Reagan’s 100th: The Liberal Tactic Is to Tell You How Ronnie Would Have Hated Today’s Conservative Opinion Leaders
Since we can’t dig him up (are we totally sure about that?), let’s celebrate his principles.
Oh, sorry — didn’t mean to be “partisan”!
As you watch the events of the day, watch for the phenomenon of “The only good conservative is a dead conservative.”
But it’s Ronald Reagan who really stands out. As we celebrate the 100th anniversary of his birth, the Gipper is enjoying yet another status upgrade among liberals. Barack Obama took a Reagan biography with him on his vacation. A slew of liberals and mainstream journalists (but I repeat myself) complimented Obama’s State of the Union address as “Reaganesque.” Time magazine recently featured the cover story “Why Obama (Hearts) Reagan.” Meanwhile, the usual suspects are rewriting the same columns about how Reagan was a pragmatist who couldn’t run for president today because he was too nice, too reasonable, too (shudder) liberal for today’s Republican party.
Now, on the one hand, there’s something wonderful about the overflowing of love for Reagan. When presidents leave office or die, their partisan affiliation fades and, for the great ones, eventually withers away. Reagan was a truly great president, one of the greatest according to even liberal historians like the late John Patrick Diggins. As you can tell from the gnashing of teeth and rending of cloth from the far Left, the lionization of Reagan is a great triumph for the Right, and conservatives should welcome more of it.
On the other hand, what is not welcome is an almost Soviet airbrushing of the past to serve liberalism’s current agenda. For starters, if liberals are going to celebrate Reagan, they might try to account for the fact that they fought his every move, alternating between derision and slander in the process. . . . [S]o much of the effort to build up conservatives of the past is little more than a feint to tear down the conservatives of the present.
Today’s example comes from left-wing cretin Eric Boehlert:
Hunch: Reagan would have been repulsed by Beck, Limbaugh, Breitbart and the rest of today’s RW hate merchants
Better hunch: Reagan would have been repulsed by Eric Boehlert.
This will happen all day. Be alert to it.
The genuine Zombie Reagan would spurn the brains of Boehlert. Not enough nutrition for any zombie.
Simon Jester (f467ce) — 2/6/2011 @ 11:54 amFor starters, if liberals are going to celebrate Reagan, they might try to account for the fact that they fought his every move, alternating between derision and slander in the process. . . . [S]o much of the effort to build up conservatives of the past is little more than a feint to tear down the conservatives of the present.
Was going to type something but this says the same thing better so will just give this a second showing.
no one you know (b66a8d) — 2/6/2011 @ 11:56 amThe NYDY doesn’t disappoint:
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2011/02/06/2011-02-06_the_real_reagan_recalled.html
brendan (925094) — 2/6/2011 @ 11:57 amLiberals are memory impaired. Ronald Reagan liked Rush Limbaugh’s radio show. As a one-time radio sportscaster, Reagan never forgot his beginnings and praised Rush’s performances. Of course, Reagan had a sense of humor and understood what Rush Limbaugh was doing. Along with memory impairment, Liberals are also humor impaired.
Longwalker (4e0dda) — 2/6/2011 @ 12:21 pmThe airbrushing is going on 24/7. Obama makes a speech about how business friendly he is then says business is now obligated to provide jobs. Reagan said “Trust but verify,” a test Obama’s speeches would fail.
Mike K (8f3f19) — 2/6/2011 @ 12:22 pmNPR has been running some variation of “Reagan’s conservatism is a Tea Party myth” stories every day for the past week!
A more accurate story line would be “We reviled and insulted him and accused him of every despicable crime imaginable, including wanting to bring on the apocalypse, but now that our hero Obama has a chance to try to associate himself with him on his 100th birthday, we are hypocritcally pretending we admired him like most other Amercians always did.”
sherlock (62f2cf) — 2/6/2011 @ 12:28 pm__________________________________________
if liberals are going to celebrate Reagan, they might try to account for the fact that they fought his every move
I notice some on the left will cite Iran-Contra as a big flaw of the Reagan administration. Yea, that moment was a blunder, but the irony is that it was due to left-leaning sentiments in Reagan getting the better of him. And so he regrettably went against his own better judgment and wisdom — his own publicly stated declaration of never negotiating with hostage-taking nations — and did a Jimmy-Carter routine by secretly meeting with Iranian thugocrats.
