The Reagan Legacy

[WeirdWilly]

OK, I am in no way directly comparing John McCain to Ronald Reagan.

But seeing how forcefully the hard right slams JM, I was wondering how well President Reagan would objectively hold up to their standards today.

As "In-Line" with the ideology as he was, keep in mind:

- He withdrew the troops from Beirut after the bombings. Does that make him a "cut and runner"?

- He increased funding each year for the National Endowment for the Arts

- He cut taxes early in his term, but then signed off in raising them in 1982's "Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act", which "according to a recent Treasury Department study, TEFRA alone raised taxes by almost 1 percent of the gross domestic product, making it the largest peacetime tax increase in American history."

- In 1986 amnesty and citizenship was granted to illegal aliens

In spite of this, or perhaps because of faded memories, President Reagan is held in high esteem as a "pure conservative".

Again. John McCain is no Ronald Reagan. But by the impossible standards set by the "crybaby conservatives", neither was Pres. Reagan!

[Tom]

You can't judge him with today's knowledge. Remember, the whole terrorism thing was nowehre near what it is today - we were fighting communism ( and won). The amnesty program was paved with good intentions, nothing like the BS McCan't supoport today, and it was really abused on undermined by the senate - Kennedy and McCan't amoung them.

[bigmack]

In 1986, there were about 2.5 million illegal aliens in the U.S. who Congress and the Reagan administration regarded as being “safe” – that is, not having committed serious crimes or otherwise being dangerous, and having sufficient ties to American life to be allowed to remain here. Many members of Congress, chiefly Democratic members, regarded the amnesty of these illegal aliens a sine qua non of any attempt to reform our immigration laws. Reagan recognized this, and, being the optimist that he was, saw something humane and profitable in affording this relatively small group of illegal aliens legal status.

In exchange for legal status for the group, Reagan insisted that the magnet attracting illegal aliens to the United States be removed by extinguishing any incentive for U.S. employers to hire illegal aliens. In tandem with the amnesty, Reagan campaigned for employer sanctions for hiring illegal aliens, sanctions so stringent that many at the time regarded them as draconian.

While Reagan’s 1986 immigration reforms (search) can at least be called rational, they were a failure. Today, there are between 8 million and 11 million illegal aliens in the United States. The majority of them crossed our southern border and has found employment — illegal employment, but employment nonetheless. This is attributed to Sen. Ted Kennedy’s eventual gutting of the enforcement mechanism for Reagan's employer sanctions, and successive administrations refusing to give our Border Patrol the resources it needs to achieve its mission.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/24/opinion/24meese.html

[WeirdWilly]

You can't judge him with today's knowledge. Remember, the whole terrorism thing was nowehre near what it is today - we were fighting communism ( and won).

Except for Castro, Chavez, the PRC, and now Russia is back to sabre rattling. But, for now, that's beside the point.

I've been concerned about Islamic terrorism ever since Munich 1972. Then there was Entebbe, the rise of the Ahyatolla Khomeni & the hostages, the suicide bomings and kidnappings in Beirut (I was out of the Navy by then, but my former shipmates were involved in the recovery of bodies). During our port call in Haifa, 1980, we were on a constant security alert, with IDF gunboats circling us and underwater concussion grenades going off every few minutes. Never had that anywhere else.

In High School, in 1977 we were talking about how Pakistan was pursuing nuclear weapons, and the consequences thereof.

All I can conclude is that we (as in other people, not yours truly) were, and still are, willfully blind about Islamic terrorism. Or just real dumb.

The amnesty program was paved with good intentions, nothing like the BS McCan't supoport today.

That may have been the motivation for some, but mostly it was about cheap, complient labor. Just like now.

[Tom]

The only communism that we were concerned about was Russia anf China.
I remember watching Howard Cosel cover the Munich terroist attack. But back then, no one really tought - other than you, congrats - that anything compared to the threat of Russia and thier nukes pointed at us.
I ageree, though, most to not take it seriously enough today. Wait until a dem getd in the WH - I am 100% 9-11 will be dwarfed under a dem prez.

[Snag]

Communism was/is a political idea tied to economics. Todays Islamic Terrorism is tied to a religious idea. They are not the same and should not be compared or linked. Communism dealt with threads. The Islamic Terrorism movement deals with death. We should not be short sighted and think the Islamic Terrorism movement started in '72 or even in the 1900's. We have just been exposed to it more starting with the killing in Munich on national TV.

