I think this article is a few weeks old, but I did a search and didn't find anything on here. My apologies if this has been posted before.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/237737/page/1

I consider myself neither a republican, nor a democrat. In fact, I despise both parties. But reading this article, I found it funny that many of the same traits found in Obama that conservatives despise, can be seen in recent past-presidents that conservatives tout as the epitome of conservative values.

Interesting article.

Reagan could not win a Republican primary in 2010.

He would be tarred and feathered for support of amnesty, he would be painted as weak on terror as well as aiding and abetting terrorists by selling weapons to Ayatollah Khomeni. This doesn't even begin to look at the series of tax increases throughout his presidency as well as one of the largest tax increases in the nations history used to "fix" social security. He would be assailed as a big deficit, big spending, tax raising liberal.

He cut taxes when he came into office, but then started raising taxes again instead of cutting spending to solve the budget deficits. That is a completely unacceptable ideology in today's conservative movement. Even if you find you just can't afford the tax cuts, raising taxes is not an option. Grover Norquidst would make him look like a bigger liberal than Obama if Reagan were running in this environment.

I'm technically a Republican, but I've never been a big fan of Reagan.

Now there's some revisionism. He slashed marginal tax rates and implemented investment tax credits, both of which spurred dramatic economic growth and brought the country out from under severe recession and the aptly named "misery index".

He also had a deal with congress to cut spending but THEY reneged (democrat control) and spent even more than the tax rate cuts provided which was a boon to the treasury (Note - federal income tax receipts nearly doubled under Reagan even though rates were dramatically reduced).

He also indexed rates for inflation which has prevented 'bracket creep' to this day -- something that has benefitted all workers/payers as they were not shifted to a higher tax rate just because they got a cost-of-living wage increase.

And needless to say, he held firm with the Soviets, pumped up our defenses significantly and eventually they bowed down and we won the Cold War. And of course Iran freed our hostages on the day he took office.

Beyond all of these incredibly significant (and conservative-based) policy achievements, he restored a sense of faith in America, a desire to once again get to work and produce, and he provided the common sense, SINCERE, leadership that is so desperately lacking today.

RIP RR

QuakerOats wrote: And needless to say, he held firm with the Soviets, pumped up our defenses significantly and eventually they bowed down and we won the Cold War. And of course Iran freed our hostages on the day he took office.

RIP RR

The Soviet archive has been recently opened up and that statement is being seen as false. I suggest reading the Pulitzer prize winning book, The Dead Hand by David Hoffman. It wasn't just the Soviet bowing down to the Americans, it was a web of many different factors that led to their downfall going back to the 1947 and the doctrine of Containment.

Hoffman and the archives suggest that Reagan pre-1984 scared the shit out of the Soviets. They literally thought the Americans were going to launch a first strike, and tensions were high in 1983-the 007 shootdown, Operation Able Archer and RYAN, the Pershing missiles in Europe and Reagan's SDI-which they saw as the ability for the launch a first strike. It was also each leader was older than dirt and kept dying off (que the famous Reagan quote on he can't connect with any Soviet leader as they all die off)

It was later that Reagan figured out that pre-1983 tough rhetoric made things worse. It was the change in rhetoric, policy and really many internal changes in the Soviet Union that led to its downfall.

Reagan was a part, but not the reason. If anything, he made it worse at the start.

Also, keep in mind my fellow Reagan lovers, Reagan was for a nuclear free world and made an offer in 1986-87 with Gorbachev to get rid of all nuclear weapons in 10 years. Only the neos in Reagan's cabinet said no.

Reagan was also the mastermind of the INF Treaty and now the START Treaty, which Obama is pushing through the Senate.

Reagan pre-1983=scary, Reagan post 1983=helped end the Cold War.

The record on the hostages is murky as there has never been any official account of why the hostages were let go. It is always rumors or conjecture. Not enough to say it was solely Reagan. It probably was, but it could have been just to rub it in to Carter.

QuakerOats wrote: Now there's some revisionism. He slashed marginal tax rates and implemented investment tax credits, both of which spurred dramatic economic growth and brought the country out from under severe recession and the aptly named "misery index".

He also had a deal with congress to cut spending but THEY reneged (democrat control) and spent even more than the tax rate cuts provided which was a boon to the treasury (Note - federal income tax receipts nearly doubled under Reagan even though rates were dramatically reduced).

