Ronald Reagan -- America's Greatest President?

cmkeller:

What I stated re my personal life in the first few years of Reagan is only the mildest form of what happened to me in 1982 and 1983, when unemployment was peaking and everyone seemed to be out of work.
It took me a couple of years, until I could get my head back above water, to make the connection between all the stuff I went through and this detestable person’s policies, but once I made it, that was it. I’ve never before or since been so directly and personally affected by what goes on in DC. I hope I never am again. And I’ll take inflation over unemployment any day. (Well, within limits. 100% inflation might get my attention.) As Art Buchwald quipped (I’m paraphrasing 'cause I don’t remember the exact quote): “Inflation is what we have to pay for the stuff we couldn’t afford in the Depression because we had no money.”

I’d rather have money.

Zenster: Forgive me if I don’t take much said at “The Consortium” at face value. These are the guys talking about George W. Bush’s “Seizure of power”, and how Reagan was complicit in Chinese espionage. These guys seem to be the left’s equivalent of the John Birch society.

As for why the Iranians let the hostages go just as Reagan was taking power, there are easy explanations for that.

One, they were scared that Reagan was going to kick their ass unless they released the hostages. Carter was an appeaser, and every despot on Earth knew it. Which is why we had so much chaos in the world when Carter was in power. Reagan campaigned on a platform of strength and zero tolerance for terrorists. The Iranians HAD to be worried about swift reprisals after Reagan took office.

Second, they may well have intended to release the hostages on inauguration day to try and embarass Reagan and allow Carter to steal the limelight.

Ask yourself: If Reagan negotiated with the Iranians to prevent an ‘October Surprise’, why didn’t he have them released on Nov 21, after he was elected? Just out of meanness? Why would he choose inauguration day, and graciously allow Carter to step up to the podium during his inauguration to announce the hostages’ release? Wouldn’t it have served Reagan’s interests better to have them released at almost any other time?

I don’t buy the “October Surprise” theory, (although I’d love to have it proven that Reagan was even worse than I believe), and I can not give it more credence unless some substantial information comes to light. The whole notion of some necessary “delicate negotiations” falls apart if the Iranians did it unilaterally to show their contempt for Carter while getting freeing themselves from any potential cowboy antics by Reagan.

OTOH, Sam Stone, you have answered your own final question regarding the release on Inauguration day. It is commonly believed that the Iranians made a placating gesture to the new hard-line ruler. Whether that is truth or part of a Reagan-Iranian conspiracy, it is hard to see how any day could have been better for Reagan than the day of his inauguration.

Okay, I am not going to endorse the October surprise theory but this one seems considerably less likely. I have never heard anyone else suggest the Iranians wanted to embarrass Reagan and have Carter steal the limelight. For whatever reasons, these folks had no fondness for Carter.

Actually, I tend to agree with you and Tom, but the point is that it’s pretty hard to figure out the motivations of radical terrorists, especially fundamentalist Iranians. I was merely responding to the suggestion that there was absolutely no other possible reason for the hostages to be released that day.

I remember the ‘October Surprise’ being thoroughly discredited shortly after Reagan’s election, to the extent that some reporter publically apologized to George Bush. I don’t remember which news show I saw that on, and it was quite some time after the election - like a year later or something. The issue briefly came up in the news again, Bush produced hard evidence of where he had been during the period in question, and the reporter apologized.

But some stories never die, especially when they cast your enemies in a bad light.

Carter was hardly an “appeaser”, since he was the man to cut off aid to General Pinochet in Chile.

And Reagan sure supported a lot of thugs and terrorists in Central America.

The article that I excerpt below is largely dismissive of Gary Sick’s work and the notion of the “October Surprise”. Yet even his detractor manages to summarize a few glaring questions about this whole scenario. They are significant enough to where I am entirely unconvinced of Reagan’s innocence in the matter.

