I know it’s petty, oh so petty, but this is the part of the Reagan legecy that chaps my ass the most. I loved the old National airport and I’m clearly not alone. I know quite a few people who will not call it “Reagan airport”. Petty yes, yet a clear example of something rammed down the public throats.
Purely to further youreducation:
Shiftless,
Not petty at all. Substitution of any modern politician for George Washington is a travesty.
Crane
Hunter S. Thompson was a great writer, no question about it, but he was prone to overstatement and bombast. Most people read him in the knowledge that his perceptions were accurate but his “facts” were sometimes exagerated. I think the* Atlantic* article reflects that.
I hate to be in the uncomfortable position of denigrating Thompson while defending Richard Nixon, but to give the devil his due, Nixon did in fact make some major accomplishments while in office. He arranged a more-or-less honorable withdrawal from the quagmire of Vietnam. At a point when the cold war was in grave danger of becoming hot, he negotiated brilliantly with the Chinese, swinging them marginally toward our side when they could just as easily gone the other way. A Chinese/Soviet alliance at that time could have had devastating consequences for democracies in Asia, Europe and possibly even the Americas.
Heros do not always wear white hats, evil men are not always pure black. Shades of grey are everywhere.
SS
Even if I conceded that the rates you listed were correct, that still validates my post. By the mid 1980s, the growth for Russian military spending was still smaller than inflation. Reagan’s military spending did nothing special to drive the Russians into bankruptcy. It is plausible to say that the USSR went bankrupt because of decades of overspending on their military, almost all of which happened earlier than the 1980s. However it is next to impossible to seriously contend that Reagan’s spending policies contributed meaningfully to the run-up in Soviet military spending. The trajectory of such spending actual decreased in the face of Reagan’s spending, especially if you adjust for inflation.
Reagan made it through eight years without a crisis. He had a pleasant manor during speeches, and he got off a few one-liners.
So what makes Reagan the object of such adulation?
Crane
He was nearly impeached over Iran-Contra. That was a pretty serious crisis. If he wasn’t such a beloved grandfather archetype who could credibly play the “Ooh, poor me, I just don’t remember” card, he would have been crucified.
Well [as he used to like to start his perorations], he had several pleasant manors, and he could clear brush and ride horsies and wear funny outdoorsman clothing on all of them. He was the bestest President at that.
His administration set the new record for most investigations, indictments, or convictions, with over 138 administration officials, The Iran-Contra treason was only part of it - there was the HUD bid-rigging scandal, lobbying/corruption scandals (continuous), EPA corruption, Inslaw, the S&L looting (and taxpayer-funded bailout) …
It’s pretty prominent, isn’t it, and also pretty sad, that even his acolytes with the chops to participate on this board can’t come up with any sort of chain of fact-based reasoning, to support their adoration of the man. So, to ask again, whaddaya got to convince us with, out here in the reality-based community? Do you really want to leave it here?
Reagan would have used simple, declarative sentences to say that freedom is a birthright for all people and that the government of Egypt needs to listen to its citizens and accept their will. Then he would have sold the government weapons under the table to kill the protesters.
Oh for fucks sake, what would a dishonorable withdrawal look like. Nixon prolonged the war and caused thousand of US soldiers to die and 10s of thousands of Vietnamese to be killed. And in the end the communists took over anyway and now Nike is making shoes there and Americans are going there on vacations.
You really have to step back take a deep breath and remember, Reagan sold weapons to terroists! Iran and the Contras.
So, what did he do that makes him the Republican icon?
Crane
To the best of my understanding, tax cuts and charisma.
Except that he raised taxes. He was also pro-family even though he was divorced and had a very distant relationship with his kids.
He was the start of the right’s split with reality. It no longer made any difference if something were true or not, as long as it sounded good.
Sh1bu1,
“He was the start of the right’s split with reality. It no longer made any difference if something were true or not, as long as it sounded good.”
I think you’ve got it!!
Crane
You are not a mirror, and are sadly ignorant of events of recent history, as your own posts readily demonstrate. Your attempts to discredit me by innuendo and ad hominem only stand to emphasize your ignorance.
Stranger
Ooh, snap! :rolleyes:
When come back, bring content.
I’ve provided plenty of content which, in your deliberate obtuseness and flip insinuation bordering on outright insult, you have failed to acknowledge. The fact remains that you have either misrepresented or are ignorant of specific events you have referenced, and you’ve attempted to cover for this by branding me as a die-hard apologist for Reagan, which is self-evidently untrue and apparent to anyone who has actually read this thread.
Stranger