« Militant gays: Don't eat mor chikin | Main | How About that Border Security »

Old Enough To Know Better

I never voted for Ronald Reagan. I blame my parents. He was re-elected two weeks after my 17th birthday. But had I the chance, I would have. Both times.

Which makes me just old enough to recognize the absolute crock of BS the media is spinning in regards to President Reagan.

I remember quite clearly how the mainstream media and the liberals (but I largely repeat myself) treated President Reagan. And it was nowhere near the love-fest that they want to portray it as.

Reagan was stupid. He was an "amiable dunce." He was a has-been former B actor who somehow thought he had fallen into the role of a lifetime, and was only playing at being president. He had no real intellectual curiosity or heft.

Reagan was heartless. He denounced welfare fraud and the welfare state. He had no compassion for the poor, and was mainly interested in palling around and helping out his millionaire buddies. And Nancy was incredibly profligate with the public's money when redecorating the White House.

Reagan was a warmonger. "Ronnie Raygun" was spoiling for a fight with the Soviets, and just looking for an excuse to push the button. He sent the defense budget skyrocketing, wasting billions and billions of dollars on new high-tech toys that were doomed to failure (SDI/"Star Wars" missile defense was the biggest example; stealth technology a less visible one).

Reagan was a liar. He told anecdotes that were completely made-up, and convinced himself they were true. (His background as an actor helped him blur the line between fantasy and reality in his mind.) He had to have known about the scandals in his administration, especially the "arms for hostages" plot (selling arms to Iran to raise money for the Contras in Nicaragua after Congress blocked aid for them), and his denials were empty and transparently false.

Reagan was a hypocrite. He paid lip service to faith and family values, but never went to church, never even tried to do anything about abortion, and was estranged from his own children.

But we're not supposed to remember that. When the mainstream media tells us now how popular Reagan was, and how everyone loved him, we're supposed to politely nod and say "yes, how true." We're not supposed to actually go back and check to see what they were really saying at the time.

Well, Ed Driscoll did. And he found a few others who did, too. It's been a long time since I read such things, but damn, it all comes back so quickly.

And it brings up a lot of quick reactions.

First up, to Time Magazine: Barack Obama is no Ronald Reagan. Obama sells himself as the intelligent, educated elite. Reagan was a champion of the common people. Obama touts his sterling academic credentials (without actually releasing his grades). Reagan didn't talk much about his intellectual prowess. Obama spent his entire pre-presidential career without ever actually taking on any kind of leadership or management or oversight position. Reagan had been a union president and a governor.

Obama's most defining role was "community organizer" -- rallying the dissatisfied to demand their "due" from the powers that be. Reagan's was a lifeguard -- where he learned that when he saw someone in trouble, he had to act, immediately, and on his own, not try to rally support and wait for "the system" to intervene.

Oh, Reagan would probably pose for a photo with Obama, smile for the cameras, maybe even put his arm around his successor's shoulder. (Note to Time: Reagan and Obama were both 6'1" tall, so they would actually see "eye to eye" in a literal sense, but that's about it.) But that was not a reflection of Reagan's ideology, but of his geniality and civility and decorum.

Second, let's look at the image the media and the left (again, I repeat myself) tried to project on Reagan while he was in office. Stupid, heartless, stupid, lying, stupid, hypocritical, stupid, out of touch, stupid, right-wing extremist, stupid, dangerous, stupid, out of his depth, stupid, and leading the nation and the world into ruin. Oh, and stupid. Really really stupid.

Gee, does that sound like how they're portraying Obama? I dunno, but that sounds a lot more like how they've tried to portray a few other people over the past decade or so. George W. Bush and Sarah Palin come to mind. Barack Obama? He doesn't even make the top million or so.

Third, a message to the Left: you don't get Reagan. As always, you've discovered that the best conservatives are the dead ones, as you can put words in their mouths and thoughts in their heads without fear that they will object to your revisionism. But even the most casual survey of Reagan's words and deeds would put the lie to the theory that he would have the least bit of support for any part of Obama's domestic agenda.

Finally, one more message to the left: you don't get Reagan. You don't get to embrace him as one of your own, or -- more accurately -- set yourself up as the executors of his estate and get to decide who is the heir to his legacy. You spent his entire administration denigrating and belittling and out-and-out lying about who he was and what he stood for. Now you want to go back and whitewash all that, for crass political gain. You want to rob his grave, steal his corpse, and prop it up like a grotesque ventriloquist's dummy to have him speak your thoughts.

No. You will not attempt this obscenity unchallenged. You will be hanged by your own words.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/41025.

Comments (58)

Yep, the left fully support... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Yep, the left fully supported Reagan. Especially that lefty stalwart, Splash Kennedy. Just ask the Soviets about their 'conversations' with Splash.

The left has also adopted A... (Below threshold)
Stan:

The left has also adopted Abraham Lincoln as one of their own. They were just as vile to him as they were to Reagan, Bush (Sr and Jr) Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin and other conservatives they deem as idiots. They called Lincoln a baboon, idiot, country bumpkin etc. Basically the same stuff they call all conservatives now days. They say they have changed and become more civil. If you believe that, I have a bridge in New York that is for sale

I have come to the conclusi... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

I have come to the conclusion the left does not understand anything. They do not do their research or the very least minimally to fit the facts they want to make up.