Here is a link to the complete article.
As appeared in The Fletcher Forum of World Affairs, Summer 1992 (1619 words)

October Surprise: America’s Hostages in Iran and the Election of Ronald Reagan. By Gary Sick.
BY WARREN COHEN
“For obvious political reasons, the Carter administration was desperately trying to negotiate the hostages’ release. But the Iranians were searching for a solution as well especially after Iraq invaded in late September. Carter’s worldwide arms embargo prevented Iran from obtaining the weapons and spare parts necessary to defend itself. As the talks with Carter were reaching their climax, the Hashemis allegedly set up secret negotiations between Reagan campaign director William Casey and Khomeini officials. These contacts occurred in July and August in Madrid and concluded in Paris in October, Sick reports. At the same time these purported meetings ended, the Iranians abruptly cut off contact with the Carter administration and refused to discuss the hostages until after the election. Sick reasons that the Republicans came through with a more attractive offer, and so the hostages were ultimately not released until five minutes after Reagan was inaugurated.”

“During the Carter embargo, a few Israeli shipments to Iran did circumvent US restrictions, but the weapons pipeline began to gush immediately after the inauguration, despite pronouncements that the new administration would never sell arms to Iran. In 1990, then Secretary of State Alexander Haig publicly admitted that some weapons arrived in Iran without his permission though Sick lists a variety of sources including State and Defense department officials and high-ranking Israelis who point the finger at Haig.”

“Despite the inconsistencies and illogical interpretation of events, there remain many titillating details to give even the most skeptical reader pause. Jamshid Hashemi and six other corroborating sources were able to pinpoint separately, without consultation, the exact days during the campaign for which there is no conclusive evidence of Casey’s whereabouts. A search of 100,000 pages of Reagan’s 1980 campaign documents revealed no traces, such as hotel receipts or journal entries, exonerating Casey. Also, in October 1980, the FBI began surveillance of Cyrus Hashemi’s offices because he was suspected of illegal arms sales, but in February 19~, the taping was terminated ahead of schedule by the new administration. The information from these tapings has still not been released despite many Freedom of Information Act requests from journalists. Then there are the inexplicable arms sales to Iran after the Reagan administration took over, which some journalists have estimated to be worth several billion dollars. Sick makes a valid point when he claims that an “October Surprise” deal would serve as a precursor to the Iran-Contra affair between the same parties years later.”
Too many coincidences for this little black duck!

This will be slight off topic at first, but bear with me.

I am often struck by the rage and horror that Clinton seems to elicit in people, though not surprised that the level of Clinton-hate one displays is inversely proportional to Reagan-worship. I mean, in the end here, what is Clinton guilty of? Well, nothing to do with Whitewater, as the 50-million dollar investigation demonstrated. He did have some shady friends, but so does everyone in national politics. Can’t be helped. Heavens, people here have mentioned Ronald Raygun’s legion of seedy appointees. (This may very well be unsubstantiated rumor, but I recall reading somewhere that the Reagan administration suffered the highest number of incarcerations in U.S. history.)

So Clinton is guilty of what? Well, seems the guy has this sex problem. Which is to say, he likes it. And not always with his wife. And when he gets caught getting some on the side, he lies about it. Bad boy. Now, don’t get me wrong, I don’t approve of Clinton’s shenanigans, but that’s really what they are – shenanigans.

Here’s the thing. You spend five, six years turning over every pebble in a guy’s life, because you just keep not being able to find something that will stick, and he’s gonna get defensive. Then something finally turns up, and he defensively lies about it. Stupid, yes, but then it was just a blow job at work – not the treasonous sale of weapons to a declared enemy of the United States. Bad? Yes, it was. Our business? No. Let him work it out with his wife the way the 65% of American married men who get caught being unfaithful have to.

Wait, did I say “American” men? Oops. I forgot about American Sexual Pathology – a disorder characterized by the abject fear that someone, somewhere, might be having a good time. Now, men, we shouldn’t be doing this stuff. I mean, if we get married, then we should be honorable about it. Otherwise, don’t get married. But to all you Republicans out there, while lying about getting some on the side is wrong, even under oath, it’s also something people do.

