Top Leaderboard, Site wide
July 26, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Newsletter

sign up to get updates


Losing the Moral High Ground




The Sixth Extinction
War of the Whales


Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
A/V Booth

They All Love Ronald Reagan

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Jan 14, 2008
McCain and Huckabee

Ronald Reagan may be dead, but he’s running for president. At least he might as well be, given the nonstop competition among Republican candidates, captured here, to worship him.

Watch it:

Advertisement

Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By Stanislaus J.A. Wojnowski, January 17, 2008 at 5:51 pm Link to this comment

DEFICIT SPENDING; STOCKMAN in STOCKS.

Report this

By cann4ing, January 17, 2008 at 5:43 pm Link to this comment

bogi666 has it right, Cyrena.  Here’s what he said:

Senator Barack Obama:  “I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not.  He put us on a fundamentally different path, because the country was ready for it.  I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown, but there wasn’t much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating.  I think people—he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.”

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/17/headlines#9

This election is not about race.  It’s not about gender.  It’s about class, and now that the corporate media has essentially whittled the question down to Obama or Clinton, it has essentially guaranteed that the next President of the United States will be on the corporate/elite side of the global class war.

Report this

By cyrena, January 17, 2008 at 3:55 pm Link to this comment

When did Obama ‘join in’ or are you just saying that for the hell of it?

Report this

By bogi666, January 17, 2008 at 9:51 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Barack Obama has joined in with the Republicans in claiming that he is the real resurrected Reagoon. I guess he was on drug for those 8 years after all. Hopefully, this will eliminate him as the Democratic candidate. More Reagoon than thou,  the greatest con man in world history, Bush 2 is a thug.Reagoon spent his last term in office with Alzheimer’s, is that why they admire him, proving that it is not necessary to have a brain or a mind to govern the USA? Or was it that Reagoon convinced the American public that debt is prosperity. Maybe it was Reagoon claim that the Nicaraguan Sandinista army was going to march thru Mexico, invade Texas and capture Wash., DC which is a good idea.The American public also believed this absurdity.

Report this

By Mudwollow, January 17, 2008 at 9:05 am Link to this comment

However your memory differs from the supposedly new and improved Ronald Reagan “product”, you must admit he’s more lovable and much less destructive as a rotting corpse.

Report this

By Wilbur N.Rhodes, January 17, 2008 at 8:31 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Ronald Reagan rang the death knell for the middle class that suffers to day from the race to the bottom supprted by Really rotton Ronnie and Wal-Mart.  A marriage made in hell,  Wilbur Rhodes

Report this

By minamoto no taira, January 16, 2008 at 5:30 pm Link to this comment

You stole my thunder.  If they have to resurrect a dead repub president rather than defend two living ones, it really makes a pathetic statement.  How long will it be before they start talking about Eisenhower?

Report this

By John Borowski, January 16, 2008 at 6:35 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Gee, I am totally confused now. You mean Reagan (The all time greatest union buster and dearest friend of the people that defecate on gold plated toilet bowls) is our current hero? What happened to our heroes Ron Paul or Julie with or without his baseball cap with the police and firemen’s logo on it?

Report this
G.Anderson's avatar

By G.Anderson, January 15, 2008 at 8:28 am Link to this comment

Of course they would…

Ronald, “what me Worry”, Reagan made them all rich men.

He also made their political donors rich men. And he made the credit card companies rich, the health care companies rich, the mortgage companies rich, and he made the rich, richer than rich.

No wonder when ever they think about Reagan and all he the did for this great country, in the name of freedom, justice and limited government, they practically stand up and cheer.

They’ll be “jerking themselves off”, to Reagan for the next 150 years, if this country lasts that long.

Report this

By Louise, January 15, 2008 at 8:05 am Link to this comment

Thanks for the chuckle!

Brings back a few memories of my own, but I wont go there. I prefer to remember more recent history, when a good friend apologized ... through tears ... for voting for Dubya the first time around!

Problem is, people trying to survive don’t always have time to check the facts, and tend to rely on the opinions of co-workers, or their religious leader, or some other handy know-it-all.

Only when reality kicks in do they realize the co-worker, or religious leader may be getting paid for something ... but it certainly isn’t their smarts! And that know-it-all knows how to find the bathroom and the break room, but that’s about it ...