Liberal biases inevitably lead to dumb outcomes, regardless whether they emanate from (and this goes without saying) Democrats or Republicans, (and, quite obviously) liberals or conservatives.
Mark (3e3a7c) — 2/6/2011 @ 12:44 pm“Today’s example comes from left-wing cretin Eric Boehlert:”
Patterico – You owe cretins everywhere an apology for lumping Eric Boehlert in with them.
daleyrocks (479a30) — 2/6/2011 @ 1:16 pmAs disgusted I am with the media in general, this is indeed an all time low for these elitist morons. To have the audacity to insult the memory of one of the greatest Americans is bad enough. To compare this Marxist/Socialist/Anti-American ideals President with a man who loved his country, her ideals and it’s people with all his heart is a crime. Words like blasphemy come to mind, but I’m not exactly sure what word truly describes what I’m feeling at this moment.
As, in my view this man is overtly doing his best to dismantle everything President Reagan stood for and deliver our country to his Marxist handlers, I am indeed baffled as to how anyone could make a more asinine comparison than this. Very sad!
The difference between President Reagan and President Obama?
Listen to A Time for Choosing which is posted on the” Reaganite Republican “ site. It doesn’t come any better than with this example as compared to the 62 minute B.S. session of a few nights ago.
Heartfelt truth and candor compared to lies, deceit, ineptness and basically Bull S…!
Yes, it launched his career, but who could have even remotely imagine the immense GREATNESS that enveloped this man? As I said in a post yesterday, comparing the (for want of better words) “current resident” of the White House to one of the greatest Presidents and Americans of our time is a crime!
joetote (77a6a6) — 2/6/2011 @ 1:18 pmYou know it must be bad for Obama when he has to channel Reagan and blow smoke up Oreilly’s ass on a network that’s not even real news. Just ask Herr Gibbels.
kansas (1fc602) — 2/6/2011 @ 1:58 pmObumble was interviewed by OReilly?
The idea that the MFM and their fellow travelers on the left now find common ground with Reagan is laughable.
JD (d4bbf1) — 2/6/2011 @ 2:01 pmI’m old enough to remember how much the left hated and despised Reagan while he was president. Boehlert’s statement is just another example of vice paying tribute to virtue.
I’ve got a Reagan calendar at my work desk; Gipperian inspiration at a glance!
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (a18ddc) — 2/6/2011 @ 2:03 pmHey, Bradley, how have you been?
narciso (e888ae) — 2/6/2011 @ 2:10 pmI am deeply offended by your comaparison of me to Eric Boelert.
cretin (5d10ae) — 2/6/2011 @ 2:12 pmIt will be interesting to see, and hear, what Rush has to say tomorrow.
AD-RtR/OS! (c7241f) — 2/6/2011 @ 2:20 pmI don’t recall if The Gipper ever called in to the EIB, but if he did, Rush will have the tape to play for all the world to hear.
In 1982, Reagan was responsible for the largest tax increase in U.S. history, and he repeatedly increased taxes in the years following. In 1983, he raised the gasoline tax and instituted a payroll-tax hike that helped fund Medicare and Social Security. In 1986, he supported the progressive Tax Reform Act, which hit businesses with a record-breaking $420 billion in new fees. Reagan grew the size of gov’t with 60,000 new gov’t jobs and QUADRUPLED the national deficit. $700B – $3 Trillion. An increase of 20% as a percentage of GDP. No peacetime president has raised taxes so much on so many people as Reagan.
Reagan’s policies that stem from Tax Reform Act of 1986 had a very damaging impact for working class Americans on the Alternative Minimum Tax.
That tax reform reduced or eliminated tax deductions. This legislation expanded the AMT from a law for untaxed rich investors to one refocused on middle class Americans who had children, owned a home, or lived in high tax states. This parallel tax system hit middle class Americans the hardest by reducing their deductions and effectively raising their taxes. Meanwhile, the highest income earners (with incomes exceeding $1,000,000) were proportionately less affected, thereby shifting the tax burden away from the richest 0.5% to poorer Americans. In 2006, the IRS’s National Taxpayer Advocate’s report highlighted the AMT as the single most serious problem with the tax code.
