In the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary, I would tend to agree with tomndebb on this one. The inquiry established that there were engineers at Morton Thiakal (sp?) who were very insistantly arguing against the launch, but I think it was more their superiors at that company and maybe some folks at NASA who overruled them.
I think there was lots of pressure at NASA to get the shuttles launched since that program has been pretty much of a boondoggle from the get-go, with launches constantly being delayed. (Basically, there is no good scientific justification for this sort of manned flight…It raises the price of the mission by at least an order of magnitude over what unmanned missions would cost while reducing the amount of science by about the same amount.) That in turn transferred over to M-T managers who presumably didn’t want their company to be responsible for the delay. There was lots of wishful thinking involved, but as Richard Feynmann so eloquently put it, in the end “nature cannot be fooled”.
Like, tomndebb put it so well, the only way Reagan probably fits in here is in creating a general climate in the country where wishful thinking and ignorance of facts were considered to be virtues!
While I certainly wouldn’t consider Reagan the greatest president the country’s ever had, I would certainly rank him 7th, behing The Rushmore Four, FDR and Truman.
What did he accomplish? Well, for one thing, he made American military might something to be respected again worldwide. During the Carter administration, we were seen as a joke. Russia invaded Afghanistan with no more response than a boycott of the 1980 Olympics. Iran took American hostages and the only American rescue attempt was a failure. When Reagan was about to be sworn in as president, Iran let our hostages go, and when he was president, Communist invasions (e.g., Grenada) and terrorist actions (e.g., Libya) got quick responses, and the Soviet Union started signing STARTs instead of threatening the US with burial. Coincidence? Mock SDI as “Star Wars” all you want, the Soviets were deathly afraid of it, and Reagan knew how to press that advantage.
And, of course, there’s the economy. Yes, the deficit skyrocketed during the Reagan years, but talk to the man on the street about his life under Carter vs. his life under Reagan. No more gas lines, runaway inflation tamed…when he ran for re-election in 1984, he told Americans to ask themselves if their lives are better than they were four years earlier, and that November, every state except his opponent’s home state answered “yes.” That means something.
To dismiss Reagan’s presidency is to forget what Carter’s presidency and the aftermath of Vietnam and Watergate were like. It was no accident that the country and the world were very happy he was in charge. While the turnaround in national attitude he brought about wasn’t of FDR-esque proportions, it was not far behind.
I was around and in the job market back then. My results:
in 1979, under Carter, found it very easy to get my first job out of college. Carter, it should be noted, had 13 million net new jobs created under his watch, an average of slightly more than 3 million per year, a record unmatched by any president before or since.
in 1981, having decided on a career change, I went back to school. In 1982, it took me a long time (something like half a year) to find a job. That year, unemployment hit double digits, the first time that had happened since the Depression.
So tell it to someone else. I was there, and I didn’t like it one bit.
Ronald Reagan is without a doubt our greatest President. If greatness is measured by:
Selling arms to our enemies.
Breaking the law doing it.
Covering it up and lying about it.
Using the proceeds to attempt to over throw another country’s government.
Running the country’s deficit to stratospheric levels. (Actually any good republican will tell you that it was the democratically controlled congress that spent frivolously on things such as school lunches, which lead to the deficit that we’re still paying for. RR’s huge defense spending and tax cuts are not to blame.)
All the things that Zenster said above.
All in all, Clinton’s shady pardon’s and sexual escapades pale in comparison, which is why he ranked 5th on the survey.
I’m no fan of Reagan, but I think I’d like to go back to the Reagan years. During his Presidency the highest tax bracket paid less income tax than I do now, and I’m nowhere near that top bracket.
This is the most disgusting loathsome hateful statement that I have ever come across on these boards . Alzheimer’s is a devastating disease not unknown I’m sure to several members of this community that I wouldn’t wish on any family.
Reagan’s policies, as enacted into law, didn’t take effect until the middle of 1982, so I think it’s unfair to rate your experience of the Reagan years based solely on what happened then. His presidency consisted of six additional years afterward.
In addition, for those of us who either were employed or had parents who were (my situation is the latter), there’s the issue of just what your salary enabled you to afford. I remember rampant inflation under Carter. Under Reagan, that was tamed.
And I don’t mean to sound like I’m blaming Carter for that inflation…it’s a problem that persisted since the Nixon years, at least. Ford’s absurd “WIN” buttons were laughable…the domestic-policy equivalent of Carter’s lame protest of the Afghanistan invasion. But contrasting the two eras side-by-side, it’s clear that Reagan’s policies did something to tame it.
I don’t see why people should be shocked by the results of the poll; it’s less a matter of “Reagan was a great President” than “we keep recent Presidents in a higher mind than Presidents we’ve only read about in history books”.
Polls throughout the 80’s showed that people considered Kennedy one of the greatest Presidents this country has ever had, despite no real achievements other than successfully avoiding nuclear war in the Cuban Missle Crisis and in being generally progressive on civil rights, and miserable failures such as the Bay of Pigs fiasco and in escalating American involvement in the civil war in Vietnam. In forty years, Kennedy will barely register on the “greatest President” polls, while President Murray, who was hounded from office after having sold national secrets to China in order to fund his private love-slave nest, will still get about 20-30% in the poll.
I expect that in historians’ views- twenty years from now when Reagan’s legacy can be better measured- Reagan may do as well as #9 or #10, behind Washington, Jefferson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt, Truman, Lincoln, Jackson, and Polk (in some order).
(And, for reference, Washington put down the Whiskey Rebellion, helped establish the Bank of America, kept us out of the growing conflict between France and England, refused to be addressed by monarchial terms, and helped secure the precedent of peaceful changes of leaders after election. The last two may seem insignificant to us after 200 years of democracy, but at the time they were revolutionary actions.)