According to the left at the time Reagan wanted to starve the elderly and ban lunch programs for children. That is when I realized I can never believe lefties by their word. I needed to do my own research and found each time, the MSM/Left lied. They actually freightened thousands of seniors for political points. Reprobates all. ww

Got you by a few years Jay.... (Below threshold)
Chiefminion:

Got you by a few years Jay. I was 1 month too young to vote for Ronaldus Magnus and kick the anti-Semite poster child for failure who shall not be named to the curb. I had the distinct honor of voting President Reagan's re-election.

This is the same leftist media that couldn't seem to understand America's outpouring at President Reagan's passing, while grudgingly, deceptively joining in. "We spent a decade telling you what a [insert your favorite Reagan insult here] he was. How could you still love and adore him?!?"

Now they figure there are enough in their audience who were not alive during Reagan's era that they can rewrite their own history with impunity. It is up to us to see that they can't. Your post is a good start. We'll see if America swallows this leftist bilge or chokes on it.

I can sum up Obama in one p... (Below threshold)
Steve H.:

I can sum up Obama in one phrase. He is the "Anti-Reagan".

Got to vote for Reagan in 1... (Below threshold)
Captain Ned:

Got to vote for Reagan in 1984 and was the only member of my Colgate poli-sci class to get the electoral vote prediction exactly right. The fact that a majority of my fellow students had Fritz und Titz winning by 100 or 150 electoral votes was and has never been lost on me.

This country needs another Reagan.

Wait wait....when ... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

Wait wait....when I saw the Time cover with BO and the Gipper, I seriously thought it was a parody or photoshop gag or something. Are you telling me there is an actual meme going around equating BO and Ronnie?! WTF?

Here's what Obama pal professor Richard Epstein says about Wiley E. Obama, sooper genius:

"Robinson: You are quoted in the Boston Globe, "I like Obama but I reject the suggestion that he is an intellectual. He is an activist merely mimicking the mannerisms of an intellectual." How good is Obama's mind?

Epstein: His mind is pretty good, but it is a clever "means-ends" mind. He has never written a scholarly article in his entire life.

Robinson: He was President of the Harvard Law Review but never wrote an article.

Epstein: If he did, it was unsigned and not academically significant. " -easyopinions.blogspot Apr 3, 2009


An activist merely mimicking the mannerisms of an intellectual. Spot on.

Well, Jay Tea, as someone w... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Well, Jay Tea, as someone who WAS grown when Reagan took office (26) I can tell you you're partially correct. The media did think of Reagan as in over his head. And he kinda was.

Forgive me, I know it's a sin to bash the Gipper, but I remember his administration pretty well. Some of the above paragraphs you characterize as "how the media falsely portrayed Reagan" are, unfortunately, actually quite accurate portrayals.

Such as the one beginning "Reagan was a liar" and ending with "transparently false." 100 % accurate, I'm afraid.

And the "Reagan was a hypocrite" one, too. 31 years later, where is the Constitutional amendment to ban abortion that he was supposed to bring to fruition? Rubes!

The "warmonger" charge is a little harder to support. Seems to me he was more of a pussy. But he was smart enough (or his advisors were) to know that he needed to LOOK tough. Hence his invasion of Grenada while simultaneously fleeing Lebanon. You know, after Iranian backed suicide bombers blew up 241 Marines. Later he sent Iran modern weapons to get illegal money to send to the atrocity-committing Contras. And he spent the 1980s cutting deals with Hezbollah kidnappers in Beirut to gain freedom for this hostage, then that hostage, then another hostage. Real tough guy.

I never voted for Reagan, but I remember the good feeling I had when he survived the Hinckley assassination attempt. Every American loved him when he was joking with his doctors, and the picture of him a few weeks later, shirtless and swinging an axe on his ranch, was inspirational. I admit just having him in charge after the Carter administration, with its air of feckless incompetence, was a breath of fresh air.

But what guys of a certain age (your age or so, Jay Tea) remember about Reagan was that ineffable good feeling. It's not a true reflection of the reality of the time, as I remember it, anyway.

Well, Capt. Ned, that says ... (Below threshold)
clearmind:

Well, Capt. Ned, that says a lot for your poli-sci class, doesn't it. I used to refer to Fritz as the President of Minnesota, and since then, MN has tanked so many times I wonder why they're still in the US. Ol' Fritz was a product of the Farm Labor Party, whatever the hell that is.

But we do know that Obama is a product of the most corrupt political ops outside of Russia, the Chicago mob.

I was going to bring up Lin... (Below threshold)
JJ:

I was going to bring up Lincoln but Stan beat me to it and did a much better job than I would have as well.

But may I say I got a little chuckle out of "stealth technology a less visible one." Good one, JayTea. ;)

Reagan is but a prior XY ch... (Below threshold)
Don L:

Reagan is but a prior XY chromosome version of that Sarah gal from Alaska - therefore they are both entitled to a free "media must destroy you" card in order to keep playing the game. Sarah has to also get one that says "your party must destroy you," I'm afraid.

On Obama's experience: "ra... (Below threshold)
Don L:

On Obama's experience: "rallying the dissatisfied."

Perhaps the word "agitating" might be more appropriate here. A rally is where folks in fast cars race each other -as in NASCAR..heh, heh.

And just who was "the Left"... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

And just who was "the Left" in Lincoln's time, Stan?