Real wages – wages that have been adjusted for inflation declined sharply during the Reagan Presidency.
sam (79647e) — 2/6/2011 @ 2:36 pmsam – Nice copy pasta. Do you understand any of it?
daleyrocks (479a30) — 2/6/2011 @ 2:53 pmThe real question to answer: is the effort to co-opt Reagan gaining any traction? Not aware of any survey data yet. That would be the ultimate outrage, if these people could succeed in stealing Reagan’s name and image to put it in service to the liberal agenda.
Gesundheit (aab7c6) — 2/6/2011 @ 2:54 pmReagan had to deal with a Democrat controlled Congress. Those were his compromises, not his ideas. How come you don’t hold that Congress accountable?
You also fail to mention that due to Reagans policies, the biggest post WW2 boom in history began, tripling revenues to the Feds. It also set up the investment money that would be available to finance the internet boom in the 90s.
Wow thats some “damage”.
Congress spent it all and then some.
Your tax shift burden is a lie. Poor people don’t pay income taxes.
SGT Ted (5d10ae) — 2/6/2011 @ 2:54 pmsam is just recyling the bullshit leftwing meme about “the rich got richer and the poor got poorer” from the 80s, despite the well documented wealth increase for ALL working Americans.
Its all they got: 30 year old leftwing propaganda.
Next he’ll be telling us how Reagan started World War 3 because he was a cowboy.
SGT Ted (5d10ae) — 2/6/2011 @ 2:58 pmnarciso,
Thanks for asking. Recently recovered from a nasty cold or flu that took away my voice for a few days. Been lurking steadily, though.
Now I’m busy on stories about California’s and SoCal’s water supply, and a science story. Plenty on the plate. I’m also writing for a conservative/libertarian blog in San Diego, SD Rostra.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (a18ddc) — 2/6/2011 @ 3:01 pm“Sam” is willie the racist hilljack yelverton, and he is on one of his manic plagiarizing binges again.
JD (2647ac) — 2/6/2011 @ 3:06 pmsam – How’s that Hope and Change working out for you?
daleyrocks (479a30) — 2/6/2011 @ 3:06 pmRR went to Washington to Change the Country, and Changed the World!
BHO went to Washington promising Hope & Change, and has been the greatest destroyer of the belief in domestic Leftism since The Great Society.
AD-RtR/OS! (c7241f) — 2/6/2011 @ 3:47 pmI’ve often wondered if, when forced to focus on the calumny and bile that the Angry Left spewed onto George W. Bush, he took some comfort from the fact that Reagan faced worse, and for longer. I hope so.
Beldar (e2dd38) — 2/6/2011 @ 3:48 pmActually, now that I think of it, thick skin and good humor may be among the most significant traits that Dubya and the Gip had in common.
It’s quite a contrast from the current thin-skinned and ill-tempered occupant of the White House — who, of course, listed his own calm demeanor as among his key qualifications before everyone saw that was ridiculous.
Beldar (e2dd38) — 2/6/2011 @ 3:51 pmBIG ZER0 could not
ColonelHaiku (9d447b) — 2/6/2011 @ 4:07 pmcarry the Gipper’s scrotum
too scrawny and smokes
For starters, if liberals are going to celebrate Reagan, they might try to account for the fact that they fought his every move, alternating between derision and slander in the process
And unlike the modern conservative movement, Reagan did not respond in kind.
That’s the fundamental difference. He often used mockery, but not derision: he managed to focus his attacks on ideas and policies, not people. He would have roundly, firmly and decisively critiqued Boehlert, but he would not have called him a cretin; he would never allow all the little sneers at Obama that populate the comments on this thread and other threads here, simply out of respect for the office of President, even if he did not respect the man who was holding the office. He tried to elevate the American people, not crawl in the gutter.
kishnevi (80bfaa) — 2/6/2011 @ 6:16 pmI would feel better about your sentiment, kishnevi, if Reagan hadn’t been continually belittled and harassed and insulted by the Left and the MSM during that period—sometimes by the very same people who claim that they wish to see more civility today. Like Boehlert himself.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/06/11/media
Of course, the most amusing thing about Boehlert is how he claims the press was so pro-Reagan at the time. But then, he said the same thing about the press and GWB.
