102 Comments

1. elvis:

and…. why do people want to be told what to be and think?
People with conviction and commonsense(conservatives) need to stand up to the false rhetoric !

Feb 13, 2009 - 9:25 am 2. Pajamas Media » The Gipper vs. Obama:

[...] the rest here [...]

Feb 13, 2009 - 12:46 pm 3. elvis:

I have watched the video several times.
It should be sent to everyone!!!!!
Good work!

Feb 13, 2009 - 1:05 pm 4. David Thomson:

The politically correct and self-hating Republican John McCain is not another Ronald Reagan! The American voters were left without a real choice in November. Both candidates, for all practical purposes, were Democrats. McCain is only slightly to the right of Obama. A real conservative would have easily defeated the Messiah.

Feb 13, 2009 - 1:16 pm 5. David W. Lincoln:

Ronald Wilson Reagan saw that freedom, peace and truth are interwoven. As for the non-entity currently in the White House, he would say they are not interwoven.

Feb 13, 2009 - 1:24 pm 6. Mike T:

If Obama truly were the candidate of change and hope, he’d have been campaigning on the premise that individuals can make a radical difference. Communitarian ethics are naturally skeptical, even cynical, about the ability of any individual to really make much of a difference. A real optimism and hope would be to tell the American people to finally throw off the last vestiges of communitarianism, to embrace individualism, and then to seek their highest potential as productive, responsible citizens who don’t need the government to make them voluntarily seek virtue.

Liberty is scary. People show how they really are when no one is telling them how they must behave. It’s easy to be motivated to support your kids, be faithful to your spouse, not rob others, etc. when the government is watching you. However, to paraphrase Martin Luther, punishment does little to actually make someone better; take away the risk of punishment and all forced good behavior will cease.

Feb 13, 2009 - 2:17 pm 7. Mike T:

***Not saying we should get rid of government or go soft on criminals, but that no one ever became a better person because the government made them behave like one.

Feb 13, 2009 - 2:18 pm 8. ConservativeGirlie:

That video made me cry for all we have lost, all we are losing, and all that is to be lost with our current government. Mr. Reagan should be the man that every politician – nay, every human being – aspires to be like.

God Bless You, Mr. Reagan, and God Help Us, America.

Feb 13, 2009 - 2:25 pm 9. David S:

RK,

The real problem for conservatives today is not their nostalgic admiration of Reagan, but their distance from Reagan’s moral clarity.

I don’t think the nostalgic admiration is helping matters. The distance from Reagan’s moral clarity comes from seeing the true aftermath of his policies.

Until [GWB] side-stepped into the White House, Reagan was the worst American leader since Herbert Hoover.
Six years into Reagan’s presidency… Reaganomics had “accomplished” quite a bit: doubled the national debt, caused the S&L crisis, and nearly wrecked the financial system.
…
Here’s the truth: we’d already won the Cold War before Reagan took office. All Reagan needed to do was continue the tried-and-true containment policies Harry S. Truman began and all subsequent presidents employed. The Soviet Union was Collapsing from within. The CIA actually told this to Reagan as he took office.
…
Reagan hired over 100 crooks to run our government, and broke several laws himself. His policies were almost uniformly self-defeating, wrong-headed, immoral and unfair.

But you can keep working on that moral clarity.

Peace.

DS

Feb 13, 2009 - 2:37 pm 10. David Thomson:

Oh gosh, I forgot something extremely important in my last posting: it is not enough that the Republican candidate be conservative. They must also be articulate and fully able to explain their positions to the middle of the road voting public! A well meaning, tongue tied individual is of dubious value.

Feb 13, 2009 - 2:48 pm 11. CAUTION:

people in this country will not stand the pain required to unravel the debt that we have. we are living way beyond our means and only a true conservative could have won, and then gotten us out of this mess. spending money we dont have on things we dont need is almost childish.

Feb 13, 2009 - 2:51 pm 12. Delia:

The contrasts are strikingly SPOOKY, Mr. Kimball.

“He was first and last an apostle of individual liberty.”
~

-And, now we have an apostle of everything opposite of that.

Yikes.

Feb 13, 2009 - 2:58 pm 13. Self-hating Boomer:

The good news is that the current office holder, who flatters himself a Lincoln, trying to follow the methods of of FDR, fancying himself as charismatic is JFK, and attempting to be as transformative as LBJ, is following the primrose path of James Earl Carter into political oblivion. He just doesn’t have the political sixth sense of Bill Clinton.

He who projects an image of being everyone usually turns out to be no one.

Feb 13, 2009 - 3:05 pm 14. Morton Doodslag:

Fantastic juxtapositions, Mr. Kimball!! I especially like “there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.” When over the last 5-6 decades, and in the “spirit of compromise”, our conservative legislators accepted the steady encroachments of leftist schemes of victim based welfare and entitlements, the seeds were sown for this eventual radical socialist takeover of the nation.