Of course the repub candidates keep resurrecting Reagan. What else have they got?

A DEAD GUY looks better to the repub masses than the real live walking talking prez they have in office!

I wonder sometimes if it ever bothers daddy Bush, that they skip right over him, like he never happened. Talk about bad reputation by name association.

Although daddy actually does deserve a bad reputation, I doubt any of the current crop of repub candidates even know that!

In fact, their ignorance of all things historical is a bit un-nerving. Particularly when you contemplate the possibility that one of them might actually be driving the tank next year!

Oh my gawd!
We can not let that happen!

Report this

By RXaver, January 15, 2008 at 6:44 am Link to this comment

I agree, Cryena, that we shouldn’t have been there (Lebanon) in the first place, but do make the distinction between military bases (the Marine Corps barracks in Lebanon) and the embassies (regarded as US soil, just as all countries regard their embassies). In either case Reagan’s non-response belied his tough cowboy rhetoric, and it is kind of amusing to see today’s GOP defify Reagan while conveniently forgetting his poor record in facing terror, ignoring Reagan’s support of terror against Central American populism, and in the end, trying to justify the arms-for-hostages debacle.  If Islamic extremists were paying attention to Reagan, they learned 1) we’ll talk tough when attacked, but that’s about it, 2) Reagan would lie to his country (“we do not negotiate with terrorists”) and 3) not only WILL we negotiate with terrorists, we’ll sell weapons to them.  That’s worth repeating, even as Oliver North is regarded as some sort of right-wing hero, that he sold weapons to the country Bush is now threatening.  Shades of Donny Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein.  You’re right, we never should have pretended to be in the middle east to “stabilize” it; it’s the hypocrisy of Reagan hero-worship that needs more scrutiny.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, January 15, 2008 at 1:58 am Link to this comment

Boy, you know you’ve sunk to the bottom of the pit when you have to start spewing Reaganomics as a virtue.

I remember a time during the Reagan years when sitting with the then in-laws watching the news, a story involving some issue or another was on regarding Reagan.  It was one of those “last straw” kind of moments and I just looked at everyone and starting ranting things, such as, “look at that idiot, oh, wonderful Reagan and did you want the shirt off our backs too and on and on,....well…. until I got to the part where I started saying, “Who would vote for such a moron?...You’d have to be an idiot!....I can’t believe how STUPID people are!...etc…etc.

Suddenly there was a burst of laughter from the ol’ ex-inlaws, which kind of stopped me mid-sentence…I was confused..??!!  I didn’t think my ranting was all THAT funny.  Finally one of them pipes up, well, yeah…well…(in her laughter) “I voted for him” (and apparently they all had).  In my shock and NOT QUITE utter disbelief (hey, they’re my EX-inlaws) I stood there dumbfounded.  (They were kidding me….right?)  No, it was true, they had all voted for him…..whatever….

Anyway, I told you all that just to say this:  Afterwards they admitted that it was the STUPIDEST THING they had ever done.  Dumb, dumb, dumb, is what they admitted in a sheepish tone of embarrassment.  So for these candidates to “attach” themselves to Reagan is ignorant.  Of all the Republicans I’ve ever known the only ones who STILL think Reagan was a good thing, can’t remember their own address and sometimes leave the house without shoes.  I doubt they’ll be voting.

Report this

By P. T., January 15, 2008 at 1:01 am Link to this comment

Interesting to see Republicans fawning over a terrorist.

Report this

By P. T., January 15, 2008 at 12:56 am Link to this comment

President Ronald Reagan was a strong backer of President Saddam Hussein.  They had a lot in common.

Report this

By P. T., January 15, 2008 at 12:50 am Link to this comment

They all seem to have signed on to it.

Report this

By cyrena, January 14, 2008 at 9:11 pm Link to this comment

RXaver,
For me this is sort of a ‘litany’ I suppose, which means other posters/readers will have heard it before.
Still I’d like to call it to your attention as something to consider, along with anyone else that may not have, just based on what has become that standard thinking for most Americans, and particularly those who have spent time in the military, since it does impart a certain mindset…
So, in all of the incidents you’ve mentioned here, where the US did ‘no action’ or no response, this one jumps out at me, as sort of proving my point about the reason for what you call the ‘terror’ to begin with…

•  “Oct. 23, 1983 Bombing of Marine barracks in Beirut
241 U.S. Marines were killed and more than 100 others wounded. The eventual response could be characterized as “cut and run” - four months later, U.S. Marines were ordered to start pulling out of Lebanon.”

