A dime's worth of tribute to Reagan

[Bowfinger]

How about we put Reagan on the quarter? Seems appropriate to associate him with two-bit.

 

[0roo0roo]

The Republican effort to replace FDR's profile on the dime with an image of Ronald Reagan may not garner the dying ex-president the praise they intend.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Dec. 5, 2003 | More than a dime's worth of difference
In their ceaseless hissy fit over a Showtime movie that almost nobody watched, certain Republicans in Congress are proposing to replace FDR's profile with an image of Ronald Reagan on the dime coin. Whether intended as reparation for an insulting TV docudrama, or as a more sinister attempt to erase all traces of liberalism from the nation's symbols, this idea may backfire nastily on its proponents.

Reagan's admirers complain how unseemly it is to criticize the former president while he is facing death. In that they have a point, whether or not their Limbaughs and Coulters would behave decently (which I doubt) were the circumstances reversed.

But if they pursue this new provocation against the memory of the greatest American president of the past century -- the leader who saved the world from fascism despite opposition from the Nazi-coddling "conservatives" of his day -- they will make a full debate about the dying Reagan's record unavoidable.

Notwithstanding the flattering mythologies that the Gipper claque has cultivated around him, Reagan would not emerge unscathed from a realistic public examination of his record. And that is particularly true today, when presidential responses to terrorism are coming under particular scrutiny.


Six weeks ago, the Marine Corps marked the anniversary of the Marine barracks suicide-bombing in Beirut that killed 241 of their comrades on October 23, 1983. Nobody doubted that terrorists backed by Iran were responsible for that attack, just as the same groups had mounted a similar assault on the U.S. Embassy that cost 63 lives the previous April.

Ronald Reagan did two things in response to those bombings. In March 1984, he pulled American troops out of Lebanon -- "cutting and running," as the Republicans might say (but rarely do). And in August 1985, he authorized the first of several secret arms shipments to Iran -- "knuckling under to terrorists," as the Republicans might say (but never do). Compounding the scandal, the proceeds from the arms sales were then used to aid "contra" rebels in Nicaragua.

Then after this outrageous crime was uncovered by a Lebanese newspaper, Reagan lied to the nation, and authorized a coverup. As the final report of the special prosecutor who investigated the Iran-contra scandal recounts:

"In the Iran initiative, President Reagan chose to proceed in the utmost secrecy, disregarding the administration's public policy prohibiting arms sales to nations supporting terrorism. He also chose to forgo congressional notification under the National Security Act and the Arms Export Control Act ... .

"When the Iran initiative was exposed on November 3, 1986, the president convened a series of meetings with his top national security advisers and permitted the creation of a false account of the Iran arms sales to be disseminated to members of Congress and the American people. These false accounts denied the president's knowledge and authorization of the initial sales from Israeli stocks of U.S.-made TOW and HAWK missiles to Iran in August, September and November of 1985 ... . Previously withheld notes by participants in the November 12 and November 24, 1986, meetings constituted evidence of an effort to cover up the true facts of the president's authorization of the 1985 Iran arms sales."

Rep. Mark Souder, the Indiana Republican who wrote the Reagan dime bill, may not be intellectually prepared for this level of argumentation. Consider how he explains the reason he chose the 10-cent coin: "Reagan was wounded ... by a bullet that had ricocheted and flattened to the size of a dime." http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2003/12/05/reagan_dime/?ref=http://www.salon.com/src/ads/powells/salon4.html

 

[mastertech01]

I think they should leave FDR on it and put Reagan on the back side. A nice two headed dime for the coin toss we the people get from our political process. Democrat on one side, Republican on the flip side. No one wins.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
The Republican effort to replace FDR's profile on the dime with an image of Ronald Reagan may not garner the dying ex-president the praise they intend.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Dec. 5, 2003 | More than a dime's worth of difference
In their ceaseless hissy fit over a Showtime movie that almost nobody watched, certain Republicans in Congress are proposing to replace FDR's profile with an image of Ronald Reagan on the dime coin. Whether intended as reparation for an insulting TV docudrama, or as a more sinister attempt to erase all traces of liberalism from the nation's symbols, this idea may backfire nastily on its proponents.

Reagan's admirers complain how unseemly it is to criticize the former president while he is facing death. In that they have a point, whether or not their Limbaughs and Coulters would behave decently (which I doubt) were the circumstances reversed.

But if they pursue this new provocation against the memory of the greatest American president of the past century -- the leader who saved the world from fascism despite opposition from the Nazi-coddling "conservatives" of his day -- they will make a full debate about the dying Reagan's record unavoidable.

Notwithstanding the flattering mythologies that the Gipper claque has cultivated around him, Reagan would not emerge unscathed from a realistic public examination of his record. And that is particularly true today, when presidential responses to terrorism are coming under particular scrutiny.


Six weeks ago, the Marine Corps marked the anniversary of the Marine barracks suicide-bombing in Beirut that killed 241 of their comrades on October 23, 1983. Nobody doubted that terrorists backed by Iran were responsible for that attack, just as the same groups had mounted a similar assault on the U.S. Embassy that cost 63 lives the previous April.

Ronald Reagan did two things in response to those bombings. In March 1984, he pulled American troops out of Lebanon -- "cutting and running," as the Republicans might say (but rarely do). And in August 1985, he authorized the first of several secret arms shipments to Iran -- "knuckling under to terrorists," as the Republicans might say (but never do). Compounding the scandal, the proceeds from the arms sales were then used to aid "contra" rebels in Nicaragua.