Mr(Senator) McCain can in no way be compared to President Ronald Reagan as a conservative. I'm not sure why you thought it necessary to refer to "crybaby conservatives", WeirdWilly, unless of course if the intent of your post was to put down conservatives. If that were the case, you missed.

[WeirdWilly]

The only communism that we were concerned about was Russia anf China.
I remember watching Howard Cosel cover the Munich terroist attack. But back then, no one really tought - other than you, congrats - that anything compared to the threat of Russia and thier nukes pointed at us.
I ageree, though, most to not take it seriously enough today. Wait until a dem getd in the WH - I am 100% 9-11 will be dwarfed under a dem prez.

Bingo! And THAT;S why I support John McCain!

But even back then, I was not the only one who saw the threat. From my Step-dad to my Senior Chief, there were people talking about it. Just not a lot.

[skate]

tis another ballgame Wiilly.


to me it's not so much as "cut an run". everybody has done that at least twice in their life.

you just dont go off and sound the bugle to circle the wagons. Depends...

One point about MCCain, he wants (asfaik) to bring "War Prisoners" into the USA and in so doing, they would be given ALL material (how we were able to) on capture. not good...


Sometimes you cut and run with no harm...Sometimes there will be harm.

[JustRalph]

he is a RINO........... and a liar........... I can't say it any differently.

Hell, he freely admits to almost switching to the Dem side last year.

What more does he have to say?

[Lefty]

JR, that said, he is still better than the other side. He may or may not live up to his word to appoint conservative judges to the Supreme Court. But we know for SURE that Hillary or Obama will appoint absolute liberals to the Court.
We know he will keep up the fight against terrorism.
A non-vote for him IS a vote for the other side. To me, that's unthinkable.

[JustRalph]

I think Ann has it right here. Especially the last paragraph or two.........you will have to click on the link to read it.............

http://www.anncoulter.com/

On the litmus test issues of our time, only partially excluding Iraq, McCain is a liberal.

-- He excoriated Samuel Alito as too "conservative."

-- He promoted amnesty for 20 million illegal immigrants.

-- He abridged citizens' free speech (in favor of the media) with McCain-Feingold.

-- He hysterically opposes waterboarding terrorists and wants to shut down Guantanamo.

Can I take a breath now?

-- He denounced the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

-- He opposes ANWR and supports the global warming cult, even posturing with fellow mountebank Arnold Schwarzenegger in front of solar panels.

The only site that would have been more appropriate for Schwarzenegger in endorsing McCain would have been in front of an abortion clinic.

~more at the link~

[Lefty]

If we don't want to see Hillary in the WH it's time to pull together and get behind the nominee. Reagan didn't much like Ford but he campaigned for him. He didn't care for G.H. Bush, but he made his VP. The legacy of Reagan is we can't win staying home and electing dems by our non votes.

[ljb]

Lefty,
You are going against your leader (Rush), repercussions to follow. :D

[Tom]

Hillary may have her place in history - we has to suffer a Carter to get a Reagan. Dust off the misery index........

[Lefty]

lbj, unlike you dimcrats, I think for myself.

[Lefty]

Tom, we atre at a different, more dangerous timein History. IT is no time to cede the election to the dimcrats. 2-3 Supre,e Court Justices may be in play and those appointments are for life. And then there's the war on terror...

[Tom]

Yes, the war on terror in which McCan't refuses tro consider all fomrs of interogation and the SC, where the set up is just right for Jaun to "reach across the aisle" once again, screwing his conservative supporters in favor his own image. Sorry, I do not and will not support Juan McCan't at any level on any issue. Between Hillary and Jaun, the devil I know is more predictable. Screw Juan McCan't to hell and back.

[ljb]

lbj, unlike you dimcrats, I think for myself.
Lefty,
This is a first in the many years you have been posting. There is none on this board that have adhered to the Rush line as strongly as you. Come on Lefty, get back in line. Individual thought just doesn't fit with you. :bang:

[russowen77]

I was in Europe for much of RR presidency. I love the fighting communism poop. It was all smoke and mirrors. It wasn't well known but we and Russia were allies in East Germany. It would have taken them months, if at all, to get their readiness anywhere near where there could be a war. We weren't a whole lot better. I dealt with the Soviets a lot. We were never in any danger of going to war with Russia after Cuba. Even when we shoved their noses into like the KLA incident there was no chance of war. It was all a scam by both sides. I do miss be able to buy Stoli for a buck a litter. :)

[Lefty]

lbj, because I admire someone doesn't mean i agree with everything they say. Unlike you dimcrats who parrot all the leftwing gibberish.
Note to zilly: Please note how gibberish is really spelled.