Hint: If you say "the Democrat party" everyone will know you're an idiot.

"He was re-elected two week... (Below threshold)
914:

"He was re-elected two weeks after my 17th birthday. But had I the chance, I would have. Both times."


You missed the landslide. Perhaps in 2012 we can ride the Tsunami right over the hapless community agitator.

Bruce,Rubbish.... (Below threshold)
Rodney G. Graves:

Bruce,

Rubbish.

1980 was the first Federal Election in which I was eligible to vote, and vote I did. There were policies of the Reagan administration of which I did not approve. Nor was he without fault. That having been said, his treatment by the MSM was indeed execrable and demonstrably contra-factual.

Bruce Henry: "But he was sm... (Below threshold)
Drago:

Bruce Henry: "But he was smart enough (or his advisors were) to know that he needed to LOOK tough."

Once again Bruce, your ignorance knows little bounds and is exceeded only by your high opinion or your own opinion.

Ergo this: Bruce Henry: "But what guys of a certain age (your age or so, Jay Tea) remember about Reagan was that ineffable good feeling. It's not a true reflection of the reality of the time,.."

Laughable.

Back to Grenada.

So, you really really think the only reason to oust the Marxist regime there was to make Reagan "look" tough.

You're an idiot.

Reagan was mentally "tough".

And this was a battle on the fringes of the cold war with the Soviets.

The Soviets were moving more forcefully into our hemisphere, both directly and thru their Cuban lackeys. Cuban troops were on Grenada when the US attack occurred.

The "rescue of the US medical students" was a convenient cover to accomplish 2 primary goals:
1) Strike back at the soviets and their allies after the shootdown of the South Korean airliner over the pacific and
2) to ensure the Soviet/Soviet client state "control" and presence in the caribbean was rolled back.

All you have to do is draw lines from Nicaragua to Havana, Havana to Grenada, and then Grenada to Nicaragua.

You'll see that you have drawn an interesting little triangle, within which, given operational air bases in each of those locales and air combat ranges of their fighter and bombers (with Air to Surface missile packages), that the soviets and their little henchman could then use to turn the caribbean into a Soviet lake.

The runway construction required in Grenada for those combat purposes was near-completed and the Soviets had already prepositioned aircraft in Cuba to deploy to Grenada and link up with the Cuban ground-pounders. Soviet advisors were also already in Grenada at the time of the US operation.

Interestingly enough, no Soviet advisors were killed during the operation and were politely returned.

The Soviets never publicly complained.

Even MORE interesting is that at the time of the invasion, Surinam had already invited Cuban and Nicaraguan advisors and troops to their island and was moving into the Soviet orbit.

After Grenada, the US tossed some serious threats at Surinam, and the Surinamese promptly thru the Cubans and Nicaraguans out of the country.

But hey, Bruce doesn't "remember" any of that, so Reagan must have just wanted to "look tough".

Idiot.

Sunday morning and the best... (Below threshold)
914:

Sunday morning and the best troll they got is Bruce? Man, the leftist are desperate.

Reagan was a liar. He to... (Below threshold)
Rich Fader:

Reagan was a liar. He told anecdotes that were completely made-up, and convinced himself they were true. (His background as an actor helped him blur the line between fantasy and reality in his mind.) He had to have known about the scandals in his administration, especially the "arms for hostages" plot (selling arms to Iran to raise money for the Contras in Nicaragua after Congress blocked aid for them), and his denials were empty and transparently false.

The new spin on this, per Ron "Skipper" Reagan, is that the Gipper wasn't lying, he simply no longer knew any better. Why it's so much better that the left got beat twice by a senile old man rather than a known and knowing liar is beyond me. But whatever.

Quick correction to my abov... (Below threshold)
Drago:

Quick correction to my above post, Surinam is not an island but a coastal nation on the northern coast of South America.

And I've got news for you B... (Below threshold)
Drago:

And I've got news for you Brucie.

Reagan was not a pussy.

But I'd bet dollars to donuts that you are.

Liberals hated Reagan with ... (Below threshold)
Jeff Blogworthy:

Liberals hated Reagan with every fiber of their beings. The current attempted hijacking of Reagan's popularity just shows what vulgar liars and hypocrites they are -- and just how stupid they think we are.

One of the worst character assassinations hurled at Reagan by the left was his supposed responsibility for AIDS. Homelessness too. The booming Reagan economy, spurred by his revamp of the tax code, was condemned by Clinton and other leftists as the "decade of greed." Imagine. The success of the U.S. economy condemned. Long before BDS there was RDS.

Bruce, we are contemporarie... (Below threshold)
epador:

Bruce, we are contemporaries, and that make neither of us better or worse at knowing Ronald Reagan. I bet my white hair is longer than yours, but that reflects not an iota about our beliefs or intelligence. There's no reason to be snotty about "WAS grown" to others. I remember Eisenhower and JFK on the TV, and though I was too young to vote for them, certainly have a grounded vision of their presidencies, and if thought discussing them was relevant, could make appropriate comments regarding them without feeling deferential to those born before 1945.

Your description of the past, as partly critiqued above by Drago and others, is full of distorted memories. I hope that has nothing to do with the past or present ingestion of substances linked to memory or cognition problems, and is simply an effect of politically tainted hindsight. I wouldn't want to see your postings deteriorate further.