Now government spending is so massively out of control that it’s difficult to see how we can ever work our way out from under the burdens laid up The People. Our borders are utterly compromised, and neither side seems willing to grapple with the invasion. Those illegal minions have already turned California from a net conservative (and well functioning) state into a permanent basket case of leftist boondoggles, devotion to the various cults of victimology and multiculturalism. Millions of non-tax-paying invader families now cram our once proud schools with non-English speaking children, our hospitals are overrun by non-paying indigent families with intractable medical afflictions. No amount of money paid into the public trough will rectify the situation, and what is worse, the hard working few who support the non-producing many are increasingly crushed under a burden of spiraling costs and completely diminished returns.

Feb 13, 2009 - 3:35 pm 15. cedarford:

David Thomson:
The politically correct and self-hating Republican John McCain is not another Ronald Reagan! The American voters were left without a real choice in November. Both candidates, for all practical purposes, were Democrats. McCain is only slightly to the right of Obama. A real conservative would have easily defeated the Messiah.

Unlikely. We know from Congressional elections over the last decade that “real conservatives” are all but unelectable in about 25 states, in grave difficulty maintaining seats in 12 others, and only comfortable to even in 13 states, many small, out West…with only 150 Electoral Votes and the two largest remaining states, Texas and Georgia, slipping away with the new hispanics from Dubya’s Open Borders.

Reagan was fine for his time. His ideas were fine 30 years ago. But given the test of time and solid Republican majorities that allowed Reagans theories blocked by Dems to be fully tested, we found:

1. Reagan was wrong. The Wall Street financiers and bankers are NOT America’s finest people..and his philosphy of lax regulation and limited oversight so the “genius of the private sector to innovate and self-police” had considerable impact on the economic castastrophe of 2008-2009.
2. Reagan predicted that if government would just stay out of health care, “miracle technology and dedicated doctors would make it cheaper and affordable to more and more people.” He was wrong. Our health care system is a disaster, costing 50% more per capita and covering the least per number of people per capita of any advanced nation.
3. Reagan had faith in what his detractors called Voodoo economics. Chief among them “supply side theory” which argued the more you cut taxes, the more revenue you get. Dems blocked Reagan, but they were gone and Bush and Republicans went full steam ahead with tax cuts for the rich. And we found that we only get 30 cents in new revenue for each dollar we lose borrowing to pay for spending after tax cuts. All leading economists, save a dwindling band of supply side ideologues, admit Reagan’s cherished theory was a disaster when fully tried. Another 3 trillion in debt.
4. Many of the cultural issues Reagan campaigned on were fixed from 1980-1998. The remainder were not fixed when Republicans had both the Congress and Presidency, as they preferred not to fix those issues because they were worried they would lose those red meat issues like abortion, flag burning in the future.
5. America is turning from Reagan’s cheerful optimism about free trade and high tech allowing the American worker to “out-compete anyone at any price” to recognizing that just isn’t so.
6. America is demographically different now, and some of the things Reagan emphasized to a 1980 audience aren’t what the 2010 audience 30 years later wants to hear about.
7. Reagan had Russia and the enemy, China as a country that wanted the jobs we didn’t, and the holy democratic freedom-loving mujahadeen fighters of Pakistan and Afghanistan as his “Heroes”.
The world has changed there, too.

Feb 13, 2009 - 4:10 pm 16. elvis:

David S you may want to continue embarrassing yourself, but in the slim chance that you don’t, buy a history book. They aren’t that expensive.
Even the demtards in congress fell all over themselves to go to his funeral.
They knew the greatness of the man and his achievements.

Feb 13, 2009 - 4:14 pm 17. Cybergeezer:

9. David S:
I don’t know why you insist on posting your pathetic incoherence here. As for me, I know I can pass over your crap, because I already know what you are going to say and what stand you are taking.
Even I can be boring, but you numb the mind like a narcotic. Without a trace of addiction.
Some day you’ll grow up. Please come back when you do.

Feb 13, 2009 - 4:15 pm 18. Cybergeezer:

P.S.
I won’t bother to read any reply. I have much better things to do.

Feb 13, 2009 - 4:18 pm 19. Rachel Peepers:

The wonder boy of the mainstream media:

“I will use not a scalpal on the United States military, but a carving knife. With a single cut, I can feed hungry chidren, provide them with medical care and give all immigrants, both legal and legal to be, a decent standard of living.”

Ronald Reagan: “An honest day’s pay for an honest day’s work.”

Barack Obama: “Requiring people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps is as outmoded as performance based job promotions. What people don’t do, the government must do for them.”

Ronald Reagan: “An honest day’s pay for an honest day’s work.”

Barack Obama: “Let’s face it, America doesn’t need the strongest military. America needs a strong commitment not to nation building around the world, but to justice the world over. Through understanding, our enemies can become our friends.”

Ronald Reagan: “Peace through strength.”

Feb 13, 2009 - 4:35 pm 20. thegr8 1:

Obama couldn’t hold Reagan’s jockstrap.