Sorry for the repetive messages(is there a way to delete them?) I’m new; gimme a break.
I must add a caveat to the above. I do of course condem Johnson’s role in the escalation of the war in Vietnam. Some may argue that this alone must exclude him from greatness, and perhaps they are right. Yet his accomplishment in civil rights, Medicare, increased aid to education, etc., I think help push him over the top.
As far as the topic at hand, it takes many years for historians to put the role of a president in perspective, but the American people need little time at all. While I am not knowledgeable enough to argue the merits of RR, I do follow the political scene enough to know that most Americans couldn’t name their senators; a great head of hair and grandfatherly smile are enough to convice some of greatness.
I agree, I LOATHE Reagan and Nancy, but that’s a bit harsh.
I will laugh when people bring up Afghanistan, considering that the years the Soviets were in charge, women had much more freedom than they do now.
And of course, Iran Contra was pretty vile. ONe of my professors spoke with former Costa Rican president, Oscar Arias, who stated that had it been known all that the Reagan administration did exactly down in Latin America, they’d all be behind bars. Reagan was pretty vile and if anyone thinks that Clinton is worse, that’s a joke. A very BIG joke.
Reagan was a master at manipulating public opinion and this is a perfect example. I will never believe that Reagan wasn’t personally responsible for the fact that those hostages were held as long as they were and released within hours of his inauguration. I firmly believe he orchestrated their extended captivity in an effort to alienate public opinion about Carter during an election year so as to better ensure a victory for himself. And the Iranians were more than happy to hold our citizens hostage in exchange for the arms deal Reagan made with them, conditioned upon his getting elected. Reagan and his successor, Bush Sr., were two of the most corrupt and evil Presidents this country has ever had.
Let’s not forget the so-called “drug war” launched under Reagan’s watch. And that while millions of Americans were being locked up for relatively minor drug offenses, CIA (err, Contra) drug runners were allowed to operate with virtual impunity in this country.
(And before I’m labeled a conspiracy theorist, keep in mind that the CIA not too long ago admitted to some of these allegations. And if the CIA admits to some allegations about anything, it’s not hard at all to imagine the truth is much worse…)
I’m one of those people who doubt that Reagan was really in control. He always struck me as more of a puppet, able to deliver his well-rehearsed lines thanks to his acting background, but not really understanding what was going on around him.
Reagan’s acts were tantamount to treason and he should have had to answer for them in open court. The manipulation of public opinion against Carter and the backdoor dealings with the Iranian hostage takers was one of the most shameful and disgusting episodes in this nation’s history.
For this simple reason alone Reagan’s name should be synonymous with traitorous conduct. I did not put it on my list due to lack of cites, but the incident should stick in the craw of every Republican on earth. Reagan legitimized Neilsen rating driven politics and epitomized style over substance to a never-before-seen degree. The damage to our political system remains to this day (as in Clinton).
As to the space shuttle, a president must be held accountable for all that occurs during his watch. His Hollywood does D.C. shtick was a national disgrace and people payed for it with their lives. I hope the bastard lives for a long, long time in his enfeebled state. I also do not think that Alzheimers care givers should be offended at the previous comments. No one wished this upon Reagan, but it is not in the least ironic that he now suffers in such a fashion.
It is well known that a less trained or educated mind is more susceptible to the ravages of Alzheimers disease. I have never been able to regard Reagan as a learned man. His base of knowledge was so obviously limited and pedestrian that it only took the breaking of a few threads to compromise his mind’s safety net. He richly deserves his fate.
Uh, do you have any proof or even strong evidence that Reagan personally manipulated the hostage crisis to his benefit?
I remember this claim being levelled by some of the more militant Democrats when Reagan was elected. As I recall, the theory was that George Bush had secretly travelled over there to negotiate this or something. This claim was subsequently dismissed because there was simply no evidence for it, and because Bush wound up easily being able to account for his location during the time he was supposedly doing this.
After that, the story died away and I haven’t heard of it since. Perhaps it’s a recurring theme in some of the more liberal magazines, but I don’t tend to read those regularly.
Do you not find it at all conspicuous that the hostages were released within hours of Reagan’s taking office? The possibility of back-channel negotiations seem so evident as to defy any possible denial. Especially when you consider the ramifications.
[li]The incoming Reagan administration was guaranteed to be far more conservative than that the exiting Carter.[/li]
[li]The Iranians ability to disgrace Carter was a short-sighted goal (common in terrorism) that paled to the repercussions from a new and more militant presidency.[/li]
[li]There is no way on earth that all of the delicate negotiations for the release of the hostages could have occurred during the four hours between Reagan’s innauguration and the release of the hostages. This can only mean that some sort of back-channel discussions had gone on. If that is the case, such discussions were in direct conflict with our national interest. Reagan callously disregarded this in his pursuit of the oval office.[/li]
This is one of many reasons that I view Reagan as a traitor to the American people. Here are some excerpts from the link:
Lost History (Part 3): October Surprise Arises By Robert Parry
“The new evidence discovered by The Consortium included testimony from a senior CIA official who was present at a 1981 meeting at which a prominent Republican boasted to then-CIA Director William Casey about their success in blocking Carter’s attempted “October Surprise” of a last-minute hostage release. There were also secret FBI wiretaps of one of Carter’s Iranian intermediaries receiving a $3 million deposit through a George Bush-connected lawyer and getting other lucrative business from a close Casey friend.”
“In addition, the House task force hid a 1993 report from Russia’s Supreme Soviet stating that Moscow’s national security files contained evidence that Casey and Bush did participate in meetings with Iranians to derail Carter’s hostage negotiations. (For details, see the new monograph, The October Surprise X-Files: The Hidden Origins of the Reagan-Bush Era.)”