[JustRalph]

I was in Europe for much of RR presidency. I love the fighting communism poop. It was all smoke and mirrors. It wasn't well known but we and Russia were allies in East Germany. It would have taken them months, if at all, to get their readiness anywhere near where there could be a war. We weren't a whole lot better. I dealt with the Soviets a lot. We were never in any danger of going to war with Russia after Cuba. Even when we shoved their noses into like the KLA incident there was no chance of war. It was all a scam by both sides. I do miss be able to buy Stoli for a buck a litter. :)

I believe the "war" that is referred to as the Cold War is actually much more about missiles than any ground action. I was involved with some stuff on the periphery when Reagan put those Ground Launched Cruise Missiles on the rail cars in Europe. Let me tell you, that was the straw that broke the camels back.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GLCM

[robert99]

I believe the "war" that is referred to as the Cold War is actually much more about missiles than any ground action. I was involved with some stuff on the periphery when Reagan put those Ground Launched Cruise Missiles on the rail cars in Europe. Let me tell you, that was the straw that broke the camels back.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GLCM


The GLCM missiles were completely removed by treaty from 1988-91.
Gorbachev had already evolved since 1985 the political and economic reform policies of glasnost and perestroika to move Russia forward from the stranglehold of the KGB and the military. The failed August 1991 coup by the Russian military then allowed Yeltsin the unopposed power to take the full reforms through and dismantle the USSR.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1E1-Yeltsin.html

[wonatthewire1]

There is no way that we can allow Billary to gain the WH after all the power that has been consolidated in the executive branch over the last 16 years. As Lefty said, with all that power and if she wins as decisively as people think the Dimocrats will, she will have a super mandate as that precedence was already set.

So even though McCan't is the Repug, there is no one else to vote for.

[rastajenk]

Presidents have rarely been the same person once elected as they were when they were merely candidates. Events control actions, not vice versa. So here's hoping McCain can be an able President in spite of his "maverick" persona. He's no more than my third or fourth-choice Repub, but he's certainly better than anyone on the Dem side. His liberal leanings have made him a go-to guy for the media (quick sound bites, Sunday morning discussions, etc) for a long time, and have served him well in that regard. As Prez, he will have media access whenever and wherever he wants it, and won't have to compete to keep his name out there. And that may affect whether he remains a reach-across-the-aisle guy or becomes the party leader. He seems to have Bush's support, which will count for something. I'm not planning on rolling over and letting a Dem win just because McCain doesn't share my views up and down the line.

[russowen77]

I believe the "war" that is referred to as the Cold War is actually much more about missiles than any ground action. I was involved with some stuff on the periphery when Reagan put those Ground Launched Cruise Missiles on the rail cars in Europe. Let me tell you, that was the straw that broke the camels back.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GLCM
You jumping up a bad tree. I was on the Pershing deployment team. It never passed calibration- not once. Some technocrat decided that a missle needed to manuever to be harder to hit. Yea right.

The day we started burning the damn things everybody was sitting around patting ourselves on the back about the Russians burning their SS15 when we could not have even fired ours. (not knowing where nukes are going is a bad thing n'est pas). Anyway one of the acceptance team members pipped in with---Do you think their missle was any better than ours???

BTW, the Russians had some of the SS15 on railcars. We used transporters. The only damage the P2 did was we lost some troops destroying one when the ignitor blew.

IMO, no politician will ever use nukes on a country that has them and is capable of delivering them unless the politician is a religious extremist. That would mean they-the politicians- would have to actually fight the war they started and I have seen few with the courage to do that.

I was proud of RR for one thing. Lord the money we got to waste in Germany. Took the whole battlion once to Garmish for 4 days "training" paid for by the taxpayer dime. I got to live like a federal worker for a bit. ;)

[46zilzal]

Regan made a huge increase in the national debt. That is a significant part of what he left behind.
http://www.lafn.org/politics/gvdc/Natl_Debt_Chart.html
http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm

http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/Trillion-Dollar-Politics.pdf

With spending other people's money he was anything BUT conservative.

[46zilzal]

As governor he had a special dislike for Berkeley and took it out on the entire UC system tripling our tuition as governor.
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/06/08_reagan.shtml

[Tom]

Gee, wonder why.:bang:

[46zilzal]

Gee, wonder why.

These cronnies don't like educated constituents. Ronnie the star of radio station WOC (World of Chiropractic).

Five myths about him exposed.http://hnn.us/articles/5605.html

[GaryG]

The last I heard about U C Berkeley was that they were getting too many Asians. They wanted more blacks and hispanics and were going to try and tip the scales with affirmative action. Admitting the most qualified students just doesn't make sense in the People's Republic of Berserkley. Triple the tuition?....screw em, that was not enough.

[delayjf]

It never passed calibration- not once. Some technocrat decided that a missle needed to manuever to be harder to hit. Yea right.
Did the Soviets know that??

The cold war was also about Soviet Expansion and it influence on the rest of the world.

[robert99]

Who knows what the Russians knew or even if they cared.
Totalitarian states don't react on any humanistic level.
They had enough spies and highly placed military contacts in the West to know what they needed to know.

Perhaps the McCarthy era and all that followed were the real threat to USA in the battle of ideologies, according to the thoughts of Carvello:

"The dominant discourse in the mainstream media, show business and universities in the USA today is so frankly anti-American that it is only in details of style - if that - that it can be distinguished from the defamation campaigns undertaken by the USSR in the 50s and 60s. The American elite boasts of having won the Cold War, but it seems as if it was dominated psychologically by the vanquished enemy and wound up believing everything the enemy said against it. The posthumous vengeance of the Soviets gleams in the pages of the New York Times, at prime time on CBS, and in the films by Michael Moore and George Clooney with a splendor that not even Willi Muenzenberg, the genius of communist disinformation, would have dared dream of."

[delayjf]

Who knows what the Russians knew or even if they cared.
Totalitarian states don't react on any humanistic level.
Well, if they knew that our Missiles were junk or didn't care, would they have spent themselves into economic ruin.

It's easy now to look at the Cold War an shrug it off like it was nothing. But the purges of the Chinese / Soviets were real. The Korean War was real. Those missiles in Cuba were real. The Iron curtain and the oppression of the Soviet Government was real. As was communist expansion into SE Aisa, Central America, Africa. The past few generations have lived in prosperous times and have enjoyed the US's current position as the dominant Super Power. But it wasn't always like that.

[russowen77]

Well, if they knew that our Missiles were junk or didn't care, would they have spent themselves into economic ruin.

It's easy now to look at the Cold War an shrug it off like it was nothing. But the purges of the Chinese / Soviets were real. The Korean War was real. Those missiles in Cuba were real. The Iron curtain and the oppression of the Soviet Government was real. As was communist expansion into SE Aisa, Central America, Africa. The past few generations have lived in prosperous times and have enjoyed the US's current position as the dominant Super Power. But it wasn't always like that.
That is exactly what they did--spend themselves into economic ruin--they were communist for christs sake. What did you think, that they were going to be efficent.:lol: Get to Google Earth pro and look at Odessa. Lots of floating rust buckets will give you good visuals.

We had deeper pockets is all. For example , any of you remember the DIVAD. We spent ten billion dollars for a weapon system that was supposed to marry a 40mm Bofors, with an F16 radar, to old M48 tank hull. 10 billion for what ended up being a single unit because it never worked. The general that kept pushing it retired and went straight to work at big bucks for the contractor. --Yea we were really frugal with our money.

The Cuban missle crisis was Kennedy and was triggered by our having nukes in Turkey right on the Russian border.

I was stupid enough to believe the old expansion BS and was the main reason I am a nam Vet. I actually bought into the Domino theory. Something for which I am very ashamed. One flight over SE Asian territory and it was easy to see it was pure BS.

[46zilzal]

I was stupid enough to believe the old expansion BS and was the main reason I am a nam Vet. I actually bought into the Domino theory. Something for which I am very ashamed. One flight over SE Asian territory and it was easy to see it was pure BS.
Then Iraq should bring back a lot of memories....

[russowen77]

Then Iraq should bring back a lot of memories....
Been there done that also. I was actually in Iraq for a few days before I went to Vietnam but not as a combatant naturally. I have no clue why we did that one except of course that ol Saddahm tried to kill Bush Sr once. Who knows.

[PaceAdvantage]

I have no clue why we did that one except of course that ol Saddahm tried to kill Bush Sr once. Who knows.Iraq was an easy target, at a time when we needed a few easy targets. Plain and simple.