Feb 13, 2009 - 5:28 pm 21. Chippy:

Obama is all hype.

Reagan was a real man with a real life.

Reagan was a hero. Obama is a zero.

Feb 13, 2009 - 6:28 pm 22. Mongoose:

David S: You are a gnat. Not even an ankle biter.

You have all the moral clarity of a can of tuna fish.

You are not nor will ever be even one trillionth of the person Ronald Reagan was.

Feb 13, 2009 - 7:09 pm 23. mister man:

“The biggest danger to America isn’t communism. It’s America becoming a fascist theocracy, and everything that has happened during the Reagan administration is leading us right down that pipe.” – Frank Zappa.

God I miss Frank.

Feb 13, 2009 - 7:32 pm 24. Kevin:

David S,
Its put up or shut up time:
1. Which of Reagan’s specific proposals doubled the national debt; which directly caused the S&L crisis
2. Which CIA memorandum (under the FoIA) are you referring to in which it was a foregone conclusion that Russia was teetering?
3. Of the 100 crooks, please name names: just give us 10 and their specific crimes committed.
4. Which government body is the only one with the authority to pass appropriation/spending bills?
5. Who was primarily responsible for establishing the Resolution Trust Corporation?
We await your reply….

Feb 13, 2009 - 8:35 pm 25. Jeff Perren:

I normally don’t pile on, but am I the only one who has noticed the striking similarity between Ellsworth Toohey and David S?

Note, for example, his reply to Yaron Brook on a BusinessWeek debate over whether or not to cap CEO pay (paraphrasing): “Intereference from government is inevitable. Why not work to make it as good as possible?”

I post this not to bash David S., which is a pointless exercise when talking about a man devoid of a conscience, but I can’t help but wonder what motivates someone to want so desperately to control the personal funds and choices of other people.

This never ceases to puzzle me.

I’m convinced that all the slobbering over helping the poor, wanting to improve the economy, etc is just so much blather, because despite the immense practicality of freedom and capitalism having been demonstrated six thousand ways from Sunday, Progressives like him continue to slither through the cracks with cherry-picked data and an unadmitted moral code which says whatever belongs to X, belongs to everybody (via the government) to do with as those in power think best.

It’s a never-ending mystery. One doesn’t have to be a conservative (I’m not) to wonder why people like him have such an insatiable lust for power. What good is it when you have it?

Feb 13, 2009 - 8:53 pm 26. Mongoose:

Cederford. Do you never tire of straw men? Do you never tire of pretending to know something about conservatism?

Every point of yours is wrong or a willful misstatement of facts.

Let us deconstruct just the first two.

!) Reagan did not think Wall Streeters were “America’s finest people”. Just hogwash. Wrong on the face of it. Reagan would never say such a thing and it is preposterous to claim so. He admired many sectors of the country, not wall street exclusively. He may have thought some of them were , and he certainly though that they were better business people than their soft socialist European counterparts or the management structures of the communist world, which was precisely the point he was making. You are taking this completely out of context.

And he was right in this.

He certainly was not talking about people who came to work on Wall Street a generation later. How could he? This too is an absurd claim on your part.

Now, it was not the a failure of “the genius of the private sector to innovate and self-police” that caused this problem. It was the perverse redistributionist policies of the government and collusion with some (corrupt) Democrat big shots on wall st and in the hedge funds that cause this. They may have done it on purpose. It was self serving regluation, and a mixture of corrupt and incompetent regulators that caused this.

And of course, it is the “genius of the private sector to innovate” is the source of American wealth. This is an irrefutable truth. So are the evils of regulation. It is absurd to claim otherwise, and it is just ridiculous to claim that by making this statement Reagan somehow invalidates or comprises his thought or legacy. Rather, just the opposite is the case.

Beyond that, the regluatory climate was completely different in 2008 than it was in 1980. If the government would not have screwed around with it and taken Reagan’s advice, the current fiasco would have never had happened. That is rather the point. In any event. Reagan was talking about regulation in general, not just regulation in the financial world. It is absurd to criticize Reagan for the regulatory laws of today.

Again, you are engaging in circular logic here, and straw men arguments, and the straw men are complete falsehoods as well–just fabricated. You are projecting on to Reagan responsibilities that are completely nonsensical for him to have.

You also don’t have mush understanding of what has just happened.

In any event, the Wall Street of his time was a completely different place than today. It was much less of a casino. It was much less connected to Washington. Firms were much smaller and specialized. Program trading was in its infancy (people were still carting around actual physical stock around at night to settle at the end of the day). Computing was mostly just for accounting and order tracking. Glass-Steagall was still inplace. There was not the huge consolidations of Ibanks and brokerages. Hedge funds were a tiny industry. Most importantly, there was actually an investment culture. That is what people did back then for the most part.

