SwiftVets.com Forum Index SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

NY Times disparate attempt to smear Reagan

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    SwiftVets.com Forum Index -> Vets and Active Duty Military
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
The bandit
Commander


Joined: 15 May 2004
Posts: 349

PostPosted: Mon Jun 07, 2004 8:58 pm    Post subject: NY Times disparate attempt to smear Reagan Reply with quote

Someone should pass a note to the Lying Times on who won New York after being in office for 4 years. The commment "He profited from good timing and good luck" could have been written better by a 8 year old. There was nothing lucky about reducing 15 different tax brackets to two, and deregulate industry. There was nothing lucky or good timing about having a vision of a strong military rather then roll over and play dead.

Reagan refused to let generals take the fall for the Beirut bombing on the Marine barracks; the buck stopped with him. The NY Times could learn a valuable lesson in responsibility from Reagan, but then that would be impossible because it would require and honest appraisal from within.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

New York Times Editorial on Reagan

June 7, 2004 Ronald Reagan

Ronald Reagan, who died on Saturday after his long battle with Alzheimer's disease, projected an aura of optimism so radiant that it seemed almost a force of nature. Many people who disagreed with his ideology still liked him for his personality, and that was a source of frustration for his political opponents who knew how much the ideology mattered. Looking back now, we can trace some of the flaws of the current Washington mindset — the tax-cut-driven deficits, the slogan-driven foreign policy — to Mr. Reagan's example. But after more than a decade of political mean-spiritedness, we have to admit that collegiality and good manners are beginning to look pretty attractive.

President Reagan was, of course, far more than some kind of chief executive turned national greeter. He will almost certainly be ranked among the most important presidents of the 20th century, forever linked with the triumph over Communism abroad and the restoration of faith in free markets at home.

He profited from good timing and good luck, coming along when the country was tired of the dour pedantry of the Carter administration, wounded by the Iranian hostage crisis, frustrated by rising unemployment and unyielding inflation. Mr. Reagan's stubborn refusal to accept the permanence of Communism helped end the cold war. He was fortunate to have as his counterpart Mikhail Gorbachev, a Soviet leader ready to acknowledge his society's failings and interested in reducing international tensions.

Mr. Reagan's decision to send marines to Lebanon was disastrous, however, and his invasion of Grenada pure melodrama. His most reckless episode involved the scheme to supply weapons to Iran as ransom for Americans who were being held hostage in Lebanon, and to use the proceeds to illegally finance contra insurgents in Nicaragua.

Mr. Reagan showed little appetite for power, even less for the messy detail of politics. He joked about his work habits. "It's true hard work never killed anybody," he said in 1987. "But I figure, why take the chance?" His detachment from the day-to-day business of government was seductive for a nation that had tired of watching Mr. Carter micromanage the White House.

The nation's 40th president was absent from the public eye for a long time before his death, but his complicated legacy endures. Although Mr. Reagan did reverse course and approve some tax increases in the face of mounting deficits — in stark contrast to President Bush nowadays — he was still responsible for turning the Republican Party away from its fiscally conservative roots. The flawed theory behind the Reagan tax cuts, that the ensuing jolt to the economy would bring in enough money to balance the budget, is still espoused by many of the Republican faithful, including President Bush.

One of Mr. Reagan's advisers, David Stockman, later wrote that the real aim of fiscal policy was to create a "strategic deficit" that would slam the door and reduce the size of the federal government. Such thinking is far too prevalent in Washington to this day, and helps explain why plenty of conservatives don't seem all that bothered by the government's inability to balance its books.

When Ronald Reagan was elected, the institution of the presidency and the nation itself seemed to be laboring under a large dark cloud. Into the middle of this malaise came a most improbable chief executive — a former baseball announcer, pitchman for General Electric, Hollywood bon vivant and two-term California governor with one uncomplicated message: There was no problem that could not be solved if Americans would only believe in themselves. At the time, it was something the nation needed to hear. Today, we live in an era defined by that particular kind of simplicity, which expresses itself in semi-detached leadership and a black-and-white view of the world. Gray is beginning to look a lot more attractive.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nakona
Lieutenant


Joined: 04 Jun 2004
Posts: 242

PostPosted: Mon Jun 07, 2004 9:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

<shrug> It's an opinion piece. I've seen worse. Like over at DU.
_________________
13F20P
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Airedale
Ensign


Joined: 02 Jun 2004
Posts: 50

PostPosted: Mon Jun 07, 2004 10:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
"It's true hard work never killed anybody," he said in 1987. "But I figure,
why take the chance?"

LOL....
Wish I said that!
He was an Irishmen who understood time management.
....and both party's were invited over for happy hour after punching the time clock Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TelecomGuy
Seaman Recruit


Joined: 07 Jun 2004
Posts: 2

PostPosted: Mon Jun 07, 2004 10:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

How can they write such trash about a great man like President Reagan? A real shame. A dirty shame.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ASPB
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy


Joined: 01 Jun 2004
Posts: 1680

PostPosted: Mon Jun 07, 2004 10:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

From the Wall Steet Journal....America's Newspaper (at least IMHO)

Quote:
One of the more striking reactions to Ronald Reagan's death this weekend--striking because it was so grudging--came from the man Reagan beat in 1980, Jimmy Carter. "I want to express my admiration for him and his wife and associate myself with the grief that America feels," the Associated Press quotes Carter as saying at his church in Plains, Ga. But he didn't really do that, or at least he couldn't bring himself to say anything favorable about the man's character or accomplishments.

"I probably know as well as anybody what a formidable communicator and campaigner that President Reagan was," Carter said. "It was because of him that I was retired from my last job." And: "He presented some very concise, very clear messages that appealed to the American people. I think throughout his term in office he was very worthy of the moniker that was put on him as the 'Great Communicator.' "

Walter Mondale, who lost to Reagan in 1984, was more gracious. "Although we were political adversaries, I always liked the guy," the AP quotes him as saying. "I think he had this ability to create a sense of optimism in our country, and I think that was a very valuable contribution."

But Mondale also sounded the "Great Communicator" theme, saying of Reagan: "He had an amazing talent to communicate across radio and television. And he could touch the American people with ease and grace. He was very formidable in the use of communication tools."

Of course Carter and Mondale are right: Reagan was a great communicator, a politician who was very good at politics. But to leave it at that--to portray Reagan's triumph as one of form over substance--misses his real import. Reagan leaves an enduring legacy because of what he was communicating, namely a belief in the American ideal of freedom, an ideal that looked far less robust in the 1970s, the era of Vietnam, Watergate, stagflation and 70% tax rates, than it does in the post-Reagan era.

Reagan didn't accomplish everything he set out to do; in particular, he failed to reduce the size and scope of the federal government. Even so, the GOP of today is unmistakably a Reaganite party: unalterably opposed to higher taxes, committed to promoting American ideals--which are really universal ideals--abroad.

Contrast this legacy with that of another recent president, one whose political skills were unmistakable but who had no discernible ideals. He was very popular and reasonably effective, but he seems unlikely to cast anything like Reagan's historical shadow. And the party he left behind was diminished in strength but fractious as ever, united only in its loathing of the opposition.

Could it be that when guys like Carter and Mondale depict Reagan as a great communicator and nothing more, they're mistaking the Gipper for Bill Clinton?

_________________
On Sale! Order in lots of 100 now at velero@rcn.com Free for the cost of shipping All profits (if any, especially now) go to Swiftvets. The author of "Sink Kerry Swiftly" ---ASPB
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    SwiftVets.com Forum Index -> Vets and Active Duty Military All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group