• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Conservatives, I'd like a few moments of your time...

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
2
0
We are somewhat missing the one redeeming aspect of the McClellan book, namely that it was not the President but his adviser's who were the evil ones. And by extension, McClennan somewhat says he was similarly duped.

I for one do not buy it, but I think a strong argument can be made for that case.

As for McClellan, for a fairly young man, his life is now effectively over. He will not find any welcome in the GOP camp and its doubtful that the democrats will have him either once they have sucked all of his book PR dry. He may make a small fortune off his book and in speaking engagements, but in a few years those speaking engagements will lose current relevancy, and he is likely to become a mere footnote in history. And in terms of private employment, he is likely to get the radioactive Alberto Gonzales treatment.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
0
To me this is the political version of Jose Canseco's book about steroids in MLB. When Jose was playing and juicing he was fine with hitting HR's and raking in $$$. Once he got old and unwanted he got bitter and turned 'whistle blower' with his book. Everyone questioned his motives and credibility and those identified denied it. Once the dust settled it turns out Canseco was telling the truth. I'm guessing McClellan is doing the same.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
18
81
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Originally posted by: Tab
Speaking of defending the administration, McClellan had a few words of his own in 2004 for Richard A. Clarke when the former counter-terrorism expert penned his political memoir "Against All Enemies":

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, why, all of a sudden, if he had all these grave concerns, did he not raise these sooner? This is one-and-a-half years after he left the administration. And now, all of a sudden, he's raising these grave concerns that he claims he had. And I think you have to look at some of the facts. One, he is bringing this up in the heat of a presidential campaign. He has written a book and he certainly wants to go out there and promote that book.
Source - LA Times

Is this really just another liberal witch hunt? I'm seriously confused how you can continue to support or even defend the Bush Administration or Republican Party.
Regarding McClellan's book, the reason I continue to defend the Bush administration is because liberals continue to raise the same accusations, which I believe to be born more of spite than actual substance.
McClellan's now a liberal because he's critical of the Bush admin?? His book bascially confirms exactly what liberals have been complaining about for 8 years, meaning they were right, meaning there was substance regardless of spite, assuming you take Scotty at his word.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: Tab
-snip-
Is this really just another liberal witch hunt? I'm seriously confused how you can continue to support or even defend the Bush Administration or Republican Party.
I am also confused as to what point you are trying to make here. You demonstarte McClellan's hypocracy (now that he is out of office and all-but forgotten) and then by some extention of sorts you charge that this discredits the GWB admin and all Repubs?

I suppose you feel the same about Dems as one of them has been caught hiding bribe money in his freezer at home?

Otherwise, IMO the GWB admin can take care of itself as far discrediting itself and needs no (fictional) assistance from SM.

Originally posted by: Lemon law
We are somewhat missing the one redeeming aspect of the McClellan book, namely that it was not the President but his adviser's who were the evil ones. And by extension, McClennan somewhat says he was similarly duped.

I for one do not buy it, but I think a strong argument can be made for that case.

I suppose it redeeming in the sense he isn't throwing GWB under the bus, just the rest of the gang. Apparently he was real angry about the Plame affair, particularly with Rove. Otherwise I feel his *story* supports the contention by many that GWB is a puppet and Cheny is really the "Decider" ;)

As for McClellan, for a fairly young man, his life is now effectively over. He will not find any welcome in the GOP camp and its doubtful that the democrats will have him either once they have sucked all of his book PR dry. He may make a small fortune off his book and in speaking engagements, but in a few years those speaking engagements will lose current relevancy, and he is likely to become a mere footnote in history. And in terms of private employment, he is likely to get the radioactive Alberto Gonzales treatment.

Sounds to me like his carrer was already over. Others in the GWB admin (even those who've left well after him) all have lucrative jobs; e.g., Rove at Fox or wherever. Sounds like he's been unemployed since leaving. Look at the other former ex press people - Deedee Myers and a whole slew of others whose names I'm forgetting ATM.

Seems he was not thought highly of, and I've been hearing a lot about his (perceived) lack of ability from the left & right. Basically, another example of GWB not being able to choose highly competent people (cough cough Alberto Gonzales, Harriet Myers etc). Loyalty is necessary, but also competence and GWB has chosen poorly on many occasions. I can only assume that he is incapable of recognizing it himself.
This whole affair is odd for many reasons. I watch a lot of MSNBC (the Obama network) and CNN (the Clinton network) these days; everybody seems to be in agreement on a number of things:

1. How odd it is that SM has only now after being out of office for several years had such an epiphany? No complaints during office or even thereafter were ever made by him until now. They've been dredging up clips of him in interviews after leaving his position and it's clear he's done a 180.

2. Yeah, he looks like a disgruntled former employee, angry at being abandoned (unemployed & forgotten), writing this book now for the money. He's derided as being a profit seeking coward of sorts.

3. He makes some pretty big charges about the info leading up to the war, yet he wasn't Press Secretary then and was not invoved; how does he know WTH was going on then? This baffles many as even the Press Secretaries themselves (Ari Fleischer at the time) have never been known to be included in a lot of meetings in any admin, much less an under-Secretary tasked with domestic issues at the time.

4. His claims for the reason we went to war go beyond neocon philosophy all the way to utopian. That's a new one and has many interested and/or confused. Personally, this intrigues the heck out of me.

5. Who *wrote* his book? He's said not to be able to converse intelligibly or in full sentances (hanging around with the Bush's too much?). More of the "this doesn't sound like SM" or "puzzlemet" remarks we hear from everyone including people like David Gregory (WH correspondant for MSNBC IIRC).

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

Personally, while he's making himself a persona non grata in the Repub party, IMO he's soaking the Dems for his nest egg as they will be the ones who snap this book up. I hear it's #1 on Amazon already.

Hooweee, G*d D*mn did Hillary catch a break with the timing of this. Up till now it was all about her "assasination" remark. Blew that sh!t right off the networks.

What *shoe* is gonna drop next in this campaign? November is several political lifetimes away.

Edit for bolding booboo

Fern
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
18
81
Fern, why are you so angry! :)

Amazon.com Sales Rank: #1 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)
Popular in these categories: (What's this?)

#1 in Books > Nonfiction > Social Sciences > Political Science > United States > Executive Branch
#1 in Books > History > United States > 21st Century
#1 in Books > History > Americas


I don't think he'll have to sell his daughter's pony just yet. I noted there were about 30 reviews already posted even though it's not out yet.
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
11,968
1,307
126
Originally posted by: Fern
* * *
5. Who *wrote* his book? He's said not to be able to converse intelligibly or in full sentances (hanging around with the Bush's too much?). More of the "this doesn't sound like SM" or "puzzlemet" remarks we hear from everyone including people like David Gregory (WH correspondant for MSNBC IIRC).
* * *
Fern
A White House press secretary needs only three job skills:
(1) being articulate,
(2) being intellectually nimble, ie, can think on his feet, and
(3) be able to speak persuasively (ie, spread BS like it is gospel truth).

I cannot conceive of any White House, even GWB, hiring a spokesman who is not able to converse intelligently or in full sentences. That is, simply put, a ridiculously preposterous charge.

 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: Thump553
Originally posted by: Fern
* * *
5. Who *wrote* his book? He's said not to be able to converse intelligibly or in full sentances (hanging around with the Bush's too much?). More of the "this doesn't sound like SM" or "puzzlemet" remarks we hear from everyone including people like David Gregory (WH correspondant for MSNBC IIRC).
* * *
Fern
A White House press secretary needs only three job skills:
(1) being articulate,
(2) being intellectually nimble, ie, can think on his feet, and
(3) be able to speak persuasively (ie, spread BS like it is gospel truth).

I cannot conceive of any White House, even GWB, hiring a spokesman who is not able to converse intelligently or in full sentences. That is, simply put, a ridiculously preposterous charge.
It's being made all over the place.

I myself cannot recall SM being very successful with items 1-3. David Gergan, Ari Fleischer and Deedee Myers were all better IMO.

The esteem others have held him in just might be reflected in the fact he didn't get a cushy job like others when he left.

Fern
 

BMW540I6speed

Golden Member
Aug 26, 2005
1,055
0
0
The McClellan expose reveals the same shocking truth that previous Bush insiders (DiIulio, O'Neil, Clark, etc.) have told:

There is no policy apparatus in the Bush regime. All effort is directed towards political activity. In essence, the United States of America has existed without a government for the entire tenure of the Bush "presidency."

In the case of the Bush regime, "political activity" is synonymous with manufacturing lies. One should need no further explanation of why things have become so hopelessly screwed up, or why the Bush regime succeeds in making Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon models of propriety by comparison. At least they were trying to govern. Bush and his courtiers are only concerned with giving the appearance of governance while they loot the treasury.

On the other hand, it is a cheap and easy shot for McClellan to jump on the one band wagon - blame the media. It's a great game, and everybody plays it well, even the media.

But it's a complete and total game. The sad, unfortunate reality is that we get the media we deserve. The idea that it was only the media and Bush that were all gung ho for war, is exactly the kind of revionist BS that has created the problem we are in - nobody is responsible, but everybody knows who to blame. Nobody was worried about the obvious false hoods leading up the war, and the obvious duplicity of it.

So Scott McClellan wants us all to blame the media while he was up at that podium lying to us day in and day out does he? hmmm, good for him. It was under Scott McClellans watch that I personally came to ignore ALL statements from the White House. The level of obvious lie had grown to great to stomach. I was getting my information about McClellans statements from the same media you were.

The same people that want us to believe they aren't responsible, and it's all someone elses fault, are the same people that watched the lie of the perpetually rising house market and cheered that on. And they are just as hard to find now as the Iraq war supporters.

The real problem with America is that Americans don't want to think about anything, they don't want to hear 'bad news', they don't want to be told anything that will burst their bubble. They want to keep believing that they are 'exceptional', 'superior', 'blessed by God'. And, in their glorious, superiority, they absolutely love beliving in one damn fool thing after another, whether it be the perpetually rising house price, or that gasoline will never be expensive, or that Ronald Reagan was a saint, that the Republican Party has never been involved in Criminal Conspiracy against the United States of America, but most of all they love a good blame fest, in fact the only really good blame fest is one where we get to invade some foreign country and kill a lot brown people, or spend trillions of dollars on prisons to lock up all those scary drug users - but not our rich white president and his daughters oh no (that is scary talk, can't say that), and a really good blame fest involves shipping weaponry overseas to prop up worthless petty dictators, and when our lust for war abates for just a moment, we discover that we have fucked things up.






 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
-snip-
On the other hand, it is a cheap and easy shot for McClellan to jump on the one band wagon - blame the media. It's a great game, and everybody plays it well, even the media.
You're right. I left that out of my post, forgot about it.

Cheap shot IMO. They can prod, ask questions and in some cases follow up with some level of independant investigation. But national security stuff? Good Luck.

The MSM can't lord over the CIA, Saddam and Exec Branch etc. That's Congress's job. They've got the security clearences, access and authority. Under the *Checks & Balances* system as designed this type stuff is their responsibility. I don't recall the Founding Fathers mentioning the MSM in the Constitutional provisions regarding checks & balances.

Oddly enough, I've heard some in MSM confess to their guilt in this :roll: Taking responsibility for not uncovering that there wre no WMD, as if they should've interviewed Sadam to get the bottom of the matter.

Seems ol Scotty blames everybody but himself & GWB.

Fern
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
18
81
Originally posted by: Fern
Oddly enough, I've heard some in MSM confess to their guilt in this :roll: Taking responsibility for not uncovering that there wre no WMD, as if they should've interviewed Sadam to get the bottom of the matter.
I think they are more concerned with how complacent they became at WH press conferences post 9/11 and how they didn't put a full court press on the admin's story. I doubt if doing so would have stopped the war, but if someone investigated the funneling of intel and wondered where the contrary reports were going back then, there might have been a little more discussion. But everyone was afraid of being called a terrorist sympathizer, and the "you're with us or against us" rhetoric was already in full swing.

Seems ol Scotty blames everybody but himself & GWB.
Well let's not judge too hastily seeing as how we haven't read the book yet. Here's some quotes from what he released so far, and it's not exactly singing either his or GWB's praises. I'd bet there will be even more critical quotes in the book itself. He clearly admires and likes W and has known him for years, so outright slamming would probably be almost impossible for him to do. I do think the greatest critique will be levied at W's staff (Cheney, Rove, Rummy, Rice). Plus he strikes me as rather weasely cowardly kinda guy.

"In my efforts on behalf of the presidential administration of George W. Bush I fell far short of living up to the kind of public servant I wanted to be."

"I frequently stumbled along the way and failed in my duty to myself, to the president I served, and to the American people. I tried to play the Washington game according to the current rules and, at times, didn?t play it very well. Because I didn?t stay true to myself, I couldn?t stay true to others. The mistakes were mine, and I?ve suffered the consequences."

"I believed in George W. Bush?s leadership and agenda for America, and had confidence in his authenticity, integrity, and judgment. But today the high hopes that accompanied the early days of his presidency have fallen back to earth."

"President Bush, I believe, did not consciously set out to engage in these destructive practices. But like others before him, he chose to play the Washington game the way he found it, rather than changing the culture as he vowed to do at the outset of his campaign for the presidency. And like others before him, he has engaged in a degree of self-deception that may be psychologically necessary to justify the tactics needed to win the political game."
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: sirjonk
-snip-
Well let's not judge too hastily seeing as how we haven't read the book yet.
Fair enough.

 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
71
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: Tab
-snip-
Is this really just another liberal witch hunt? I'm seriously confused how you can continue to support or even defend the Bush Administration or Republican Party.
I am also confused as to what point you are trying to make here. You demonstarte McClellan's hypocracy (now that he is out of office and all-but forgotten) and then by some extention of sorts you charge that this discredits the GWB admin and all Repubs?

I suppose you feel the same about Dems as one of them has been caught hiding bribe money in his freezer at home?
Fern
Hmm.

The point I am trying to make is everyone who leaves the GWB office and is dissatisfied a liberal/liar/opportunist/etc? It just seems rather unlikely that so many very intelligent people would put their own credibility on the line.

As for the guy with the freezer money. Umm, I'm glad he got caught? I never really read about it a whole lot because it was so cut and dry. A freezer with a shit load of cash - you can't really spin that.
 
Jun 27, 2005
19,251
1
61
Originally posted by: Tab

Topic Title: Conservatives, I'd like a few moments of your time...
Topic Summary: Concerning Scott McClellan...
Why conservaties? Dubbya isn't a conservative. He isn't running a conservative administration. So why address this thread to conservatives?

Scott wrote a book to make money. Intellectual property for profit. As a conservative, I'm cool with that.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
345
126
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Originally posted by: Tab

Topic Title: Conservatives, I'd like a few moments of your time...
Topic Summary: Concerning Scott McClellan...
Why conservaties? Dubbya isn't a conservative. He isn't running a conservative administration. So why address this thread to conservatives?
Because the people who call themselves conservatives overwhelmingly supported George Bush for president.

Many have criticized him since, as I and others predicted.

Few have admitted personal error, ironically in contrast to conservative 'principles'.

In other words, you 'conservatives' have shown you are not to be trusted with the vote. You gave us Reagan, too, and you still even think he was good in many cases.

The rest of us are getting a bit sick of watching the right-wing corporatists get elected with their enablers who think they're 'conservatives' who then say "oh we didn't mean THAT".

Until you can realize you're being manipulated, just as the religious right is being manipulated (with their leaders often part of the problem), why are you complaining?

Let people who knew Bush was bad all along pick next time.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
62,364
14,616
136
Looks like Scotty has experienced a bit of an epiphany since exiting the Bush Admin-

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...tter&wpisrc=newsletter

Which is what most so-called self-identified "conservatives" need, as well, since they've obviously been used and abused rather mercilessly. Maybe GWB&Co. are the "real" conservatives, and their fans are something else entirely, perhaps people who wanted to believe so strongly that they became easy targets... their votes being low-hanging fruit.

That's about as nice a way to put it as I can find ATM...

 

brencat

Platinum Member
Feb 26, 2007
2,170
3
76
Originally posted by: Craig234
In other words, you 'conservatives' have shown you are not to be trusted with the vote. You gave us Reagan, too, and you still even think he was good in many cases.

The rest of us are getting a bit sick of watching the right-wing corporatists get elected with their enablers who think they're 'conservatives' who then say "oh we didn't mean THAT".
Reagan was one of the greatest presidents ever, up there alongside FDR and Lincoln. And he had the charisma that allowed him to work with a Democratic congress and actually get things done.

Typically I know exactly who I'm voting for (though I've already admitted to you that Bush has gone off the deep end with spending), but priority #1 for me is taxes and how much money the candidate plans to take out of my wallet. Ergo...Hillary/Obama: bad, McCain: good.
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,166
603
126
Originally posted by: brencat
Originally posted by: Craig234
In other words, you 'conservatives' have shown you are not to be trusted with the vote. You gave us Reagan, too, and you still even think he was good in many cases.

The rest of us are getting a bit sick of watching the right-wing corporatists get elected with their enablers who think they're 'conservatives' who then say "oh we didn't mean THAT".
Reagan was one of the greatest presidents ever, up there alongside FDR and Lincoln. And he had the charisma that allowed him to work with a Democratic congress and actually get things done.

Typically I know exactly who I'm voting for (though I've already admitted to you that Bush has gone off the deep end with spending), but priority #1 for me is taxes and how much money the candidate plans to take out of my wallet. Ergo...Hillary/Obama: bad, McCain: good.
I wouldn't put FDR up there with Reagan and Lincoln, seeing as he threw over 100,000 Japanese into internment camps. I'm sure Craig will have an excuse for that one though, just give it some time.
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
71
Originally posted by: brencat
Originally posted by: Craig234
In other words, you 'conservatives' have shown you are not to be trusted with the vote. You gave us Reagan, too, and you still even think he was good in many cases.

The rest of us are getting a bit sick of watching the right-wing corporatists get elected with their enablers who think they're 'conservatives' who then say "oh we didn't mean THAT".
Reagan was one of the greatest presidents ever, up there alongside FDR and Lincoln. And he had the charisma that allowed him to work with a Democratic congress and actually get things done.

Typically I know exactly who I'm voting for (though I've already admitted to you that Bush has gone off the deep end with spending), but priority #1 for me is taxes and how much money the candidate plans to take out of my wallet. Ergo...Hillary/Obama: bad, McCain: good.
Are you serious? :confused:
 
Jun 27, 2005
19,251
1
61
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Originally posted by: Tab

Topic Title: Conservatives, I'd like a few moments of your time...
Topic Summary: Concerning Scott McClellan...
Why conservaties? Dubbya isn't a conservative. He isn't running a conservative administration. So why address this thread to conservatives?
Because the people who call themselves conservatives overwhelmingly supported George Bush for president.

Many have criticized him since, as I and others predicted.

Few have admitted personal error, ironically in contrast to conservative 'principles'.

In other words, you 'conservatives' have shown you are not to be trusted with the vote. You gave us Reagan, too, and you still even think he was good in many cases.

The rest of us are getting a bit sick of watching the right-wing corporatists get elected with their enablers who think they're 'conservatives' who then say "oh we didn't mean THAT".

Until you can realize you're being manipulated, just as the religious right is being manipulated (with their leaders often part of the problem), why are you complaining?

Let people who knew Bush was bad all along pick next time.
:shocked: Are you serious? Elitist much? Are you going to sit there and ignore all the nut-jobs that liberals have elected over the years to national public office?

Sure, conservatives were lured in by the whole conservative concept that Dubbya put forth. Yup.. we were fooled. I've said many times what a crap president he turned into. But given the alternative who else was a conservative going to vote for? It's not like people like you would ever vote for anyone who didn't sound off on your ideals. His second election wasn't so much about conservatism as it was about that elitist goofball Kerry. I don't know if you can blame conservatives as a whole considering all the independents who had to vote for him to get him elected twice.

Reagan was a good president. AND he was not the product of conservatives alone. If you'll recall, he won two of the biggest landslide elections in US history. Ever heard of a Reagan Democrat? Conservatives didn't pick Reagan... Everyone picked Reagan.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
345
126
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Originally posted by: Tab

Topic Title: Conservatives, I'd like a few moments of your time...
Topic Summary: Concerning Scott McClellan...
Why conservaties? Dubbya isn't a conservative. He isn't running a conservative administration. So why address this thread to conservatives?
Because the people who call themselves conservatives overwhelmingly supported George Bush for president.

Many have criticized him since, as I and others predicted.

Few have admitted personal error, ironically in contrast to conservative 'principles'.

In other words, you 'conservatives' have shown you are not to be trusted with the vote. You gave us Reagan, too, and you still even think he was good in many cases.

The rest of us are getting a bit sick of watching the right-wing corporatists get elected with their enablers who think they're 'conservatives' who then say "oh we didn't mean THAT".

Until you can realize you're being manipulated, just as the religious right is being manipulated (with their leaders often part of the problem), why are you complaining?

Let people who knew Bush was bad all along pick next time.
:shocked: Are you serious? Elitist much? Are you going to sit there and ignore all the nut-jobs that liberals have elected over the years to national public office?