(BTW, Most of the changes down there can be traced to mostly Democrat moves in government or Democrats in the industry. This is particularly true of the bad changes)

And look at the results. Investment was opened up to the middle classes. Take look at the level of the major index prior to Reagan and after he came to power. It is another world. You can also look at the effect of his policies on capital gains as on the high tech industries and the VC culture that supported them. This was also robust investment culture and enriched the country and allowed it to lead the world in this sector for 20 years. Reagan’s policies lead to the longest and largest boom of the post war years–some 20 years of it. It is a stunning vindication of conservative philosophy. It is not a indictment of it.

(I will also point out that there were more Republicans and conservatives in leadership positions in the fancial industry and the VC sector back then there are now. Now these sectors are pretty much a Liberal democrat camps. I know because I worked down there in those day.)

In Summation: To blame Reagan for the tribe down there now, or to say that the the current mess discredits his achievements, the financial sectors’ achievements during his time or Reagan’s philosophy about regulations is absurd and complete nonsense. It is a straw man argument, and the straw man is based on pure fabrication. It is also guilt by association, and equally fallacious. Once more you show your propensity of intellectual dishonesty and shallow thinking.

2. Reagan “predicted” no such thing about health care. How could this be, when medicare and medicaid was enacted a decade or more than when he was in office, He was constantly complaining about how inaccurate LBJ was about the outlay estimations for these Democrat programs. Beside, it was one of his saying that it was impossible to kill a federal entitlement program once it was enacted. Here he was just voicing his fond hope that the government could in the future keep itself from getting further involved, and extolling the benefits of the free market. He was trying to stop further nationalization. And of course he was right about this. And to the extent that government stayed out of it there was much innovation. Just look at the wide use of MRI tech, for example.

But government did not stay out of it. That is why prices are up. They are mostly up becuase of the programs enacted before he was in office hat were way pummped pafter he was in office.

You are making an absurd argument. You are saying that conditions that are the exact opposite of what he was proposing invalidates his porposition.

This is just irrational on the face of it,and it is a loony argument to make.

The conditions actually vindicate his position.

Again, a straw man argument, and a completely irrational assertion.

The same thing applies to you other points, with the exception of 6 and 7.

Feb 13, 2009 - 9:02 pm 27. narciso:

The St. Germain bill, which deregulated the S& Ls, was a democratic instrument, however it was the ‘86 tax reform act, which reduced the deductability of interest on real estate, which were their pillars of the S&L portfolios, just like interest rate sensitive subprime derivatives were at the heart of this crisis. the CIA had trouble identifying the extent of the Russian economies travails, the DIA however had a very good grasp of their military capacity, But the finest economic minds, Samuelson, Galbraith, though they were an economic powerhouse. The Democratic Congress run by O’Neil, Wright, than Foley is the
appropriating body. The Congress created the RTC in order to deal with the havoc created by their previous bill, ironically the Democrats like Kerry, rose to the majority in part due to the contributions of Thrifts like Centrust, whose owner David Paul, his Senate Campaign Treasurer was just a front
for Saudi businessman Ghaith Pharoan of BCCI.

Feb 13, 2009 - 9:05 pm 28. Jeff Perren:

P.S. I can’t find the exact quote of David S on the BusinessWeek debate, so I could be wrong about that. Still, based on many of his comments on PJ, my comment stands as is.

And, for anyone wanting to slither through the cracks again, it’s nothing to do with David S personally. It’s the entire Progressive mindset that is incomprehensible past a certain point.

Feb 13, 2009 - 9:06 pm 29. Robin Roberts:

David S. typifies the modern liberal whose indictments of Republican policies are quite brilliant and conclusive … so long as you decide to ignore that they’ve completely rewritten history.

The S&L line of David’s is the classic example. Deregulation of the Savings & Loan industry was more of a bipartisan Congressional initiative rather than a Reagan administration initiative and had in fact begun in the last of the Carter administration.

That’s the key to Liberal debate – make up stuff.

Feb 13, 2009 - 9:14 pm 30. Insufficiently Sensitive:

@9 David S:

A bunch of boldfaced assertions don’t even begin to make an argument. They just clutter up the scenery and wastes time.

And you might try for some moral clarity if you ever get into learning mode.

Feb 13, 2009 - 9:18 pm 31. JeremyR:

The thing is though, people want stuff. A lot of people don’t have health insurance, and thus cannot get health care. Oh sure, if they spend hours waiting in a free clinic or go to an emergency room they can get some basic care. But it’s both humiliating and very basic.

They see (or hear) that Canada and Western Europe have socialized medicine, and they want it here, too.

There’s got to be compromise. The Republicans tried that to a degree anyway, with the prescription drug plan. Unfortunately, “conservatives” hate them for doing that (screw people without health insurance, let them die or starve instead of getting medicine), and liberals hate them for not going all the way (nationalize drug companies).

Feb 13, 2009 - 9:19 pm 32. Ed Driscoll » Learning From The Age Of Reagan:

[...] Related thoughts from Roger Kimball. Filed under: Democracy In America, Ed On The [...]