I say to people like Boehlert: lead by example. But you see, it’s always different when they do it.
Simon Jester (54af14) — 2/6/2011 @ 6:44 pmhe would never allow all the little sneers at Obama that populate the comments on this thread and other threads here, simply out of respect for the office of President,
This phrase does not really compute. Maybe I am missing something. How would he disallow little sneers at Barcky? Or he would not have mocked Barcky because he respects the Presidency.
JD (d4bbf1) — 2/6/2011 @ 6:48 pm“…Or he would not have mocked Barcky because he respects the Presidency….”
I find that the whole “respect the Presidency” is a slippery concept—as RWR discovered. Why, there were whole popular music videos at the time suggesting he was so senile he would destroy the world in a nuclear conflagration. Very classy. And respectful of the office.
So, yes, bring on the civility. But I will wait for the Left to show the way, since they are so concerned about it.
Simon Jester (54af14) — 2/6/2011 @ 6:51 pmI Am Sam pulls the all-too-predictable drive-by.
kishnevi — VERY predictably — echoes the leftist meme of the week: if Reagan were alive today he wouldn’t be a member of the GOP. *yawn*
Icy Texan (1526df) — 2/6/2011 @ 7:00 pmOr he would not have mocked Barcky because he respects the Presidency.
Exactly.
For instance, he would not have called him Barcky.
Simon–my point is that Reagan did not lower himself to the level of the Left. He was better than the Left; if the Left is uncivil and insulting, that’s no reason for us (meaning conservatives/libertarians in general) to be uncivil and insulting.
Comment by Icy Texan — 2/6/2011 @ 7:00 pm
No, Kishnevi is stating what Kishnevi believes is true–that Reagan would not allow himself to crawl in the gutter, and would not degrade himself enough to participate in the slimefest that forms a large part of political discourse in our day and age.
BTW, Icy T., how about I add a tag to all my comments from here on out: Icy Texan undoubtedly thinks I’m wrong That way you wouldn’t feel compelled to object to everything I say.
kishnevi (80bfaa) — 2/6/2011 @ 7:13 pmTeh One deserves to be mocked. And I suspect that the standards of conduct for a random blog commenter and a sitting Governor or President is rather different. YMMV.
JD (d4bbf1) — 2/6/2011 @ 7:15 pmkishnevi – I am not president and do not feel constrained to follow rules made up by someone who has always voted Democrat. Why keep one arm tied behind my back when the other side does not?
daleyrocks (479a30) — 2/6/2011 @ 7:19 pmkishnevi,
Reagan was a quiet very private man, he believed that you should never say anything bad about fellow conservatives. Rush was around during the end of the Reagan years and was certainly there during the Bush I era and Reagan was once asked about Rush and I remember he ignored the question but winked – that wink by Reagan was a paragraph or two by any other politician.
Reagan himsel was aghast at the price the American people were going to have to pay for his agreeing to exorbiant tax increases to deeat communism, he worried about it to the grave, hoping someday they would be overturned.
EricPWJohnson (7a7cf4) — 2/6/2011 @ 7:30 pmLeftists and liberals have no credibility calling for civility after how they treated Ronald Reagan and W.
They can just STFU and go away.
SGT Ted (5d10ae) — 2/6/2011 @ 7:39 pmkishnevi speaks about kishnevi in the third-kishnevi person.
Icy Texan (1526df) — 2/6/2011 @ 7:39 pmSGT Ted
Remember Nancy and the Gowns, they tried to put the first Lady in prison, F@ckers… For gowns she borrowed and returned for state functions
All those endless contra committee investigations the october surprize, and on and on and on and on
EricPWJohnson (7a7cf4) — 2/6/2011 @ 7:50 pmEricPWJohnson
Rush was around during the end of the Reagan years and was certainly there during the Bush I era and Reagan was once asked about Rush and I remember he ignored the question but winked – that wink by Reagan was a paragraph or two by any other politician.