As far as comparing RR to BO, I'd prefer to see a photoshop of Dan Quayle and Joe Biden with their arms around each other on Time's cover, wouldn't you?

Stan:There is no n... (Below threshold)
Jeff Blogworthy:

Stan:

There is no need for "adoption" of Lincoln. He was a leftist. You really should dig beyond the fairy tale "Honest Abe" version of Lincoln. Lincoln was spurred on by Hamilton, who was known as the American Rosseau. Hamilton's philosophy of government produced two great American horrors: Abraham Lincoln and John Marshall. We will suffer their effects for ever more. Conservatives are (or should be) the ideological heirs of Jefferson. Not Hamilton. Not Lincoln -- the great centralizers and destroyers of liberty.

A suspicious sort might wonder at Lincolnolatry so prevalent that we are essentially brought up to worship at the feet of his colossus from grade school onward. One might begin to think it a statist conspiracy, and a whitewash of history.

Well, Jay Tea, ... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

Well, Jay Tea, as someone who WAS grown when Reagan took office (26) I can tell you you're partially correct. The media did think of Reagan as in over his head. And he kinda was.

Bullshit. I'm older than you, and remember the Reagan era very well myself.

Reagan had run California for eight years at that juncture. (Obama, by comparison, doesn't have the ability to run a shoeshine concession at O'Hare.)

Some of the above paragraphs you characterize as "how the media falsely portrayed Reagan" are, unfortunately, actually quite accurate portrayals.

No, they were horseshit. Pure, unadulterated horseshit straight from the CPUSA to you. Back then we didn't know that the media were Red-infested. We didn't know then – as we do now - that Cronkite was a commie, that Rather was a leftist operative making up crap, that "journalists" colluded to manipulate the narrative to advance socialism. In those days before the VENONA decrypts and the Mitrokhin archive we didn't know that McCarthy was absolutely correct, that Alger Hiss was guilty as sin, as were the Rosenbergs. We didn't know that Howard Zinn was a card-carrying member of the CPUSA.

Thanks to the Internet, we now know all of these things are 100% true, and that we were had back then. The media portrayed Reagan as stupid, a warmonger, senile, the whole nine yards. It was a Communist smear campaign, coming and going.

But what guys o... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

But what guys of a certain age (your age or so, Jay Tea) remember about Reagan was that ineffable good feeling. It's not a true reflection of the reality of the time, as I remember it, anyway.

That could be true, but let's face it, you're a reliable anti-authority. It wasn't all beer and skittles, but it was a huge improvement over the Carter era. Let me refresh your memory. Carter presided over an era in which people routinely talked about the end of the American century. (Liberals then at least had the courtesy to pretend that they didn't rejoice at the prospect.) Stagflation dominated the economy, unions generally and public sector unions in particular were flexing their muscles, demanding more and more for less and less. We seemed to be following Britain (which, during the Winter of Discontent, only had electrical power on alternate days) down the tubes.

But Britain elected Thatcher, and we elected Reagan. Thatcher broke the Mineworkers' Union, and Reagan broke PATCO, and his popularity soared. He singlehandedly set the union infestation back by a generation or more. (We need a booster shot of this now, obviously.) Reagan called out the USSR as an "evil empire" – which it was – and called on Gorbachev to tear down the Wall. Morale in the captive nations of Eastern Europe soared – Reagan knew, and cared! (A friend of mine was a leader of Solidarity at the time, and he won't have a word said against Reagan. None.)

Reagan had his faults, but he was a truly great President, and makes Obama look like a turd dropped from a tall cow's ass.

Isn't this about the time J... (Below threshold)
Jim Addison:

Isn't this about the time Jay Tea shows up to tell us what a great honest lefty Bruce Henry is?

Jeff: " He was a leftist." ... (Below threshold)
Drago:

Jeff: " He was a leftist." re Lincoln.

It's always a "bad" idea to attempt to label politicians of different ages (not era's, ages) with labels used currently.

To call Lincoln a "leftist" does him a disservice.

Do you really think Lincoln was a pre-alinsky alinsky-ite?

Would Lincoln have fallen in love with the Che Guevara's of his day (if that parallel even exists)?

It's better to use simple classical terms to help describe key players of long-ago political battles and then debate the aggrandizement of federal power over the states and individuals on a more historical scale, taking into account what the conditions, opportunities and threats were at the time.

I agree with alot of what Lincoln's critics say about his policies and am happy to discuss that at whatever length is desired.

But to call Lincoln a "leftist"?

Sorry.

Not buying it.

He was no Katrina VandenHeuval.

And just who wa... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

And just who was "the Left" in Lincoln's time, Stan?

Hint: If you say "the Democrat party" everyone will know you're an idiot.

Lincoln's opponents were the Democrat Party, you moron. Democrats in the South seceded from the Union to defend slavery and what they saw as states' rights. Democrats in the North – the Copperhead Democrats – opposed Lincoln's every move, urged "peace" (sound familiar?), and in inimitable Democrat fashion, lynched blacks (whom they blamed for the war, and hence the draft) in NYC during the Draft Riots of 1863. After the Civil War, Democrats founded the KKK to oppose Republican Reconstruction policies and to prevent blacks from exercising the right to vote that Republicans had forced the South to give them. Democrats of the "Solid South" – solidly Democrat - terrorized Republicans with lynchings (all blacks were Republicans then), and instituted segregation to keep them down. Later the Democrat Woodrow Wilson segregated the armed forces, and the Democrats such as Lester Maddox, George Wallace, and Bull Connor did their best to preserve segregation. Republican Eisenhower had to send the 101st Airborne Division to Little Rock to force Democrats to integrate schools there.