Feb 13, 2009 - 9:28 pm 33. Alice Finkel:

I suppose all of you thought that you could trust the public schools in the hands of Bill Ayers and his friends? How did you think 30 years of statist indoctrination in schools would turn out in the voting booth? 30 years of racial and gender quotas? No good deed goes unpunished.

As for government and medicine, once government got involved in Medicare and Medicaid, and big unions got control of the big medical insurance schemes, the end result was guaranteed. Once trial lawyers started bleeding the medical profession and were enabled by their friends in the Democratic Party legislatures. Obama is just administering the death blow that Carter would have given had he been elected. It was already half done before Reagan was elected.

Once university faculties and staff took a sharp left turn and enacted thought police codes and rules on campus and in the classroom, sending your children to university became the same thing as sending them to an indoctrination camp. They were not learning to think. They were learning how not to think, in the manner of their professors’ not thinking.

Feb 13, 2009 - 9:32 pm 34. Seerak:

and…. why do people want to be told what to be and think?

Ask Cass Sunstein and his ilk.

Obama picked him for a reason.

Feb 13, 2009 - 9:34 pm 35. AndyJ:

we need a new party or a Rock upon which to base our party… The clowns in Congress sold us and themselves for a few pork projects… Will we make that mistake again-? If so, we should avoid the fuss and stay impotent, weak, demoralized and ineffective… It takes more than money. It takes a strong rock of philosophy… Something that we can hold and identify with-no matter who leads… Something that gets to our core or what we want for America… Rand showed the words and actions that would turn the govt into a provider using force of arms to seize our wealth, treasure and leave is broken in spirit… We need a leader… and I don’t see one out there… It should preferably be a reluctant one and not the next old guy in line…

Feb 13, 2009 - 9:37 pm 36. Dan Tana:

Reagan’s message was for the ages.
It’s a clarion call that will withstand the coming and goings of the socialist tide.

Crushing inflation, price controls and inevitable reactions to governmental distortions of market forces will bring Obama nation back to reality.

Feb 13, 2009 - 9:44 pm 37. Chris S.:

The politically correct and self-hating Republican John McCain is not another Ronald Reagan!
Agreed.

The American voters were left without a real choice in November.
Waddya mean? We had Ron Paul, didn’t we??

Both candidates, for all practical purposes, were Democrats.
No- McCain was a democrat, and Obama is a socialist.

A real conservative would have easily defeated the Messiah.

Perhaps, but we’ve now come to a point where today’s Republican Party base hates illegal Mexican immigration and Mormonism more than they hate socialism- so I don’t see much hope anytime soon.

Feb 13, 2009 - 9:55 pm 38. newscaper:

Someone above mentioned the old investment culture.

One thing I *never* see in commentary by conservatives or libertarians (a hybrid of which I consider myself) is the importance of policies promoting old fashioned investing for income, dividends instead of capital gains.

In just pushing for lowering capital gains taxes instead of ending double taxation of dividends (corporate profits), the playing field only becomes further tilted toward speculation.

The problem with going for growth, gains, is that you only actually make money when you sell the stock — int the meantime you got nothing but marks on paper, you can’t eat ‘em.

By contrast, an environment in which people are rewarded for holding on to stocks longer term leads to less volatility in the market, plus this — it is impossible for mgt to fudge the quarterly numbers (with the goal of inflating the stock price & options) when they actually have to pay out cash.

But no one ever talks about this for some reason.

Feb 13, 2009 - 10:00 pm 39. E. O'Neal:

What good is liberty? Americans want benefits. They want some “rich” person to buy them stuff. Anyone who invests or takes a risk like starting a business today is a sucker. If you succeed, our Marxist president will dispossess you of the fruit of your efforts and use it to buy votes. We might as well live in Venezuela or Zimbabwe.

Feb 13, 2009 - 10:15 pm 40. Mwalimu Daudi:

Ya gotta luv #9 (David S.). Well … actually ya don’t. But he is typical of the leftist loony that cried with sorrow when the Berlin Wall came down and still pines for the uplifting speeches that used to come from the Kremlin. No love affair was as torrid and passionate than the one between the Democrat Party and the Soviet Empire. Except perhaps for the one between the Democrat Party and al Qaeda. Even the Messiah is losing His magic.

In 1980 the MSM of the time was convinced that Reagan was going to start a nuclear war with the Soviet Empire five minutes after he took the oath of office (they assured us at every opportunity). Then it was certain nuclear winter by 1982. Then the Gipper would blot out all life just before the 1984 elections (to prevent Jesse Jackson or Walter Mondale or John Glenn from winning a 50-state landslide). Then it was a slam-dunk that everything would be radioactive ash just after the 1984 elections. Then …….

It has been nearly thirty years, and the nuclear war the MSM was praying didn’t exactly happen. Typical. And just as typical is the effort by “David S.” to hog the credit for Reagan’s hard work and bold courage in bringing down the Soviet Empire. Had we listened to The Nation and other Soviet propaganda organs we would all be speaking Russian now.