Then after this outrageous crime was uncovered by a Lebanese newspaper, Reagan lied to the nation, and authorized a coverup. As the final report of the special prosecutor who investigated the Iran-contra scandal recounts:

"In the Iran initiative, President Reagan chose to proceed in the utmost secrecy, disregarding the administration's public policy prohibiting arms sales to nations supporting terrorism. He also chose to forgo congressional notification under the National Security Act and the Arms Export Control Act ... .

"When the Iran initiative was exposed on November 3, 1986, the president convened a series of meetings with his top national security advisers and permitted the creation of a false account of the Iran arms sales to be disseminated to members of Congress and the American people. These false accounts denied the president's knowledge and authorization of the initial sales from Israeli stocks of U.S.-made TOW and HAWK missiles to Iran in August, September and November of 1985 ... . Previously withheld notes by participants in the November 12 and November 24, 1986, meetings constituted evidence of an effort to cover up the true facts of the president's authorization of the 1985 Iran arms sales."

Rep. Mark Souder, the Indiana Republican who wrote the Reagan dime bill, may not be intellectually prepared for this level of argumentation. Consider how he explains the reason he chose the 10-cent coin: "Reagan was wounded ... by a bullet that had ricocheted and flattened to the size of a dime." http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2003/12/05/reagan_dime/?ref=http://www.salon.com/src/ads/powells/salon4.html

Hmmm ..maybe they should ask the Iranians to put Reagans likeness on a coin!

 

[DealMonkey]

Most U.S. president's legacies look pretty rough when scrutinized under a microscope. Even casual examination reveals the Reagan presidency had more than its share of scandals. It's interesting to note that Republican Reagan-worshippers are perfectly willing to sweep the "bad stuff" under the rug. It's also interesting to note the level of complains from the right when Hollywood actors and actresses go so far as to (gasp!) criticize the war in Iraq, yet should one of them slap an "R" after their name and run for office, it's a totally different ball game.

 

[dmcowen674]

12-8-2003 Honor Reagan? Fine. Dishonor Roosevelt? No.

The latest lunacy to emanate from Congress needs to stop on a dime: literally.

Rep. Mark Souder, a Republican from Indiana, is miffed about the miniseries now airing on Showtime, a premium cable channel operated by CBS, on former President Ronald Reagan and his wife, Nancy. The miniseries portrays Reagan, who suffers from Alzheimer's, as a doddering, rather pathetic figure and his wife as a calculating, domineering manipulator.

Therefore, according to Souder's logic, Reagan should replace former President Franklin Delano Roosevelt on the dime.

Souder and other conservatives, inside and outside Congress, were outraged when CBS announced earlier this fall that it would air "The Reagans" on network TV. CBS backed off last month and sent the miniseries to Showtime, where it plays to much smaller audiences. That hardly mollified Souder and some of his colleagues in the House.

"It's what precipitated me introducing the bill ... and why it was a lot easier to get a lot of support," Souder said of the miniseries, which he termed "vile" in a letter to colleagues in support of his proposal.

Souder claims to have the support of 88 other House Republicans for his ridiculous idea. More than a dozen of them are from California, where the Reagans make their home and where Reagan is a former governor.

In his effort to rewrite history and dishonor Roosevelt, Souder trots out the "L" word in what's becoming a tiresome exercise in partisan politics.

"I believe (Reagan) represents conservative values as we would see them implemented through a president better than anybody else we've had in American history," Souder said. "He, to conservatives, represents kind of the reverse of FDR, who is kind of the liberal icon. Ronald Reagan is the conservative icon."

We "kind of" miss Souder's point and why the obscure congressman believes it's proper to replace Roosevelt on the coin.

The presidencies of Roosevelt and Reagan occurred nearly 50 years apart under circumstances that were quite different.

While Reagan helped restore some resolve to American foreign policy in the aftermath of the caution that resulted from the disastrous Vietnam War and gets credit for cracking the facade of communism, Roosevelt governed in much more dire and challenging times.

In 1933, FDR inherited a nation that was reeling from the Great Depression, which began four years earlier when the stock market crashed and set into motion the most cataclysmic economic emergency in the nation's history. From Wall Street to Main Street, panic reigned. Tens of millions of Americans watched their savings, jobs and fortunes vanish.

Roosevelt's innovative employment and economic programs, and the sweeping changes that guaranteed the financial future of older Americans with the creation of Social Security, lifted the nation out of the Depression's nightmare.

During World War II, Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill turned back the horror of Nazi Germany in North Africa and Europe and the brutal occupation of most of Asia by the Japanese in leading history's greatest and most successful coalition in the name of freedom.

While Roosevelt and Churchill were hesitant to partner with Soviet leader Josef Stalin and shortsightedly criticized for doing so, they pragmatically understood the war against Hitler could not be won without assisting the communists.

Roosevelt an icon? How else to describe a president so popular and successful he was elected to four terms as president?

We suspect that many of the Indiana voters represented by Souder were helped to no small degree by the policies that Roosevelt engineered until his death in 1945. Many of them still are beneficiaries of Roosevelt's work.

Reagan deserves an important place in history. And he has won recognition for his achievements in many ways. Ronald Reagan National Airport and the building that houses the Justice Department are named for the former president, as well as countless schools, streets, roads and bridges across America.

We respect the conservatism that Reagan personifies and the conservative values that Souder desires so passionately to honor. But removing Roosevelt from the dime is an illogical and disrespectful way to do so.

Roosevelt and Reagan both were great men and leaders. Few rise to the office of the president without the extraordinary qualities that both possessed.

We would urge Souder and his colleagues to find a less partisan and emotionally charged way to honor the accomplishments of Ronald Reagan. He deserves better than the outlandish scheme that Souder and his co-sponsors of the bill offer.