So don't you dare run away from the reprehensible history of your party. You and yours have been on the wrong side of history since forever, and are on it now, too. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Jim: "Isn't this about the ... (Below threshold)
Drago:

Jim: "Isn't this about the time Jay Tea shows up to tell us what a great honest lefty Bruce Henry is?"

Yes.

But in Jay's defense, one must remember that in discussing "lefty honesty", that's a far different baseline than that for the right.

It's sliding scale actually.

So, it's quite possible that Bruce is an "honest lefty", but only insofar as he is compared to other lefties.

Thus, in reality, Jay is damning Bruce with very feint praise indeed...........and rightfully so.

One of the wors... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

One of the worst character assassinations hurled at Reagan by the left was his supposed responsibility for AIDS.

Read the , the notes taken over a 30 year period by a KGB major who later defected. The KGB was immensely proud of having generated the AIDS smear on Reagan. They also orchestrated all of the demonstrations in Western Europe against the warmonger Reagan putting them at risk by siting Pershing missles to be launched from there. (Not a peep from the leftist-led sheep about the SS-20s that were aimed to land were the demonstrators lived.)

That, too, was in the pre-Internet era, so we didn't know about it. Btw, that's why Rather attempted to brazen out his lie about the ANG memos; he doubtless done it before, and gotten away with it, but didn't grasp the impact of the Internet on those in the agitprop business.

Sorry, that should read, "R... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

Sorry, that should read, "Read the Mitrokhin archive" with URL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitrokhin_Archive

Not sure what happened.

But in Jay's defen... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:
But in Jay's defense, one must remember that in discussing "lefty honesty", that's a far different baseline than that for the right.

It's sliding scale actually.

You've absolutely got to grade on a curve. Grading on an absolute scale would be too depressing.

Drago: Very well. ... (Below threshold)
Jeff Blogworthy:

Drago:

Very well. Try "progressive" or "mercantilist." Whatever you want to call him, his conduct was not conservative, originalist, or constitutional. The Lincoln memorial is utterly appropriate: a conquering king overlooking his royal subjects.

My hope now is to live long... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

My hope now is to live long enough to see the Reds embrace...


....

Sarah Palin.

I want to hear years hence how some leftist politician named Vladimir Ilyich Chavez or some such really is just like the beloved former President Palin, how they share so many features, policies, philosophies, and viewpoints, and gee whillikers, there's really no difference between them. Vladimir Ilyich has his Cheka and execution squads, President Palin had her Tea Party. Same thing, really.

Bottom line: Reagan was a g... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

Bottom line: Reagan was a great American who loved America. Barry is 0 for 3 on that score.

Stick up for Bruce? Me?... (Below threshold)

Stick up for Bruce? Me?

OK, who's got the good drugs, and why won't you share?

J.

Of course, Bruce once again... (Below threshold)

Of course, Bruce once again misses the point. (It's his specialty, and he's a champ at it.) He's still buying into the old narrative about Reagan, not noticing that the narrative has changed, now that the media wants to graft some of Reagan's good will on to Obama.

J.

So, Drago, you want me to b... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

So, Drago, you want me to believe, as you apparently do, that during the 1980s, when they were being bled to death in Afghanistan, and outspent 100 to 1 by the brave superspender (and superborrower) Saint Ronald Reagan, that the Soviets were implementing their heinous and devious plan to colonize the Caribbean? Sure they were.

And it was only coincidence that the invasion just HAD to be carried out 3 days after the Marines got blown up.

So I guess you're right. Not a pussy at all. As I said, real tough guy. Real men LOVE to negotiate with hostage taking terrorists. They don't worry about encouraging more kidnapping by giving the kidnappers' sponsors modern weapons, or emboldening terrorists by letting 241 US Marines get killed without ANY retaliation. Nosirree, only a guy who's secure in his masculinity can pull that shit off. And rolling over an island nation of 95,000, supplemented by some Cuban construction workers armed with AK-47s? He only needed a carrier group to do that, and only lost 19 American lives.

Guevara, everything you've said about Democrats being Lincoln's opponents, starting the Klan, etc.: all 100% true. Now tell me how the Democrats of 150 years ago were "the Left." Dumbass.

It's a good thing, ain't it, fellas, that we have the internet. Now, all the things you WANT to be true, can be shown, somewhere on the Web, to actually BE true!

And Epador, I didn't mean nothin' by it. Jay Tea said he was too young to vote for Reagan, but I wasn't. I certainly didn't mean to imply that he couldn't possibly have valid knowledge of the era. It's just that I find a lot of guys about his age have a rosier view of the Reagan years than I think is warranted. Most of the mind-altering substances I ingested came during the Nixon, Ford, and Carter administrations. Misspent youth.

I don't care what the media... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

I don't care what the media does or doesn't say about Reagan, Jay. I'm only interested in correcting some of the hagiography here.

Bruce, you're arguing that... (Below threshold)

Bruce, you're arguing that the Grenada invasion was planned, set up, and carried out in three days flat? Good god, you're more delusional than I thought.