Source, please.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90) — 2/6/2011 @ 7:56 pmHow does epwj’s ranting and raving and lying abut Palin comport with what he wrote in #34 ?
JD (d4bbf1) — 2/6/2011 @ 8:00 pmIsn’t this the same media that said ‘There is little spectacular to remember Reagan by’?
Or words to that effect.
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 2/6/2011 @ 8:03 pmThe left went crazy working with the MoveOn/9/11 denialists of the day, the Christic Institute, who
narciso (e888ae) — 2/6/2011 @ 8:06 pminsinuated their CIA cocaine libel, into everything
from Cagney and Lacey to the series finale of Miami
Vice, this was aided by the likes of Kerry’s investigative committee.
Remember when the Left had aneurysms when Reagan called Russia “the Evil Empire”?
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 2/6/2011 @ 8:09 pm“Reagan himsel was aghast at the price the American people were going to have to pay for his agreeing to exorbiant tax increases to deeat communism,”
EricPW – Can you be specific here? Was increasing social security tax rates part of defeating communism? Was eliminating loopholes and deductions in 1986 part of defeating communism? Overall, tax revenues stayed at historical levels as a percentage of GDP under Reagan? WTF are you talking about?
daleyrocks (479a30) — 2/6/2011 @ 8:11 pmYes, Scott. They are only comfortable calling their ideological opponents evil.
JD (d4bbf1) — 2/6/2011 @ 8:11 pm“How does epwj’s ranting and raving and lying abut Palin comport with what he wrote in #34 ?”
JD – It comports with him admitting he was not the best student.
daleyrocks (479a30) — 2/6/2011 @ 8:15 pmThere is nothing new under the sun. People stone to death the prophets (read:anyone who tells the truth) when they are alive, then praise them to the next generation after they are in the grave.
Years ago I heard one of the main “newscasters” on NPR talk about how JC Watts was not going to run for re-election because he was fed up with the Republican Party. As far as I know, he didn’t run for re-election because he had always planned to serve a limited number of terms. That and lies about Miguel Estrada gave me reason to not listen to them anymore.
I could do with much less derision in political discussion, but whenever I hear complaints about what conservatives say, I think about the kid on the playground with torn knees and a bloody lip who got into trouble because a teacher saw him take a swing at a boy twice his size laughing at him. The level of scorn directed at President Bush hurt our efforts in Iraq and around the world. It was his detractors who were lieing, not him. They deserve much more than mocking words.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 2/6/2011 @ 8:17 pmWhat I find so especially galling is that the man who was elected (with the media’s assistance] to the presidency on the basis of his “rare brilliance” and “Constitutional Scholarship” has turned out to be such a disappointing intellectual dud and poseur. While the president whom they derided as an actor and an amiable dunce, was the one who changed the world for the better, and left behind actual results and writings and interviews to prove for all time his depth both as a human being and as a true intellect.
elissa (aee358) — 2/6/2011 @ 8:33 pmThis is what Obama really believes, only in a bearded Spock universe, could any association with
Reagan be possible;
When classmates in college asked me just what it was that a community organizer did , I couldn’t answer them directly. Instead, I’d pronounce on the need for change. Change in he White House, where Reagan and his minions were carrying on their dirty deeds.
narciso (e888ae) — 2/6/2011 @ 8:35 pm*******************************************
Yet what concerned me wasn’t just the damage loose talk caused efforts at coalition building, or the emotional pain it caused others. It was the distance between our talk and our action, the effect it was having on us as individuals and as a people. That gap corrupted both language and thought; it made us forgetful and encouraged fabrication; it eventually eroded our ability to hold either ourselves or each other accountable. And while none of this was unique to black politicians or to black nationalists – Ronald Reagan was doing quite well with his brand of verbal legerdemain, and white America seemed ever willing to spend vast sums of money on suburban parcels and private security forces to deny the indissoluble link between black and white – it was blacks who could least afford such make-believe.
narciso – Contrary to the current revisionist history being sold by the left, black Americans did quite well under Ronald Reagan.
daleyrocks (479a30) — 2/6/2011 @ 8:42 pmComment by JD — 2/6/2011 @ 8:00 pm
Schizophrenia?