In retrospect, it’s obvious what Clinton should have done. He should have pulled a Raygun. He should have said, “I don’t remember.” Another one that would work is, “I can’t recall.” Also, “My memory of that is unclear.” Because, by golly, if it can work for the greatest president in American history when he was being questioned on the treasonous activities of his ragingly corrupt cabinet, it should work for a guy slipping off for some action with the chickie from the typing pool, or whoever she was.

So, to summarize: World’s greatest president: oversaw (or at the very least looked the other way) while his appointees broke laws that would have resulted in the death penalty during wartime, and should have gotten them life sentences at least.

World’s Biggest Monster: got a blow job and lied about it.

World’s greatest president: lowered taxes on the rich, raised taxes on the poor (did you see what happened to payroll taxes under Raygun – ouch!) and presided over the largest increase in the gap between the rich and poor in U.S. history.

World’s Biggest Monster: stayed out of the way of Greenspan.

World’s greatest president: consulted with an astrologer.

World’s Biggest Monster: listened to political consultants. (Wait, maybe Raygun wins this one. . .)

World’s greatest president: worked the system as an ex-president to pull down millions in speaking fees, for personal gain no less! (Note: something that scumbag Jimmy Carter didn’t do.)

World’s Biggest Monster: worked the system as an almost ex-president to grant a pardon to the ex-husband of a woman who was a campaign contributor, possibly for personal gain! Or maybe not!

World’s greatest president: thought ketchup was a vegetable.

World’s Biggest Monster: thought a cigar was an extra-marital aid.

Basically, we’re left with an interesting contrast. World’s greatest president presided over economic chaos, legal chaos, and by extension, moral chaos. But at least he didn’t have sex. That we know. World’s biggest monster presided over economic prosperity, but suffered from having sex and looking out for his friends.

Hmmm.

(And the funny thing, after all this, I thought Clinton was a lousy president. I just thought Raygun was MUCH, MUCH worse.)

Did I say “inversely proportional”? I think I meant just “proportional.” It was early here when I started my rant.

bungie_us:

It seems your view of Reagan’s deeds and Clinton’s misdeeds is seriously missing facts.

Lied about it under oath, in a court of law, as a defendant in a sexual harassment suit in which that blow job was intended for use as evidence by the plaintiff. And quite possibly also conspired to fix the testimony of other witnesses and hide subpoenaed evidence (unless you want to believe that Betty Currie and Monica Lewinsky did those things totally on their own, behind Bill’s back, with nothing in particular to gain from it, as neither of them were defendants in the case. Forgive me if I’m a bit skeptical of that version).

That’s pretty bad stuff. These so-called “shenanigans” are quite possibly felonies. And that’s dealing only with the Lewinsky issue, not with the other investigations that had been done on him.

Did he do this on his own, or did Congress - controlled by Democrats throughout his terms (except for a brief period of a Republican Senate) pass a bill to do this and he signed it into law?

His wife did that, not him.

No one ever accused Carter of being a “scumbag.” Even Republicans will admit that he is a man of high moral caliber, but he was a completely inept president.

There’s another word for “almost ex-president:” President. Until such time as he actually is an ex-president, he is expected to perform executive acts in the public interest, not his own.

Chaim Mattis Keller

Said sexual harassment suit was thrown out of court. Besides, what did consentual sex with Lewinsky have to do with Paula Jones?

I cannot BELIEVE anyone thinks that Clinton’s blow job was worse than selling arms to Iran and funding the contras in Nicaragua.

Well, M. Keller, I’ll respond, even though I know how these things always go. Waste of our time, both of us, since neither of us is going to concede anything to the other, but whatever.

First: astrology, Jimmy Carter the scumbag.
Now, those two items fell under the category of “joke.” A difficult concept for your typical Reaganista, but then perhaps the delivery was flawed. So to be magnanimous, I’ll take half the heat.