And the issue was NOT the accuracy of the image of Reagan, but the media's attempts to bury their contemporary coverage of him and to graft Reagan's goodwill on to Obama -- an incredibly poor fit.

That you miss the point is unsurprising. The only question is whether you really are that stupid, or you're doing this deliberately.

J.

I get it, Jay Tea. I didn't... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

I get it, Jay Tea. I didn't miss your point. I was just pointing out that SOME of the "media's contemporary coverage of him" was entirely accurate. A fact that you imply wasn't so.

He really WAS an amiable dunce sometimes. He really was cynically hypocritical in using Evangelicals to gain and keep power, while never quite giving them what they wanted, only they STILL refuse to see that.

And Reagan's turning tail and running from Beirut, then spending the rest of the 80s shipping weapons to Iran and paying off kidnappers one by one, did more to embolden Iran and Islamic terrorism than anything your favorite whipping boys Carter and Clinton did or failed to do.

I haven't read the Time story. What other outlets are pushing the Obama=Reagan meme? Haven't seen 'em.

Hey, I just finished the TI... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Hey, I just finished the TIME story. That's what you're upset about?

when they were ... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

when they were being bled to death in Afghanistan

Ah, comrade grasshopper, but why were they being bled to death? Because the Reagan Administration, with the assistance of Charlie Wilson (a Dem, from back when Dems were still patriotic Americans) militarily supported the mujahadeen, most notably with Stinger missles. Until they got Stingers, the muj were losing. Badly. So chalk one up for Ronaldus Maximus.

the brave superspender (and superborrower) Saint Ronald Reagan

Yes, Reagan pissed away hundreds of billions of dollars buying roadside signs and building Frisbee golf courses, and he misprounced "corpsmen" too.

Seriously, are you really this dense? Reagan borrowed and spent a lot – although nowhere remotely near what Jugears has) - but we got something for it – the end of the USSR, our mortal enemy (when I say "our" I'm referring to patriotic Americans; liberals' mortal enemy apparently is America). Without firing a shot. It was money well-spent. If that Indonesian shithead had anything to show for all the money he's borrowed and spent – anything beyond roadside signs, I mean – I'd take a better view of him.

Saint Ronald Reagan

(Aside to the Americans here: Note the snark. Here is what leftists really think about Reagan, namely, they hate him. It must kill their souls to have TIME, one of their organs – and I mean that word in every sense – even pretend to beatify him so they link Reagan with Soetoro, and thereby attempt to lift the latter by his sagging shorts.)

Real men LOVE to negotiate with hostage taking terrorists.

Stanley Ann's least favorite son wanted to negotiate with terrorists – Iran and DinnerJacket - who didn't even have any hostages at the time. DinnerJacket basically told Obama to blow him. Barry's thinking about it.

Now tell me how the Democrats of 150 years ago were "the Left." Dumbass.

Nice try to define away the problem, but it doesn't wash. You, and the Dems, are the Left. I can understand your being ashamed of this – I would be too – but you must own it. There is a direct line from the Dems of then to those of today. It runs straight from Tammany Hall through to the SEIU and ACORN, and passes through all of the unions and collectivist organizations in between. Own it.

Now, all the things you WANT to be true, can be shown, somewhere on the Web, to actually BE true!

The stuff I cited above is true. Here are some links:

Mitrokhin archive (Report of the British SIS to Parliament): Intelligence and Security Committee
The Mitrokhin Inquiry Report (http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm47/4764/4764.htm)

VENONA Project:

Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Chairman (1997). "Report of the Commission On Protecting And Reducing Government Secrecy". United States Government Printing Office. http://www.fas.org/sgp/library/moynihan/index.html.

NSA official Venona site". National Security Agency. http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/declass/venona/index.shtml.

Howard Zinn's membership in the CPUSA: http://foia.fbi.gov/foiaindex/zinn_howard.htm

So ...I'm not citing wild-eyed Internet rumors; I'm citing reports to the British Parliament, the report of a government committee chaired by Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and documents released by the FBI under the Freedom of Information Act.

So, will you now be man enough to admit that these provide credible support for my contentions?

He really WAS a... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

He really WAS an amiable dunce sometimes.

Was he stupid enough not to know the word "corpsmen?" Was he shaky on how many states there are? Did he think Austrians spoke Austrian? Did he think asthmatics use breathalyzers?

He really was cynically hypocritical in using Evangelicals to gain and keep power, while never quite giving them what they wanted, only they STILL refuse to see that.

How's the Guantanamo closing coming along? Is that going to precede or follow the civilian trial of KSM?

Jay G, I hate to interrupt ... (Below threshold)

Jay G, I hate to interrupt you when you're rolling, but please -- put down the chainsaw. This ain't your blog, and YOU won't have to clean up the carpets.

J.

Sorry, Jay Tea. I'm hot und... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

Sorry, Jay Tea. I'm hot under the collar today, and this issue in particular honks me off. It's like liberals live on Planet Dumbassia, where everything is the opposite of reality.

Anyway, I apologize again. I would say "it won't happen again," but realistically, that would be a lie. I will say "I'll do my best not to let it happen again." Fair enough?

Bruce Henry: "So, Drago, yo... (Below threshold)
Drago:

Bruce Henry: "So, Drago, you want me to believe, as you apparently do, that during the 1980s, when they were being bled to death in Afghanistan, and outspent 100 to 1 by the brave superspender (and superborrower) Saint Ronald Reagan, that the Soviets were implementing their heinous and devious plan to colonize the Caribbean? Sure they were."