AD-RtR/OS! (c7241f) — 2/6/2011 @ 8:56 pmI think “hypocrisy” is the word you seek, AD.
Simon Jester (54af14) — 2/6/2011 @ 9:01 pmChristina Aguilera screwed up the words to the National Anthem. That was special. Se sings 20 notes when 4 would suffice, so maybe she was just distracted by her vocal stylings, instead of singing the f@cking song. Sorry, that is a pet peeve of mine.
JD (d4bbf1) — 2/6/2011 @ 9:05 pmNo, projection is the name of the game, Reagan would be chagrined that some one who lever learned
narciso (e888ae) — 2/6/2011 @ 9:05 pmthe hard fought lessons of the last thirty years
would be in office, and he would feel the same way
if it was faux Brahmins, Kerry or Dean,
JD, I’m not sure singing is the correct word to describe what Aguilera does in public.
kishnevi (80bfaa) — 2/6/2011 @ 9:29 pmYet another “artist” whom I only find attractive when I have access to a mute button.
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 2/6/2011 @ 9:31 pmAh, but that was Limbaugh then, when he was relatively moderate and civilized, just like Reagan; today’s Limbaugh is a different beast, rabid, racist, dumb, inciting to violence, etc., and Reagan would have rejected him if only the dear old man weren’t dead. </liberal-talking-point>
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 2/6/2011 @ 9:45 pmOnly if being uncivil and insulting harms us.
Michael Ejercito (64388b) — 2/6/2011 @ 10:04 pmBradley
1988 Republican national convention in New Orleans
He was still broadcasting from Sacramento and ws moving to New York but many stations including New Orleans were carrying his program before EIB
It was a while ago
He also winked in 1990 during the controversy about Nancy’s involvement with Revlon and After his trip to Japan again – Rush made his bones in his fierce defense of Reagans speaking tours and his presidency
EricPWJohnson (7a7cf4) — 2/6/2011 @ 10:05 pmMilhouse,
Rush today is about 300% mellower(sic) than he was in the early years
EricPWJohnson (7a7cf4) — 2/6/2011 @ 10:06 pmEric, I was a regular listener in 1994, when I worked in an office with good radio reception and an office mate who shared my politics.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 2/6/2011 @ 10:28 pmhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTfzSxIG_iI
Early interview at length with Rush just to get a eel how he was – now he’s on CBN and behaving himself but this limbaugh is no suish
EricPWJohnson (7a7cf4) — 2/6/2011 @ 10:31 pmاجتنب مصاحبة الكذاب فإن اضطررت إليه فلا تُصَدِّقْهُ
Words to live by!
Simon Jester (54af14) — 2/7/2011 @ 12:45 amSimon,
You really shouldn’t call yourself those things…
EricPWJohnson (7a7cf4) — 2/7/2011 @ 3:27 amhttp://www.platts.com/RSSFeedDetailedNews/RSSFeed/NaturalGas/8507459
EricPWJohnson (7a7cf4) — 2/7/2011 @ 5:36 amHoly jeebus, yet another feedback loop. STFU or start your own blog about how evil she is and how she hates big oil, an assertion you never even came close to proving. Reagan raised taxes too, deep sander. Why do you vilify one, but not the other?
JD (109425) — 2/7/2011 @ 6:02 amit’s a wonder, JD, how they miss the cancellation of the Arctic Survey, the drilling moratorium, in
narciso (e888ae) — 2/7/2011 @ 6:25 amthe Bering, Chuckchi, the EPA designations, and focus on ACES, they deserve to what they get,sadly
we don’t
Aint nothing going to get in the way of its narrative.
JD (0d2ffc) — 2/7/2011 @ 6:29 amJD
🙂
EricPWJohnson (7a7cf4) — 2/7/2011 @ 6:34 amPerhaps we should sprinkle some Doritos over his gravesite.
Dan (f7f4c6) — 2/7/2011 @ 8:46 amEPWJ,
1988 Republican national convention in New Orleans
Any source for that?
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90) — 2/7/2011 @ 7:26 pm