Second: that pesky Democratic Congress back in the 80s.
Here’s the deal. Reagan won big. Remember? Had what is called a mandate. That Democratic Congress pretty much had to roll with Reagan’s economic fantasy punches. Sure, they had Congress, but America had such a love affair with Grampaw Ronnie that they had to pick their battles. Personally, I’d have loved them to be pissier about it, but they weren’t. The nutcase economic policy direction still came from Raygun and his plutocratic cronies (or, plutocratic puppet masters, some would contend). Either way, the insane deficits, the tax trick (in which income and capital gains taxes were lowered while payroll taxes increased), the loss of U.S. jobs to other nations, the increase in the wealth gap – all have to be laid at Raygun’s feet. But at least he made us feel good while he stuck us in the backside.

Third: Clinton’s perjury.
Yup. Happened. Bad thing that. But if you read my first post, you’ll see that my real point was a question of perspective. Clinton did a bad thing. But he did it for an even worse reason – years of unsupported vilification by conservatives (something I never really understood, since for many issues the man is a pretty good Republican). What the man was guilty of was having a libido and not wanting to get busted for it. He should have just 'fessed up and left it at that. But, people have this weird thing about not wanting to get caught, even at something as trivial as what he was being chased for. (Trivial on a national level, not on a personal private level.)

Now let’s just look at Iran-Contra. Let’s see, selling arms to Iran. At the time, Iran was a declared enemy of the U.S. So what does that mean? Treason. You wanna figure out a way to rationalize that, fine. But it’s still treason. Now, did Ronnie “know?” Hard to say for sure, since he used the “I don’t remember” defense, but it was his stinking Cabinet and administration that did know and did do it, and they were his responsbility. Verdict: He’s scum.

What else? Providing funds to murderous insurgents in Central America, something explicitly against the law of the United States. Once again, did he know? See above. But with this one, his people not only admitted it, but knew it was wrong to the entent of frantically trying to cover it up, then using the “But I’m a Patriot!” defense. The amazing thing is that the Patriot defense actually worked. Well, maybe not so amazing, since you repeat something loud enough and often enough and nitwits start to believe it must be true. (“He said right there on the TeeVee, Ma!”) Once again, Ronnie was responsible for his people, whatever he “remembered.” Verdict: He’s scum. Even worse, he’s scum who supported the murder of men, women, and children all because of the crime of maybe possibly having an inconvenient political philosophy.

But, I’ll give him this: he’s personable, warm, cuddly scum.

I don’t condone infidelity. I don’t condone lying about it. But the standard Clinton is held to is so far above that which people like, say, either George Bush or the venerable Raygun is held to, it’s not even funny. It’s tragic.

Fourth: Mark Rich.
I’ll grant you that Clinton was still President. What I won’t grant you is that Raygun, GHW Bush, and Dubya haven’t taken advantage of their positions, in and out of office, to take care of their friends, and in turn be taken care of. But, whatever. You look out for friends and contributors. That’s called national politics. And yet, Bush Sr’s convenient pardon of Weinberger and related cronies certainly helped ensure that his own name wouldn’t come up, so very inconveniently, in testimony. Now, Clinton or the Democrats MIGHT have gotten some cash outa the Mark Rich thing, but that’s hardly on the level of escaping potential prosecution the way Bush Sr. did in the Weinberger thing.

The funny thing is that before Raygun, I thought that Republicans were pretty much just people who worshipped money. Occasionally one got corrupt like Nixon, but Democrats were hardly immune to corruption. I could work with Republicans, even if I disagreed with them.

But after the debable of the 80s Republicans, and over-reaching rage and hate of the 90s Republicans, I’ve come to have the same reaction to the word “Republican” as I have to words “child molester” – vomitous, shuddering horror.

Sad, too, because there are still some decent Republicans out there. Bob Dole has always seemed like a really good guy to me – unfortunate politics, but a good guy.