How is that for moral clarity, “David S.”? Too clear, perhaps? Painful for sure. But true.

Feb 13, 2009 - 10:23 pm 41. peter jackson:

Reagan was the last freedom-first President of the United States. We’ve yet to have another one, including the Republican ones. Reagan understood freedom. He understood what economic freedom was and wasn’t. Today’s Republicans only remember one thing: tax cuts. What to Reagan was a means to an end, to today’s GOP as an end in itself. Otherwise, the Republican party has been the party of public virtue with it’s concerns regarding abortion, gay marriage, the war on drugs, stem cell research, flag burning, school prayer, etc. About the only freedom today’s Republicans won’t bargain away to obtain from Democrats support for one of their public morality planks is the right to bear arms, for which, incidentally, I’m grateful to the Republican Party. The Democrats will ultimately sacrifice any freedom if they perceive it as furthering their goal of equalizing social outcomes (social justice). But other than the Second Amendment, the Republicans are simply not primarily interested in individual freedom either.

Feb 13, 2009 - 10:27 pm 42. peter jackson:

In other words, freedom hasn’t had an advocate in our national government since 1988. And as we all see, it’s starting to show.

Feb 13, 2009 - 10:53 pm 43. johnc:

Three words that todays politicians and many Americans have banned,or are afraid to say,,,
Liberty, Individualism and Independence.

Feb 13, 2009 - 10:53 pm 44. TexaninSouthfl:

During my lifetime, I’ve seen both Democrats and Republicans in the White House… yet this is the first time in my adult life that I alternate between being nauseated and terrified of what is happening in America. I’m not sure which is worse… that we have now have a President who doesn’t believe in ANYTHING that made this nation great… who indeed doesn’t even believe this nation IS great… who believes it needs to be “remade”… or that a little over half the voters were stupid and ignorant enough to buy the snake oil he is selling. I am saddened by the fact that those of us alive today are witnessing the rapid and possibly irreversible decline and fall of the greatest nation in human history. I see a glimmer of hope in the “real” Americans we see on the blogs… the question is, are there enough of us and to what lengths will we go to save America? Will “real” Americans remain largely silent and passive or will they fight? I have never doubted America’s ultimate ability to defeat an external enemy… but now the enemy is within and I’m not sure we can be saved. Wake up America…. wake up before it’s too late.

Feb 13, 2009 - 11:03 pm 45. If you aren’t moved to profanity by this « Buttle’s World:

[...] perhaps you’d rather be depressed than angry. Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Read the BillINTERESTING: No [...]

Feb 13, 2009 - 11:12 pm 46. AST:

I heard a discussion of this on the Dennis Miller Show today. Some of the callers and the host were discussing the merits of Obama’s vision of “remember when the government began to take care of us” with the memory of having to struggle, work, learn and overcome life’s tough knocks.

As I was listening, I remembered my mother’s stories about having to walk along the railroad tracks during the Depression collecting lumps of coal that had fallen off the trains, and my father’s working two jobs while getting his college degree. Where will those lessons come from in the future? Perhaps from a new great depression created by this fiscal crisis.

I think more and more that this is all the culmination of the “leveraged” attitude, that you can have everything now just by borrowing, and if the payments get too high, you can just walk away from your mortgage, because the government will be good for it. Heck, it may even let you keep the house anway.

Feb 13, 2009 - 11:40 pm 47. paul_unalaska:

Mr. Kimball, a few more Reagan diddies I dig:

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.

I don’t believe in a government that protects us from ourselves.

The best minds are not in government. If any were, business would hire them away.

The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, I’m from the government and I’m here to help.

Feb 13, 2009 - 11:45 pm 48. DaveinPhoenix:

Nicely done, 24.Kevin !

Peace, David !

Feb 13, 2009 - 11:56 pm 49. Pete:

ConservativeGirlie: I agree with you, although I do not cry easily – the loss of men like Ronald Reagan, that generation’s rocksolid values in defense of American liberty and individual rights, make me feel an immense sense of loss. Perhaps it is because my late father was a man very much like Reagan himself, who came from humble beginnings to do great things. Ever read Dinesh D’Souza’s book on Reagan, it is terrific. Peggy Noonan’s book “When Character was King,” is also wonderful. As Dame Margaret Thatcher said, “Ronald Reagan won the Cold War single-handedly, and he did it without firing a shot.” She gives herself and Pope John Paul II too little credit, but her statement is essentially true. God, how I miss Ronald Reagan; he’d have eaten Obama and his half-baked ideas for lunch in a debate. We could us his like now, that’s for certain.