You note that Marines were ordered to start pulling out of Lebanon. Can you give some thought first, to why Marines were in LEBANON to begin with, (this or any other time that the US Military has been targeted in some foreign destination, thousands and thousands of miles from home, on the soil of another sovereign state) And then, can you consider next, that had the Marines NOT been in any of these locations, these thousands of miles from home, on the soil of some sovereign state not our own, they obviously would NOT have been targeted.

I realize that this sounds very simplistic, because we, as Americans, are somehow accustomed to believing that we have the right to send our armed forces into any place on the globe, without thought to whether or not we may or may not be welcome in any of these spots, by the people who occupy that sovereign territory. And so we are just as quick to decide that if they DON’T want us there, and they demonstrate that by such destructive acts, we automatically call them ‘terrorists’.

But, my thinking is that in each and every one of the incidents that you’ve noted here, the US Military was out of their own jurisdiction, and had we not been there, we wouldn’t have been ‘terrorized’.

Imperialistic agendas do have these consequences. So, it’s something to think about. Do we want to have a military that operates under the umbrella of the Department of DEFENSE, which

Report this

By don knutsen, January 14, 2008 at 5:38 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Saint Reagan did more then any other in orchestrating and allowing the beginning of corporate interests replacing the needs of the people. The republicans love Reagan because they could care less about the middle class. The same republican party that has blessed every disasterous policy decision made by this administration these past 7+ years. Look at their platform speeches while running. How many do you see talking about healthcare, or the housing loan predatory lending fiasco, or education, or rebuilding after Katrina (still ), or anything for that matter that could benefit the middle class heart of this country ? Some of the same criminals ( E. Abrams, Adm. Poindexter to name a few ) who worked in Reagan’s administration are back in Bush’s admin. And the same heartless, corporate welfare decisions are being made only more aggresively. Many of these partisan attack dog republicans cut their teeth as Reagan’s young republicans. Reagan only deseves credit for one thing…helping to jumpstart the decline of America.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, January 14, 2008 at 2:58 pm Link to this comment

Ronald Ray-gun put this country into massive debt that we are still paying for and that our children will pay for.  He helped make many of the millionaires that form the military industrial complex we know today.

Report this

By RXaver, January 14, 2008 at 12:47 pm Link to this comment

I can’t for the life of me imagine why GOP candidates pine for Reagan.  The Gipper’s record against middle-eastern terrorists was inaction, followed by accomodation:

April 18, 1983 Bombing of U.S. Embassy in Beirut
U.S. government took no military action in response.

Oct. 23, 1983 Bombing of Marine barracks in Beirut
241 U.S. Marines were killed and more than 100 others wounded. The eventual response could be characterized as “cut and run” - four months later, U.S. Marines were ordered to start pulling out of Lebanon.

Dec. 12, 1983 Bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait
The U.S. military took no action.

March 16, 1984 CIA Station Chief William Buckley kidnapped
Reagan was advised that a bargain could be struck — secret arms sales to Iran, hostages back to the U.S. The plan, when it was revealed to the public, was decried as a failure and anathema to the U.S. policy of refusing to negotiate with terrorists.

Sept. 20, 1984 Bombing of U.S. Embassy annex northeast of Beirut
The U.S. mounted no military response.

Dec. 3, 1984 Hijacking of Kuwait Airways Flight 221
There was no U.S. military response.

Report this

By Hammo, January 14, 2008 at 9:55 am Link to this comment

Yes, Ronald Reagan seems to be getting more popular all the time, even among those who were interested in Dennis Kucinich’s comments about spotting an unidentified object in sky.

More on this in the articles ...

“Alleged briefing to President Reagan on UFOs posted online” (AmericanChronicle.com, November 2, 2007)

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=41939

-  -  -

“Presidential debate brings UFO issue to the surface” (AmericanChronicle.com, November 1, 2007)

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=41800

Report this

By Grousefeather, January 14, 2008 at 6:31 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The big lie told to the American people by conservative republicans is that Ronald Reagan was a great president. We must always bear in mind that these are the same people who support George W. Bush and his administration.

Report this
 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.