all the motivation in the world to try to cover it up. At the same time, I tend to trust news reports, especially multiple news reports of the same event, told in the same way, unless I have good reason not to. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2004, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-all-you-reagan-bashers/248970/187 "2004-06-10T19:48:23Z")
> [@Mr. Svinlesha](#): > > although this quote seems to have had a life even prior to the advent of the internet.Disagree. If Reagan did say this incredibly stupid thing, then he has all the motivation in the world to try to cover it up. At the same time, I tend to trust news reports, especially multiple news reports of the same event, told in the same way, unless I have good reason not to. Are you to young to remember the flap about this as it was unfolding? We’d just gotten a new president, and he starts saying all this crazy stuff about the environment. As I recall, the tree pollution remark wasn’t clarified to anyone’s satisfaction at the time. Why would anyone believe that it can be _now_, 24 years after the fact? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2004, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-all-you-reagan-bashers/248970/188 "2004-06-10T20:21:42Z")
> [@Mr. Svinlesha](#): > > The 9/11 hijackers were Mujahadeen To quote a great American, “There you go again.” The 9/11 hijackers were Saudi Arabians. The mujahadeen were Afghani. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Svinlesha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/22d042/32.png) [@Mr.Svinlesha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Svinlesha)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2004, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-all-you-reagan-bashers/248970/189 "2004-06-10T21:30:13Z")
**Squink** : Oh yes, I remember it, indeed. However, I don’t remember all the details – it was a while ago. I seem to remember that it was something Reagan said in some sort of informal “question-and-answer” session with the press. Unfortunately I don’t remember precisely what Reagan said, or was accused of saying. In the original exchange between **Sam** and myself, I merely [wrote](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=2508536&postcount=74): > [@](#): > > _Of course I’ll check out your cite. But Reagan’s gaffs are legendary. Come on, man – he claimed that trees pollute more than heavy industry, for God’s sake._ To which **Sam** [shot back](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=2508630&postcount=75): > [@](#): > > - Reagan did NOT say that trees pollute more than heavy industry. He said that some trees cause pollution. And he was absolutely correct. Do you know why the ‘Smokey Mountains’ are smokey?\* I then did a quick search and found the series of quotes posted above at [_americanpresidents.org_](http://www.americanpresident.org/), which also seemed like a reliable and non-partisan source. Unfortunately, the page of quotes is no longer available at their website. The “tree/automobile” quote has become the focus of this discussion mostly because its the stupidest, and the most widely quoted. Should it turn out to be apocryphal, there are still two other quotes, both of which appear to be more well-grounded in historical fact and both of which indicate that Reagan believed trees pollute more than heavy industry, which was my original contention. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2004, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-all-you-reagan-bashers/248970/190 "2004-06-10T21:35:05Z")
The _mujahadeen_ were by no stretch of the imagination exclusively Afghani. As witness Osama bin Laden (Saudi) and others of many different nationalities. Not that my correction is any less pointless than yours, but still… ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-all-you-reagan-bashers/248970/191 "2004-06-11T00:30:44Z")
**Mr. Svinlesha** , I’ve seen a couple of sites (like [this one at rotten.com of all places](http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/presidents/ronald-reagan/)) put the source of the quote as _Sierra_ magazine. > [@](#): > > 10 Sep 1980 - Presidential candidate Ronald Reagan is quoted in Sierra magazine as saying: “Approximately 80% of our air pollution stems from hydrocarbons released by vegetation. So let’s not go overboard in setting and enforcing tough emissions standards from man-made sources.” Boy, I just did not remember him saying as many stupid things as he apparently did (even excluding this one until it can be properly sourced)! ---
**Author:** ![Boo\_Boo\_Foo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e274bd/32.png) [@Boo\_Boo\_Foo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boo_Boo_Foo)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-all-you-reagan-bashers/248970/192 "2004-06-11T01:11:57Z")
> [@Rune](#): > > I consider Gorbechev the single most important figure in the ending of cold war, however Gorbechev never intended for communism to end or the Soviet to collapse, though I have very much respect for him, he is in fact a politically failed man. Yes, I’d agree with that. In my estimation, Mikhail Gorbachev probably pushed the de-escalation of the ICBM issue far more than President Reagan pulled it, however, it’s also quite acceptable to state that the stupendously superior economic strength of NATO brought such pressures to the bargaining table. As I noted earlier, diminishing the ICBM threat was a major issue for the Soviets to enter into, insofar as it was the single most demonstrable means of displaying good faith that they no longer wished to be enemies of NATO, but rather, at the very least wished to be equal trading partners in a spirit of mutual security and good will. Nonetheless, it would