Nuclear grade stupid.

I don't care what you believe.

I see you have to "move the goalposts" with the key word "colonize".

Note that no one else used that word.

But you have to in order to create the strawman argument you can win.

But your side lost the political argument then, and your losing it now.

So the genesis of your angry outbursts is well understood.

Bruce the moron: "And it was only coincidence that the invasion just HAD to be carried out 3 days after the Marines got blown up."

It probably could have waited for another day or two. Perhaps a week.

But the key driving factor was the completion and stationing of Soviet long-range patrol aircraft.

Once that was in place, it would have made the invasion a much greater political problem.

For Reagan. Not for the left. Since the left then, and now, supports the objectives of America's enemies.

Don't get me started with how dem speaker of the House Jim Wright coordinated legislation (Boland Amendments - All 3 versions) with Ortega's political efforts.

Bruce really is bringing the stupid today.

That Time Magazine article must really be getting under the skin of the idiot lefties.

BTW bruce, are you enjoying your Bush Tax Rate extension?

Are you enjoying how obambi has embraced supply side economics?

Better get back under the bus loser.

I never thought I'd say this, but obambi was correct when he said the left was sanctimonious.

Sanctimonious.

That's you all over bruce.

And if you disagree, you sir, are a racist.

Poor Bruce.He hasn... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Poor Bruce.

He hasn't figured out yet that Winston Smith's 1984 memory hole wasn't something that would actually work. The internet doesn't forget, and the left doesn't control the search engines or actual infrastructure - much as they might love to.

So the facts are still out there, for people to see and evaluate on their own. This sucks, if you're dependent on spin to make sure that the facts are interpreted the way YOU want them to be.

Drago and Guevara:... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Drago and Guevara:

"Colonize" was hyperbole, genius, not goalpost-moving.

Your links don't work. Well, two of them don't. The one that does talks about Howard Zinn, not Reagan or Obama. Turns out Howard Zinn was a communist, and -gasp- denied it in the 1950s! Scrolling up, I went over your Wiki link. Nothing there about Grenada, unless I missed it.

I think your justification for the Grenada invasion is after-the-fact horseshit, much like the stuff that turns up on the trusty Internet every so often claiming that WMDs HAVE been found in Iraq after all, or claiming to have indisputable proof they were moved to Syria.

And even if the Grenada invasion was totally justified, as you laughably claim, what about Reagan hightailing it out of Beirut, never to return to exact revenge or get justice for our Marines? Could it be that Hezbollah, seeing that John Wayne, er, I mean Ron Reagan, had no intention of doing ANYTHING in response to a terrorist attack, was emboldened to do some more of 'em? Nah, couldn't be

By the way, calling Reagan "Saint" is evidence of snarky unAmerican disrespect for a great President, but calling Obama an "Indonesian shithead" is clever satirical repartee, huh? What a tool.

But I admit, two Einsteins posting walls of spittle-flecked text is a lot to deal with on a weekend. Just let me close by asking you this: Did you guys even READ the TIME article? It seemed to me to be a piece telling us how Obama wishes he could emulate Reagan's style, not in any way a claim that Reagan would endorse any of Obama's policies.

Jay Guevara,I'm pr... (Below threshold)
Jeff Blogworthy:

Jay Guevara,

I'm probably about to offend, but here goes. You have a seriously distorted view of history. It is probably due to the whitewashed statist propaganda narrative that keeps getting repeated through the years, coupled with your "team" ideology (your team being Republican).

The symplistic narrative is this:

Righteous, enlightened, antislavery, Republican North beats down racist, hick, KKK, insurrectionist, Democrat South because... they deserve it. They had slaves and, of course, the North did not.

Propaganda for third-graders. The truth is far more interesting and complex. In brief:

Forget slavery for a bit. It is a political football. The War between the States was not about slavery, as much a people like to think so.

Forget about Republican v. Democrat. This too is overly simplistic. It is not about that. It is about Hobbes v. Locke; Hamilton v. Jefferson; Statism v. Self rule. Till you understand those things, you will never get it.

The primary source of division between North/South was economic. The center of government power and wealth was in the manufacturing-based North. The North unfairly used its position to enforce harsh tariffs which economically plundered the agrarian South. The South got sick and tired of it, leading to secession. This is what started the Civil War.

The Rebublicans/Whigs of Lincolns day were statists. They wanted the strongest central government possible and were willing to ruthlessly crush anyone who stood in their way. No dissent would be tolerated. Before the Civil War, it was understood that states were sovereign entities whose right it was to resist tyranny by the federal government. Lincoln settled the argument at the end of a gun and the point of a bayonet. End of discussion.

If you want to know how and why the federal government has asserted unlimited powers and turned the states into beggars, look to Lincoln. The states now have virtually zero power to resist federal tyranny. Soon, the fiscally responsible states will have to bear the cost of failure of the left-leaning plunderers of the people: NY, CA, NJ, etc. Thank Lincoln for that too. He destroyed the Constitution in order to "save the Union." Now it is "the Union" who will bear the brunt of rogue states irresponsibility, since state sovereignty is destroyed and there is zero economic incentive for restraint when the leftists aholes know they can get a "bailout."