One thing that I should have taken care of in my previous post: Credit must go to our illustrious inspiration, Cecil himself, for the “falls into the category of ‘joke’” joke. I can’t remember exactly where I first read it, but I know it was in a Straight Dope. . .

Hey, you left out "…after a six-year, $4 million politically-motivated witchhunt driven by his political enemies, who finally found something incriminating after numerous groundless accusations."

But hey, who needs context? As long as you can get Clinton on something, that’s good enough, right?

Guinastasia:

That decision was under appeal (which had still been pending when Clinton and Jones decided to settle out of court). And on what grounds was the appeal allowed? On the grounds that Clinton had lied in his testimony. In other words, his lie (perhaps; with the appeal process cut off by the settlement, we’ll never really know) caused the suit to be thrown out of court.

You’d have to ask Jones’s lawyers to be certain, but it seems to me that it was intended to establish a pattern of hassment, and could have been used to prove several points
about Clinton’s conduct.

bungie_us:

Bull. If they “had to roll” etc. (which indicates some serious gutlessness and dereliction of duty on their part, if they genuinely believed him wrong), then they would have gone along with his spending cuts as well. Instead, we got increased tax revenues…and spending that increased at an even greater rate.

Gotcha. Poor, poor pitiful Bill was driven to perjury and quite possibly witness tampering and obstruction of justice by the Republicans.

Yup. That would have been the legal thing to do.

So therefore, his felonies get downgraded to “shenanigans.” Gee, maybe we should never have felony/witness tampering/obstruction of justice prosecutions! After all, it’s just because folks don’t want to get caught…:rolleyes:

I’ll admit that if there were any proof of perjury on Reagan’s part…on the same level of proof that there was of Clinton’s perjury…that it qualifies to make him “scum.” If you wish to hold him accountable for actions of his subordinates that have no proven connection to him, then a whole lot more could be piled on about Clinton as well.

That is so untrue.

I’m willing to bet that if it were only cronies that Clinton pardoned, few eyebrows would have been raised. No one, for example, has made even a peep over the fact that Clinton pardoned his brother. However, selling pardons for cash is, if not in law (because I am not a lawyer and I’m not certain of the minutiae of bribery law), then at least in spirit, bribery. That’s worse than mere cronyism, which as you said, has been part of politics since day 1.

Chaim Mattis Keller

Keller, it’s about perspective. It’s about right-wing hysteria about losing the White House and the subsequent years of unwarranted attack against Clinton. Millions of dollars spent on one of the most exhaustive investigations of any President ever, and the best they could come up with is that he liked to get a little on the side. Shenanigans, absolutely. Minor indiscretions compared to the crimes against humanity committed by the Raygun administration. You ask me, Raygun shouldn’t have an aircraft carrier named after him. He should be hung by the neck until dead, dead, dead for murder and treason.

Raygun’s expressed support, well-documented, of the Contras in Nicaragua are enough to condemn him alone. They raped and murdered their way across the isthmus, but because they did it under the guise of fighting communism, they were Raygun’s little darlings. But the whole situation was actually worse than simple verbal support of the Contras, because the only people who actually believe that Grampaw Ronnie didn’t know what his subordinates were up to are the nitwit true believers. The fact that it wasn’t officially “proven” is meaningless. “Not proven” is the final refuge of the true scoundrel, and opportune pardons and document-shredding helped maintain the legal fiction. Don’t forget, even Ollie North got away with it on the basis of a legal technicality, something otherwise abhorred by the right. Except when it works for them.

The fact remains, Clinton was a piker, a minor miscreant compared to the treasonous criminals led by the master prevaricator himself, King Ron. I would never condone Clinton’s behavior, but it was nothing. Nothing. Nothing, compared to the two administrations that preceded him. When it comes right down to it, the worse anyone can really say about Clinton is that he was a merely average president who couldn’t keep his dick zipped up. An oaf, but no more so than Gerald Ford, and a womanizer, but no more so than Kennedy. Not much of a legacy to leave behind, to be sure, but I’d take that over Iran-Contra any day.