[russowen77]

I am afraid nothing about this world is simple to me. I have seen a bunch of it and I am not too sure why humans get all egotistical about themselves.

[robert99]

Well, if they knew that our Missiles were junk or didn't care, would they have spent themselves into economic ruin.

It's easy now to look at the Cold War an shrug it off like it was nothing. But the purges of the Chinese / Soviets were real. The Korean War was real. Those missiles in Cuba were real. The Iron curtain and the oppression of the Soviet Government was real. As was communist expansion into SE Aisa, Central America, Africa. The past few generations have lived in prosperous times and have enjoyed the US's current position as the dominant Super Power. But it wasn't always like that.

The thread is about what Reagan achieved or did not achieve.
The USSR military and KGB were all powerful and totally focussed on the cold war to the total detriment of the people and investment in normal industry. It was unsustainable so Gorbachev etc realised that they had to pull back or self disintegrate. The Russians had to do this themselves in as orderly a manner as possible and it was only indirectly due to outside influences.

The GLCM missiles were completely removed by treaty from 1988-91.
Gorbachev had already evolved since 1985 the political and economic reform policies of glasnost and perestroika to move Russia forward from the stranglehold of the KGB and the military. The failed August 1991 coup by the Russian military then allowed Yeltsin the unopposed power to take the full reforms through and dismantle the USSR.

I know exactly what it was like - living in the middle of it all. We died whichever side fired the nuclear missiles. UK was near bankrupt fighting WW1, with a generation of young men dead, shell shocked or crippled or blind, and totally bankrupt fighting WW2 so we also know the total folly of "winning" wars, or the delusions of being a superpower.

[delayjf]

We had deeper pockets is all. For example , any of you remember the DIVAD. We spent ten billion dollars for a weapon system that was supposed to marry a 40mm Bofors, with an F16 radar, to old M48 tank hull. 10 billion for what ended up being a single unit because it never worked. The general that kept pushing it retired and went straight to work at big bucks for the contractor. --Yea we were really frugal with our money.

Hey, no ones denying the waste that goes on in the Pentagon. Just look at the Osprey program or look at how much money was spent on the cancelled A-12. But not all of the loss is at Gov expense. Northrop developed an lost over a billion on the F-20 tiger shark.

None of this means the Cold War was not a reality.

[russowen77]

Folks get to read what politicians or generals think about the situations. Russian officers were big on giving themselves medals but they had an Army of draftees (that would have fought like sin if attacked), many of whom did not speak Russian very well and would have not been real interested in attaacking another country. The mind set is completely different.

I used to service one site in the 2k zone where they had cut the fence and kept a volleyball net close by. If niether side had any company they would they would take it down and play each other. Vodka and ciggarettes were the main exchanges--oh well -Playboy also. My point is that we didn't hate each other and since we and they sent obsevers to all the war games played by both sides there was lots of contact. It was a big game by and large.

What would be the point to go to war there now. If nukes were used you couldn't use the ground and the same with chems except the reason there would have been too many civilian dead to dispose of and the area would become one big toxic waste zone. Unlike the desert chems would work real well there. I think the reason the left some of Kdam in Berlin intact was so they would never forget what was at stake and that was old tech.

[russowen77]

Hey, no ones denying the waste that goes on in the Pentagon. Just look at the Osprey program or look at how much money was spent on the cancelled A-12. But not all of the loss is at Gov expense. Northrop developed an lost over a billion on the F-20 tiger shark.

None of this means the Cold War was not a reality.
The Cold War was a reality. Politicians on both sides milked it for all it was worth. I am just saying it was not going to turn hot.

You would not be talking about fighting in the jungle or desert or anything. The last war officers really fought with a few exceptions was WWII. They and there families would have been the first to fall. Poor old Belgium would be clobbered again. Don't ever believe anyone who says it is harder to send someone into war than to actually go. I promise you it is not.

[skate]

Lefty,
This is a first in the many years you have been posting. There is none on this board that have adhered to the Rush line as strongly as you. Come on Lefty, get back in line. Individual thought just doesn't fit with you. :bang:


OH oh oh, that's soooooooooo funny.

lbj is gonna give us a thought, all by herself this time.:lol:

[Lefty]

zilly, before you "rag" on anybody you should learn how to spell
C-R-O-N-I-E-S. There ya go.