Lincoln shut down newspapers, threw Northern dissenters in jail, and issued an arrest warrant for a Chief Justice after he gave an opinion Lincoln did not like, just for starters. Is this not reminiscent of recent efforts at internet and talk-radio restrictions? In a just world, Lincoln would be recognized for the despotic monster that he was. But, as they say, the victors get to write the history.

People change, parties change, movements change. Pledging unyielding allegiance to one will get you in trouble.

Bruce: "Drago and Guevara:"... (Below threshold)
Drago:

Bruce: "Drago and Guevara:"Colonize" was hyperbole, genius, not goalpost-moving."

BS.

You used that word intentionally in order to avoid the reality of the Soviets attempting to increase their influence in the caribbean for many different geo-political reasons.

Bruce: "I think your justification for the Grenada invasion is after-the-fact horseshit,,."

It's clear that you don't have the first clue about what you're commenting upon.

None.

So your opinion is useless, much like yourself.

Bruce: "And even if the Grenada invasion was totally justified as you laughably claim,.."

There you go again bozo.

I never said the "invasion was totally justified". Just like the typical lefty you are, you can't engage on what is being stated, so you create more strawmen.

It's difficult to engage someone when your reading comprehension skills are that undeveloped.

But by all means, feel free to point out where I said the US action in Grenada was "totally justified".

We'll all wait while you make up some more BS to fling around to hide the fact that you're a liar.

Bruce: "what about Reagan hightailing it out of Beirut, never to return to exact revenge or get justice for our Marines?"Could it be that Hezbollah, seeing that John Wayne, er, I mean Ron Reagan, had no intention of doing ANYTHING in response to a terrorist attack, was emboldened to do some more of 'em? Nah, couldn't be."

This was significant tactical failure of Reagans, in my opinion, and actions taken on the periphery of the war against terrorists could never make up for the appearance of weakness that Reagan allowed to be conveyed with that rapid withdrawal.

The politics and military discussion behind the decisions to put US military personnel into Beirut and the resultant reaction to rapidly withdraw them after the bombing was the prime subject for much very hot debate for many years between opposing schools of thought, even within the military.

But the moronic idea that in a global battle against foes of differing political stripes, capabilities and intentions, that actions in each theatre of those conflicts (note the plural) have to have a direct impactd upon actions in other theatres is ludicrous.

But then again, I doubt you've ever engaged in much strategizing and planning of potential military operations within the constraints of defined scenarios.

Your ignorance is patently obvious, which makes your "pronouncements of facts" based on nothing more than your opinions "amusing".

Bruce: "By the way, calling Reagan "Saint" is evidence of snarky unAmerican disrespect for a great President, but calling Obama an "Indonesian shithead" is clever satirical repartee, huh? What a tool.

Bruce: "Just let me close by asking you this: Did you guys even READ the TIME article?"

And, very much unlike you, I simply look at the facts on the ground to determine, in my mind, if obama is attempting to reposition himself as "Reagan-like".

Given obama's embrace of the Bush tax rate extension, his public discussion of decreasing the corporate tax rates (though with an idea toward broadening the corporate tax base and removing current corporate tax loopholes), his hilarious attempts to paint himself as some sort of fiscal hawk, well then, yes, it is clear that obama is rejecting (on a PR level at least) the sanctimonious caterwalling of lefties like you in order to position himself properly for 2012.

Duh.

Go away and come back after you've read something.....(though I don't think reading Chomsky will get it done)

Bruce, I was thinking more ... (Below threshold)
epador:

Bruce, I was thinking more along the lines of British Beef or sheep brains.

Jay G, I wasn't really comp... (Below threshold)

Jay G, I wasn't really complaining about what you were doing, just stating that it was making a hell of a mess.

Note that my complaint about your use of a rhetorical chainsaw was only about how it was affecting the carpet, not what it was doing to Bruce...

J.

Brucie Henry comes on this ... (Below threshold)
Michael Lang:

Brucie Henry comes on this blog and makes a fool of himself time after time....why Brucie why?

"Isn't this about the ti... (Below threshold)
Oyster:

"Isn't this about the time Jay Tea shows up to tell us what a great honest lefty Bruce Henry is?"

Just to clear things up, I think youre confusing Bruce Henry and James H. Although Jay doesn't "defend" James, he does respect him.

Bruce is a whole 'nother animal.

Reagan was a complete chick... (Below threshold)
Marco Polo:

Reagan was a complete chicken shit.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/target/etc/cron.html

We suffered six years of embassy bombings plus the bombing of the Marine barracks before Reagan acted with a futile air raid. Of course the Right Wingers claimed a big victory and terrorism was ended. Except for the retaliatory revenge killings that the Arab Revolutionary Cells began carrying out the very next day.

Marco, Reagan didn... (Below threshold)
Taxpayer:

Marco,

Reagan didn't go after the Islamics because he had bigger fish to fry: The Soviets. And he fried them up very, very well as I recall.

BTW, PBS isn't exactly the paragon of unvarnished truth.

Jay, I was a bleeding-heart... (Below threshold)
Taxpayer:

Jay, I was a bleeding-heart liberal when I started college and voted in my first election in 1980. (I voted for John Anderson!) When Reagan won, I thought the apocalypse was upon us. But I learned a thing or two--and by the time I graduated in 1984, I had become a conservative and voted for Ronnie.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy