Ronald Reagan

[Rufus T. Firefly]

The really sad legacy of the Reagan regime is that it established, as a formula for electoral success, the idea that the President could just be an empty-headed pitchman for the ideas and policies of powerful interests who themselves were in no way accountable to the electorate. This had happened before -- Grant and Harding both come to mind -- but the abject failures of those presidencies always dragged us back to substance. The ongoing, outrageous celebration of Reagan's empty-suit presidency, however, means that this model of Ronald McPresident, Ideological Mascot is here to stay -- as the current administration is ably demonstrating.

[Odin]

What Rufus said.

[Winston]

@ molly bloom's quotes: The first and last ones are great, even you have to admit that!

The one about the nuclear waste I think has an obvious air of hyperbole to it, it isn't meant to be taken literally, just that the quantities of waste and pollution generated are miniscule compared to other non-renewable energy sources. And also that it isn't of much concern to him in whatever context the statement was made.

The ones about the Civil Rights act do seem a bit confusing, to say the least.

[Winston]

BTW, I happen to recall the (near) exact context and wording of the last one, it isn't about his qualifications for Governor as you implied:

The question came from a reporter following Reagan's 1966 election for the office,

-Mr. Reagan, what kind of a Governor will you be?

-I don't know, I've never played a Governor before.

[Ramo]

" I favor the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and it must be enforced at the point of a bayonet if necessary."

San Francisco Chronicle, 20th October, 1965


or did he mean:

" I would have voted AGAINST the Civil Rights Act of 1964."

L. A. Times, 17th June 1966

I heard an interesting thing the other day: Reagan opened his general election campaign in '80 at Neshoba County, MS where three civil rights workers were killed during the Freedom Summer for registering blacks to vote. He didn't say anything about said (infamous) killings, but instead invoked "states' rights."

[pchang]

As for Stinger missiles - they were not state of the art at that time. There are many versions. A new one was being introduced at that time and they got the ones that were being replaced. We also knew that they were buyring many of them for use later. However, we also knew that they had a relatively short expriation date and that after that time, they would be unguided missiles at best.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
The really sad legacy of the Reagan regime is that it established, as a formula for electoral success, the idea that the President could just be an empty-headed pitchman for the ideas and policies of powerful interests who themselves were in no way accountable to the electorate. This had happened before -- Grant and Harding both come to mind -- but the abject failures of those presidencies always dragged us back to substance. The ongoing, outrageous celebration of Reagan's empty-suit presidency, however, means that this model of Ronald McPresident, Ideological Mascot is here to stay -- as the current administration is ably demonstrating.

And the failure of the left is simply seeing Reagan's Presidency as an empty-headed pitchman at the behest of powerful interests. That sort of thinking (and the fallacy of it) got the Dems in trouble in '84 and '88 (when they ran against the legacy of Reagan). The public turned from that falsehood long, long ago.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

The weapons will last for 5 years when stored in good conditions, he had ample opportunity to use them.

yeah, do you know of any state of the art facilities in afghanistan where they could store 700 missiles in factory condition?

No one gave them chemical or biological weapons, many people had a large helping hand, such as the 500 ton precursor ingredient deal Belgium worked out with Saddam, but that was Iraqi expertise that made the weapons.

sorry cant help you if you cant read the link and realize that we gave him anthrax, mustard gas, chemical and biological weapons, and supplied him with the steel necessary to make a delivery system

[Dinner]

We didn't give Saddam any of the chemical or biological weapons. He got the stock from Europeans when he told them Iraqi universities were going to use them for medical and scientific purposes. Some missile parts we might have sold him but basics for making NBC weapons we didn't.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

i beg to differ

http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/time.html

[Whoha]

We could not have given him biological weapons since we destroyed our entire stock of such weapons in 1975. The article is misleading, and you are buying it for some reason.

And Dry/room temperature ain't hard to get to as far as storage is concerned.

[chequita guevara]

You don't have to sell weapons to sell someone the stuff to make weapons. If I sell someone botulism, I'm not selling them a bomb, but they could use it to make a bomb.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

And Dry/room temperature ain't hard to get to as far as storage is concerned.

in afghanistan???????

[Whoha]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
You don't have to sell weapons to sell someone the stuff to make weapons. If I sell someone botulism, I'm not selling them a bomb, but they could use it to make a bomb.

I stated as much that they were sold petri dishes of research materials. But that takes serious effort to turn those dishes into weapons.

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
in afghanistan???????

for an extremely wealthy Arab sure.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


And the failure of the left is simply seeing Reagan's Presidency as an empty-headed pitchman at the behest of powerful interests. That sort of thinking (and the fallacy of it) got the Dems in trouble in '84 and '88 (when they ran against the legacy of Reagan). The public turned from that falsehood long, long ago.

No, the failure of the left is to imagine that all you have to do is offer substance and people will flock to you; this is the same reason that the left is continually surprised that no one listens to NPR or watches PBS.

Reagan was an empty suit, and he was the frontman for powerful interests whose complexities he couldn't be bothered to understand -- and probably couldn't understand, even if he could be bothered. That he had popular support doesn't reflect well on him but rather poorly on the people.

Now, if you want to say that that attitude about "the people" is what's wrong with leftists, including myself, I'd be inclined to agree.