seem that there are some vocal pockets of old-timer diehards who remain forever bitter towards Gorbachev for supposedly weakening Russia in the face of the enemy. That part of the story is a shame for mine. President Reagan is universally being applauded in the West for the role that HE played, but such applause is not universally reciprocal for our good Mr Gorbachev sadly. > [@Rune](#): > > Very possible so – though “at some point” is a very broad time frame and if the collapse was hastened by a decade that is something that is very positive by itself. Hard to say since it belongs in alternative history, but why do you think the Soviet Empire could not have limped on much like Vietnam or Cuba or, God help us, North Korea? Especially considering they would not have been as isolated as those nations, their economy was much stronger and they had their own oil sources. I think you strongly downplay Gorbechev’s (and to a lesser extend Reagan’s) hand in defusing the Soviet empire in a non-violent way. My first observation is that the USSR had grown exceedingly tired of playing the “mother state” to the puppet states you mentioned above (not to mention other spoiler states such as Libya and Egypt etc). By 1980, the policy had become both amazingly expensive, and (more importantly) decreasingly rewarding - at least in the context of providing any sort of useful economic benefit to the USSR. Sure, there was the sheer egotistical wank enjoyed by the Kremlin in supposedly keeping alive the myth that they had created a superpower which could “stand up” to all those greedy, horrible capitalist pigs - but history shows now that apart from the ICBM matter, the USSR was never, ever even 25% of the superpower that the USA was - certainly not economically. And something that history also shows is that no country can forever continue to live beyond her means - which essentially says that to be military superpower one must FIRST also be an economic superpower, and ultimately, this is where the USSR failed. It simply wasn’t an economic model which could pay for the lofty goals her leaders aspired to. In many respects, poor Mikhail Gorbachev was the poor bastard who had to deliver the dreadful news to the Kremlin - in effect he was the messenger who is now unpopular within Russia in some quarters for the message that fate had chosen was his role to deliver. ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-all-you-reagan-bashers/248970/193 "2004-06-11T01:31:54Z")
> [@Boo Boo Foo](#): > > President Reagan is universally being applauded in the West for the role that HE played, but such applause is not universally reciprocal for our good Mr Gorbachev sadly. Fear not, when the time comes to bury Mr Gorbachev there will be no shortage of eulogizers. I will be among them. If I can. ---
**Author:** ![Eva\_Luna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e495f1/32.png) [@Eva\_Luna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eva_Luna)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-all-you-reagan-bashers/248970/194 "2004-06-11T02:27:41Z")
> [@Boo Boo Foo](#): > > it would seem that there are some vocal pockets of old-timer diehards who remain forever bitter towards Gorbachev for supposedly weakening Russia in the face of the enemy. > > [snip] > > In many respects, poor Mikhail Gorbachev was the poor bastard who had to deliver the dreadful news to the Kremlin - in effect he was the messenger who is now unpopular within Russia in some quarters for the message that fate had chosen was his role to deliver. Speaking as someone who has spent chunks of time in the former USSR both while it was in the process of collapsing and afterwards, I thinnk it’s important to note that the bulk of those who are disgusted with what Gorbachev did are the older generations, those who had the most to lose when the old system died and who fared the worst economically under the new system. Sure, there has been a certain loss of pride in Russia’s former standing as a world power, but the people who are bitching the loudest about it are the ones who are trying to survive on a $20 monthly state pension. In a lot of ways, politics is indeed economics. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 11:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-all-you-reagan-bashers/248970/195 "2004-06-11T11:54:17Z")
> [@chula](#): > > CBS News informed me last night that at this time, all Americans have put aside their political differences and are united in their mourning for Reagan. Salon has [some interesting things to say about this](http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/06/11/media/index.html): > [@](#): > > CNN’s Paula Zahn likened the “public expressions of personal grief” taking place this week with the expressions of grief that followed the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11. However, while 9/11 led to a national trauma, television producers have had a hard time finding ordinary Americans outside Simi Valley, Calif., spontaneously choking up about the elderly Reagan’s long-expected death. > [@](#): > > In a sense, this week has been the 1980s redux, with the Reagan communication team again providing the press, and particularly TV, with priceless pictures and sentimental narrative lines while appreciative producers and reporters neglect to acknowledge the wholesale media manipulation that is going on. There’s been little or no discussion, for example, of the long planning for this funeral by Reagan’s old political handlers. It’s morning again in America – on a feedback loop. > > “They were fucking brilliant at managing the coverage” back then, recalls William Greider, assistant managing editor for the Washington Post during the first Reagan administration. That artfulness continued this week in subtle ways. For instance, Monday’s viewing of the casket at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley was listed as a “private” family service. Yet it was covered live by multiple cameras, one of which was affixed to the ceiling to capture the dramatic moment when Nancy Reagan laid her cheek on the flag-draped coffin. That “private” image was aired continuously on cable news outlets and appeared the next morning on the front page of dozens of major-market newspapers around the country. The story as a whole is worth reading, since it also talks about how" > [@](#): > > When the Iran-Contra scandal broke (exposed by a Lebanese newspaper, not an American one), newspaper editors and TV anchors around the country – including CBS’s Rather – cautioned their staffs not to repeat the “excesses” and “mistakes” of the Watergate era, according to a Dec. 5, 1986, article in the New York Times. It was almost as if news executives were demanding passive and restrained reporting. Respected, centrist “NBC Nightly News” commentator John Chancellor seemed to speak for many in the national press corps in early 1987 when, breathing a sigh of relief when it appeared the worst had passed for Reagan on Iran-Contra, he said, “Nobody wants [Reagan] to fail. Nobody wants another Nixon.” So much for the So-Called Liberal Media (SCLM). ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 12:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-all-you-reagan-bashers/248970/196 "2004-06-11T12:26:03Z")
Corruption, torture, lies and cover-ups seem to be the staples of the Republicans. No wonder that Reagan is their hero, and that they want to drape Reagan’s corpse over Bush 43’s shoulders so that they can pretend he’s one of the greats, instead of a brainless monster. Funny that they don’t try the same thing with Bush 41. Perhaps it’s because Bush 41 is still alive and in a position to tell Bush 43 to go fuck himself? Or maybe that wouldn’t matter. They just sent Laura out to tell Nancy to go fuck herself. ---
**Author:** ![athelas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/5e9695/32.png) [@athelas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/athelas)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 12:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-all-you-reagan-bashers/248970/197 "2004-06-11T12:33:58Z")
I just read [this little gem](http://slate.msn.com/id/2101842) after hearing about it on the radio, and I’ve got to say, the article’s just disgusting. > [@](#): > > The fox, as has been pointed out by more than one philosopher, knows many small things, whereas the hedgehog knows one big thing. Ronald Reagan was neither a fox nor a hedgehog. He was as dumb as a stump. He could have had anyone in the world to dinner, any night of the week, but took most of his meals on a White House TV tray. Gah! \ ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 12:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-all-you-reagan-bashers/248970/198 "2004-06-11T12:40:07Z")
> [@athelas](#): > > I just read [this little gem](http://slate.msn.com/id/2101842) after hearing about it on the radio, and I’ve got to say, the article’s just disgusting. What’s your point? Reagan said stupid shit all the time. Is it so horrifying to have someone point that out to you? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2004, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-all-you-reagan-bashers/248970/199 "2004-06-12T13:22:11Z")
[“This just in: former President Ronald Reagan is _still_ dead.”](http://billmon.org/archives/001532.html) It gives me great pleasure to link to that, after **duffer** threatened to Pit me [elsewhere](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=260026&page=2) for recalling this line a few days ago. So if he or **Starving Artist** do vanity searches or otherwise trip across this, they’re welcome to respond here. Thank goodness our week of all-Ronnie-all-the-time news coverage is over. My favorite bit was when Cokie Roberts, in a roundtable discussion with George Will and Sam Donaldson, when Cokie Roberts went on about how > [@](#): > > I went the next morning after the debate to a blue collar neighborhood in Pittsburgh, and I could not find a voter for Carter. These were all Democrats, and everyone of them while Will just sat there and didn’t say a word about [how a copy of Carter’s debate briefing book had fallen into the Reagan campaign’s hands, and Will had personally coached Reagan to take advantage of that inside knowledge](http://www.fair.org/media-beat/010308.html). (After the debate, Will climbed back on his commentator soapbox, and told the world what a great job he thought Reagan had done as a debater.) ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2004, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-all-you-reagan-bashers/248970/200 "2004-06-12T13:46:11Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > My favorite bit was when Cokie Roberts, in a roundtable discussion with George Will and Sam Donaldson, when Cokie Roberts went on about how while Will just sat there and didn’t say a word about [how a copy of Carter’s debate briefing book had fallen into the Reagan campaign’s hands, and Will had personally coached Reagan to take advantage of that inside knowledge](http://www.fair.org/media-beat/010308.html). > (After the debate, Will climbed back on his commentator soapbox, and told the world what a great job he thought Reagan had done as a debater.) **Sam Stone** is often accused of copying his material from elsewhere. If he does, it’s reprehensible. But it’s not an excuse for you to do the same thing. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-all-you-reagan-bashers/248970.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-all-you-reagan-bashers/248970.md?page=11)