DS: Your comments about Reagan only betray your lack of moral clarity, wisdom and belief in the values of our Founding Fathers. Keep on drinking that leftie kool-aid, and answer the phone, it is MoveOn.org calling. Why don’t you try addressing the substance of our arguments instead of making ad hominem attacks on a dead man who is not here to defend himself. I can’t speak for others here, but I wouldn’t have voted for Obama if he run unopposed. His race has nothing to do with that decision on my part, his values everything. He share none of his values, for his road can only make us less free, less capable of steering the ship of our individual lives, and more subject to the petty despotism of bureaucrats whose interests are very different from ours. If socialism is your thing, and it sounds like it is, then by all means get on board the Obama bandwagon. Not me, not chance. Do yourself a favor, if you are open-minded enough. Visit Obama’s home city of Chicago sometime, and see how generations-long control of city government by Dems has ruined life here, resulting in sky-high taxes, terrible city schools, crime, oppressive government at every turn, and much more “change” that you can believe in. Obama (and to be fair, the departed Mr. Bush) have taken us down the road to bankrupcy in a few short months, and sold the future prosperity of our children and grand-children. That’s nothing of which to be proud.

If by some chance President Obama does some good, I’ll credit him for that… but the signs so far are that he is nothing more than simply another “Chicago-style” pol, doing business the Chicago-way — corrupt, incompetent and unethical. It is too soon to tell, but I already see signs of “buyer’s remorse” about the Annointed One. I didn’t vote for him, for so I don’t pretend to understand that emotion.

If this nation descends into a second Great Depression, history will record that it occurred on President Obama’s watch. Thanks to the Dem control of Congress and the White House, it will also record that you Dumbocrats own this crisis, not withstanding the actions of President Bush. Obama’s calls for bipartisanship are nothing more than a pol trying to cover his butt; in case his plan bombs, he wants someone with which to share the blame.

In fairness to the Democrats, I will admit the Congressional Democrats are only as incompetent as those of the GOP. With the exception of Jeff Sessions, Tom Colburn, and a few others, the rest should be in jail, not trying to lead our nation. It is that bad in Soddom-on-the-Potomac these days.

Feb 14, 2009 - 12:28 am 50. greg54444 — Civilian Irregular Information Operator Extraordinaire « Civilian Irregular Information Defense Group:

[...] Tracing this outstanding example of 21st Century pamphleteering from Chief Reynolds to Roger Kimball to Texas Rainmaker brings us to this video by [...]

Feb 14, 2009 - 12:34 am 51. Gary Rosen:

“Cederford. Do you never tire of straw men? Do you never tire of pretending to know something about conservatism?

Every point of yours is wrong or a willful misstatement of facts.”

… and how exactly does that differ from everything else he has ever babbled? Has he *ever* told the truth?

Feb 14, 2009 - 12:48 am 52. Cannoneer No. 4:

AndyJ, we need a Politically Incorrect Political Party to provide the philosophical basis for memetic warfare to be waged by millions of distributed resisters.

We don’t need leaders. We need cat herders.

Feb 14, 2009 - 12:50 am 53. sam:

This is not a clash of idealogies here .Remember the showdown between Clinton and Gingrich ? Clinton said if you dont give me the money I will shut down the goverment> Gingrich said fine.So Clinton shut down some of the goverment and people blamed Gingrich and republicans.That is because most people depend on the goverment now for something.For example a guy is a strong 2ND amendment guy but he is a farmer and getS some payment from DC .Another person is strong on crime but his mom is in a nursing home and he wants more medicaid etc. So now the republicans said if you cant beat them join them. So now we have 2 democratic parties with a little variations.Maybe now they see the error of their ways when the damage is done.After the stimulus hits the fan it will create real misery and the people will vote for the party of compassion because they will be desperate. I hope not but its possible that we have crossed the point of no return.Most of us get something from goverment.Its like heroin.

Feb 14, 2009 - 1:13 am 54. Marc Malone:

#31 JeremyR – “People waiting in ER’s or free clinics to get very basic care. And it’s humiliating.”

Um, what’s wrong with that? It’s free, right? What do you expect… Free, LAVISH health care? And without embarassment? I WANT them to be embarassed! I want them to earn it! What is WRONG with you?!? They’re not entitled to health care. They’re not even entitled to food and housing. They must earn it, period!

As to the lack of health insurance, that’s not the problem. The problem is the spiraling cost of health care. Unless we change that, the government will go broke paying for it all.

Oh, and one more thing, sitting in ER’s and free clinics a long time for very basic care is EXACTLY what is done in free-health-care countries. People even actually die whilst waiting. You get what you pay for.

Feb 14, 2009 - 3:08 am 55. Marc Malone:

The meme being circulated now is that conservatism is a failed policy. That’s how we got into this mess. Bull. Radicals always do this. They undermine the system, then when it fails, they blame the system. That’s like stabbing a guy, and them blaming him for not being able to stand up afterwards. Amazingly, it works, because they convince the sheeple.

Feb 14, 2009 - 3:13 am 56. Ennis:

Barak Obama-the second American dictator. Huey Long (D-LA) was the first.
The “Democratic” party-the first American totalitarian regime.