As for the gutless congressional Democrats, no argument here. But the one thing I’ll give Raygun credit for, he knew how to push his inhuman agenda when he had the votes behind him. He knew how to work the crowd, including the crowd of D.C. journalistic lapdogs he performed for on a regular basis. He was a so-so movie actor, but a fabulous political actor. To bad his politics were nothing short of repugnant.

But I tell you what. You go ahead and continue to worship him. But I beg you, please stay away from my children.

Keller, it’s about perspective. It’s about right-wing hysteria about losing the White House and the subsequent years of unwarranted attack against Clinton. Millions of dollars spent on one of the most exhaustive investigations of any President ever, and the best they could come up with is that he liked to get a little on the side. Shenanigans, absolutely. Minor indiscretions compared to the crimes against humanity committed by the Raygun administration. You ask me, Raygun shouldn’t have an aircraft carrier named after him. He should be hung by the neck until dead, dead, dead for murder and treason.

Raygun’s expressed support, well-documented, of the Contras in Nicaragua are enough to condemn him alone. They raped and murdered their way across the isthmus, but because they did it under the guise of fighting communism, they were Raygun’s little darlings. But the whole situation was actually worse than simple verbal support of the Contras, because the only people who actually believe that Grampaw Ronnie didn’t know what his subordinates were up to are the nitwit true believers. The fact that it wasn’t officially “proven” is meaningless. “Not proven” is the final refuge of the true scoundrel, and opportune pardons and document-shredding helped maintain the legal fiction. Don’t forget, even Ollie North got away with it on the basis of a legal technicality, something otherwise abhorred by the right. Except when it works for them.

The fact remains, Clinton was a piker, a minor miscreant compared to the treasonous criminals led by the master prevaricator himself, King Ron. I would never condone Clinton’s behavior, but it was nothing. Nothing. Nothing, compared to the two administrations that preceded him. When it comes right down to it, the worse anyone can really say about Clinton is that he was a merely average president who couldn’t keep his dick zipped up. An oaf, but no more so than Gerald Ford, and a womanizer, but no more so than Kennedy. Not much of a legacy to leave behind, to be sure, but I’d take that over Iran-Contra any day.

As for the gutless congressional Democrats, no argument here. But the one thing I’ll give Raygun credit for, he knew how to push his inhuman agenda when he had the votes behind him. He knew how to work the crowd, including the crowd of D.C. journalistic lapdogs he performed for on a regular basis. He was a so-so movie actor, but a fabulous political actor. To bad his politics were nothing short of repugnant.

But I tell you what. You go ahead and continue to worship him. But I beg you, please stay away from my children.

bungie_us:

It sure is. And I have to seriously question the sense of perspective of one who turns felonies into “shenanigans.”

Yes, they were. And what do you think the communist Sandanistas were, hippy flower-children? Both sides were murderous scum, and Reagan favored the side that was not working together with America’s enemies.

There’s a reason why, when Nicaragua finally got a democratic vote, the Sandanistas lost in overwhelming numbers. And it wasn’t because the Nicaraguans got tired of good treatment.

Gee, shades of Whitewater, Travelgate, Filegate…that’s why, when speaking of Clinton, I’d been sticking to the one charge that had actually been proven.

And I beg you, stay away from mine…and also do me the favor of not serving on jury duty. “We find the defendant guilty of only a class-three shenanigan. He did it, but it was nothing. Nothing.”

Chaim Mattis Keller

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by cmkeller *
There’s a reason why, when Nicaragua finally got a democratic vote, the Sandanistas lost in overwhelming numbers.

[QUOTE]

Actually, when they “finally got a democratic vote,” Ortega and the Sandinistas won. That was 1985.

The Republicans controlled the senate for six of Reagan’s eight years as president. Hardly a brief period.