He also indexed rates for inflation which has prevented 'bracket creep' to this day -- something that has benefitted all workers/payers as they were not shifted to a higher tax rate just because they got a cost-of-living wage increase.

And needless to say, he held firm with the Soviets, pumped up our defenses significantly and eventually they bowed down and we won the Cold War. And of course Iran freed our hostages on the day he took office.

Beyond all of these incredibly significant (and conservative-based) policy achievements, he restored a sense of faith in America, a desire to once again get to work and produce, and he provided the common sense, SINCERE, leadership that is so desperately lacking today.

RIP RR

He also directed Iran Contra,and prolly served the last 2 or 3 years of his term with Alzheimer disease.

He also refused to even the trade deficit wit Japan and managed to sock away a few million dollars of speaking fees from Japanese companies after he left orifice.

He also covertly negotiated with Iran (before he was elected) and sold them guns for hostages basically.

And of course the economy did well after Reagan. He spent the Soviet union into submission in an arms race and with his tax cuts, infused with about half of our GNP (spending and tax cuts) the economy understandably grew. Was this good? I don;t knoe... Just ask King George the 1stll

Ok... Let me have it, I have spoken blasphemy against St. Reagan

Reagan was a commie lovin, pinko, limp wristed libbbberal. But a good actor.

ptown_trojans_1 wrote:The record on the hostages is murky as there has never been any official account of why the hostages were let go. It is always rumors or conjecture. Not enough to say it was solely Reagan. It probably was, but it could have been just to rub it in to Carter.

I'm sure that was part of it but I also suspect the Iranians had a hunch Reagan would have shown a little more gonads than Jimmy the Wuss.

The thing is,

When people bash all the Presidents leading up to the current one for adding to the nations woes, NOBODY has excluded Reagan from this list.
Yeah, people might praise his work and list all of the great things he did, but nobody is saying he didn't write alot of checks lol

This isn't a bash on Reagan. It's to point out that the conservative base has swung so far to the right that even the most recent conservative presidents (including the one that most conservatives feel is the embodiment of their party) don't fit the mold of the new conservative ideals.

Sarah Palin should probably stop yelling his name at every gathering she shows up at, then...

I actually really like Reagan and think he has been the best President since Ike. But, he does have flaws and his record is usually overinflated. Still, he provided the nation a moral compass after the decade that was the 70s, provided strength and stability to the U.S. military, and did promote the American spirit. The policy issues bring him down a little, plus his mismanagement skills (7 National Security Advisers, Iran/ Contra).

I agree that he is just overinflated by conservatives today and it seems like they forgot the other half of Reagan.

ptown_trojans_1 wrote: I actually really like Reagan and think he has been the best President since Ike. But, he does have flaws and his record is usually overinflated. Still, he provided the nation a moral compass after the decade that was the 70s, provided strength and stability to the U.S. military, and did promote the American spirit. The policy issues bring him down a little, plus his mismanagement skills (7 National Security Advisers, Iran/ Contra).

I agree that he is just overinflated by conservatives today and it seems like they forgot the other half of Reagan.

People do tend to pump up their party icons...Clinton being the other side of the coin.

fish82 wrote:

ptown_trojans_1 wrote: I actually really like Reagan and think he has been the best President since Ike. But, he does have flaws and his record is usually overinflated. Still, he provided the nation a moral compass after the decade that was the 70s, provided strength and stability to the U.S. military, and did promote the American spirit. The policy issues bring him down a little, plus his mismanagement skills (7 National Security Advisers, Iran/ Contra).

I agree that he is just overinflated by conservatives today and it seems like they forgot the other half of Reagan.

People do tend to pump up their party icons...Clinton being the other side of the coin.

True, but Reagan gets trumped up way more than Clinton. Hell, here in DC, the Heritage Foundation is known as Reagan's shrine.

Whether he was or was not what is now viewed as a Reagan conservative isn't nearly as important as the inspiration that he is deemed to have given to those that claim to be.

Seriously...Reagan was a good man for the job. Sure he fucked some things up...but Americans felt really good about him running the show.

More important question, not only should we ask would he get elected, but if elected, would he even survive the media scrutiny that surrounds the oval office nowadays?

Sure, years ago there was plenty of scrutiny, but its a completely different world now. People know more, have access to more information, there are cameras, reporters, and tv stations at every turn. Would today's media call him out for being a clueless old man suffering from Alzeimer's while holding the highest office on the planet? Would today's attack politics doom him?

I don't think we'll see many more successful presidents in the near future. The parties are further apart than they have ever been, and unless the people care enough to say "enough is enough", we'll continue down this road of voting for the candidate who we've heard less scary things about than the other guy.

Reagan was great, but one has to differentiate between his beliefs/ideology (and his speeches, which were amazing) and the reality of having to govern and work with a Democratic-controlled Congress.

Yes he had his flaws, but I think today's conservatives (myself included) would say take the good things he did and the ideas he espoused, learn from the mistakes he made, and apply them to today's government.

As an earlier post stated, he was probably more successful at inspiring others to think more "conservatively" on important issues.

jhay78 wrote: Reagan was great, but one has to differentiate between his beliefs/ideology (and his speeches, which were amazing) and the reality of having to govern and work with a Democratic-controlled Congress.

Yes he had his flaws, but I think today's conservatives (myself included) would say take the good things he did and the ideas he espoused, learn from the mistakes he made, and apply them to today's government.

As an earlier post stated, he was probably more successful at inspiring others to think more "conservatively" on important issues.

And that's the bottom-line.

Someone above mentioned that conservatives have swung so far right that Reagan wouldn't get nominated. Perhaps, but it's clear that the Democratic Party has swung so far left that LBJ, JFK, Truman, and even FDR wouldn't get their party's nomination as well.

The difference between Reagan and Obama is Reagan was motivational and made Americans feel good to be American again. Obama, on the other hand, is a critical finger pointer and apologizes to the world for most things American. And Reagan didn't always need a teleprompter to do it!

believer wrote: Someone above mentioned that conservatives have swung so far right that Reagan wouldn't get nominated. Perhaps, but it's clear that the Democratic Party has swung so far left that LBJ, JFK, Truman, and even FDR wouldn't get their party's nomination as well.

This is false. All of those presidents did things either further to the "left" or tried to stretch gubment power at least as far as BHO. Maybe deep down in his heart BHO is further to the left than those guys, but his actual domestic policies largely are not more left than major domestic accomplishments by these presidents.

JFK; He's probably the most conservative but,Sure, he cut marginal tax rates, effective rates remained high and even higher than 50% for some taxpayers (Effective federal tax rates are not close to this under BHO and will likely never be; even after his deficit commission comes out saying we've got to raise taxes) and he was for completely eliminating any opportunities for tax deferral on outbound international taxation which is in complete contrast to the current Treasury which has supported a retention of the status quo in international tax which allows for deferral of tax on income as it is earned.

LBJ: Medicare was a socialized healthcare program even more so than BHO's plan (which was championed by Conservatives like Tom Daschle and Bob Dole in the 90's)

FDR: Tried to pack the Court, the New Deal, and so on...

believer wrote: The difference between Reagan and Obama is Reagan was motivational and made Americans feel good to be American again. Obama, on the other hand, is a critical finger pointer and apologizes to the world for most things American. And Reagan didn't always need a teleprompter to do it!

So, since in reality both Reagan and BHO are fiscally irresponsible spending machines...are you saying that you'd become a BHO supporter if changed his tone and made Americans feel good to be Americans and got rid of the teleprompter?

BoatShoes wrote:So, since in reality both Reagan and BHO are fiscally irresponsible spending machines...are you saying that you'd become a BHO supporter if changed his tone and made Americans feel good to be Americans and got rid of the teleprompter?

No. Reagan spent taxpayer dollars where he should.... our national defense. BHO wants me to pay for your health care.

See the difference?

believer wrote:
No. Reagan spent taxpayer dollars where he should.... our national defense. BHO wants me to pay for your health care.

See the difference?

Your boy Reagan raised your payroll taxes and therefore took more of your money to pay for other people's healthcare. In fact, BHO wants to at least have you pay for (I think producers is the word you like to use) the healthcare of "producers" who've been denied coverage by their employer or insurer. Reagan just made you pay more to non-producing retired seniors.

Footwedge wrote: Seriously...Reagan was a good man for the job. Sure he fucked some things up...but Americans felt really good about him running the show.

Precisely. He wasn't perfect, and the rightness/wrongness of his policies can be debated forever. Bottom line...he sacked up and led/inspired the nation, somehow managing to do do it with zero pissing & whining about what he "inherited from his predecessor."

That's the POTUS' #1 job IMO, and Reagan hit it out of the park.