Sure, conservatives were lured in by the whole conservative concept that Dubbya put forth. Yup.. we were fooled. I've said many times what a crap president he turned into. But given the alternative who else was a conservative going to vote for? It's not like people like you would ever vote for anyone who didn't sound off on your ideals. His second election wasn't so much about conservatism as it was about that elitist goofball Kerry. I don't know if you can blame conservatives as a whole considering all the independents who had to vote for him to get him elected twice.

Reagan was a good president. AND he was not the product of conservatives alone. If you'll recall, he won two of the biggest landslide elections in US history. Ever heard of a Reagan Democrat? Conservatives didn't pick Reagan... Everyone picked Reagan.
It's not worth responding to a post that throws around the word 'elitist' for holding people accountable for making a disastrous choice for president.

IMO, liberals haven't ever elected or even nominated a 'nutjob' for president, while the Republicans repeatedly have. Below that office, you can find problematic people for both.

You talk about who conservatives could possibly have voted for given the choices, as if they *had* to choose the disaster who said a few things they like over Gore and Kerry. That's somewhat the problem you have, the fact that those voters were unable to see the fact that Gore and Kerry were far better choices because of their ideological blinders and inability to see Bush's using them for what it was.

I'll bet you can see it a lot more clearly when it comes to Bush's using the religious right; in exchange for his dropping a few code words in speeches and acting proud to be 'one of them' he got their rabid political support (with the wheels greased by some payola for the church leaders through 'faith-based' programs). But while you can see it more clearly with them, it's the same technique with 'conservatives'.

As for what kind of president Reagan was, he was terrible. He appointed evil, bad, and/or incompetent people who did bad things. The environment suffered under James Watt, our legal protections suffered under Edwin Meese, our foreign policy suffered under William Casey and others.

His presidency was responsible for the first skyrocketing deficits where apparent prosperity and therefore political popularity for the moment was charged on a credit card against the future financial health of the nation; his presidency set new lows in many ways for our nation partnering with the worst death squads and many terrorists in the world, from the nun-raping and murdering Arch-Bishop assassinating death squads who killed thousands of innocents in El Salvador (under the oversight of scumbag Eliot Abrams, who is now back in power under George Bush), to the terrorist army we formed, the contras, who regularly assassinated local leaders and such to pressure the citizens to vote out Noriega (the very definition of terrorism) - terrorists who Reagan had the unbelievable gall to say were "the moral equivalent of our founding fathers". He damaged unions, paving the way for a decline to the middle class. We need not even go much into his administration's illegal trading of arms through Israel (creating the power for Israel to blackmail us and at least make us owe them, and big surprise, there we were with US Marines helping them invade Lebanon, until he withdrew after the bomb which killed 249). But acts such as his unjustified invasion of Grenada simply over the fear that it would set an example to other southern nations that they had choices are further wrongs.

About the only things he had going for him were his dangerously innocent-appearing grandfatherly facade to his the terrible policies, and his keeping Paul Volcker in place.

I happen to think Reagan actually had some admirable personal qualities, but I can't extend the credit to his presidency, where they don't appear much.

Reagan was yet another of the misguided righties, whose entry into politics was primarily based on his resentment of the taxes he had to pay as a movie star, with his direct entry being the issue of his recording a speech album arguing against the creation of Medicare, an issue which John Kennedy supported, and won.

He became California's governor over one issue - the outstanding Pat Brown of Caligornia's golden age was against the death penalty, a dark side of the California voters.

Reagan was too short-sighted to see Gorbachev for what he was, a revolutionary Soviet leader who opened the door for historic progress, a door Reagan slammed in his face.

Gorbachev at the time said that Regan had lost a unique historic opportunity. He did. In the meantime, Gorbachev was the great leader of the era, peacefully ending the USSR.

When the US found out to its surprise what had happened, they raced to say Reagan did it. 'Didn't Reagan criticize communism? Ya, then he was behind its end!'

He was a disaster.

Edit: How did I forget to mention as I planned Reagan's making our relations closer to Saddam at the height of his human rights violations (the same ones Republicans cite to defend the Iraq war today), and his encouraging Iran to have an aggressive war against Iran, a very evil policy leading to the longest major war of the 20th century with schoolchildren gassed and a million casualties.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY