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]

Originally Posted by 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).

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.

Originally Posted by Tom

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[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.