This will not end well for the Democrats or the Obamamworshipers. Don’t believe me? Hide and watch.

Feb 14, 2009 - 3:15 am 57. Peg C.:

LA Gov. Bobby Jindal will give the response to O’s SotU address Feb. 24. I think it’s possible the conservative movement will be reborn that night. And no, I will not watch the SotU (my blood vessels would burst), but I will be watching Jindal. He embodies all of Reagan’s principles and is a forceful and articulate speaker.

Feb 14, 2009 - 3:51 am 58. JL:

Davis S

“…Six years into Reagan’s presidency… Reaganomics had “accomplished” quite a bit: doubled the national debt….”

I guess that what you’re trying to say is that the “stimulus” plan is a bad idea because it is going to increase national debt.

Feb 14, 2009 - 5:10 am 59. saveliberty:

Roger, thank you for writing this column. I had the same reaction, but I lack your eloquence.

Feb 14, 2009 - 5:33 am 60. newton:

Roger, don’t feel depressed about this. There are many of us who remember Reagan and who know that this infatuation with Obama-socialism shall pass, as soon as people realize that life is not a bag of candy and goodies.

Recently, my husband and I did something rather bold. Our second daughter was born about two weeks ago, and we needed to find a middle name before having her registered in the public records. We chose one name that stood up amidst our parental joy, in spite of the intellectual darkness of our present time: Reagan. Sure, it was five or six days before his birthday, but our point was made.

It was our personal act of defiance before the Obamanation. (Not to mention that her first name has to do with someone who unified her people, faced their biggest enemy threat head-on… and won.) And I dare anyone of his thugs to force us to change her name!

Freedom isn’t bound to their capriciousness, thank Heavens!

Feb 14, 2009 - 5:58 am 61. Sissy Willis:

As I said in the comments at Texas Rainmaker, I never liked soaring rhetoric, and coupled with creeping (leaping?) socialism, I like it even less.

Feb 14, 2009 - 6:26 am 62. SteveM:

“Otherwise, the Republican party has been the party of public virtue with it’s concerns regarding abortion, gay marriage, the war on drugs, stem cell research, flag burning, school prayer, etc.”

Reagan was quite concerned with public virtue, including opposing abortion and fighting the war on drugs. Somebody needs to put together a list of his remarks on these topics to explode the myth that he was a libertarian.

Feb 14, 2009 - 6:42 am 63. Lynn:

Jeremy; on free health care (minus the embarassment)
Well, if your child gets sick under the national health care program, a doctor will not be deciding the course of treatment, the government will decide it. If it is too expensive, and deemed by the gov as not worthy of treatment, your child could very well die. Government will decide whether your mother, maybe she might have cancer, will get treatments or not depending on her age and the expense. Sounds a whole lot like euthanasia to me.

Feb 14, 2009 - 7:06 am 64. Russ:

Many of these comments indicate clearly that conservatives vaguely understand now that trying to “go along to get along” is a recipe for a catastrophic failure. Therein is part of the problem, the GOP is made up of fairly nice people who just want to run their own lives. Secondly, the corruption and lack of ethical clarity in the GOP leadership is the problem. The spinelessness of many of you is another. Tyrants need their asses kicked, and the real problem with this country is that there are not two parties, there is only The Party. The GOP has not been about defending reason for a very long time. I have voted Republican again and again, only to be bitterly dissapointed and betrayed to democrat party “ideals” (sieg heil). When I did bring up my concerns to national GOP officers, what did I get but a pat on the head and demands for cash….
and where was the GOP when the Bush bunch were out of control, and making schoolboy political errors 24/7?.
The real problem with the GOP is that it is a milking machine for suckers, although less successful that the democrat milking machine, which also hands out free passes for greed, fascistic enterprise and all their other crap. This actually mocks the democrat lumpenprols, who are famous for short sightedness, and picks their pockets at the same time. These people could be picked up in a heartbeat, if the GOP was really the party of Lincoln. The DEmocrats know that, otherwise why would the democrat hate machine go after Palin so violently? She scared the hell out of them, that’s why, although she wasn’t really ready for prime time.
Moral clarity is not a minority position. What the conservatives in this country need to do is to dump the peresonal navel-gazing and thumb-sucking, the personal greed and personal religious agendas. Neither party offers anything but bread and circuses and nobody believes in either party, just how these parties can give them stuff stolen from others…if ever there was a time to strike….
Today’s GOP is nothing but a hot-tub for scam artists and is right in there working hard with the Dem leadership (which is clearly run by incompent “elites” or crazy old ladies)to turn the rest of us into slaves. So either act like you are serious, take back the party, or go suck your thumbs and hug your blankie. That or, like Jefferson, understand that personal accoutability is primary, that religion is important in your conduct towards others, but not in your expectations of them, and stop thinking like go-alongs. Spend your time really thinking about how much of what you believe is imprinted nonsense, and how much is a product of your own careful thinking. Your obligations to your country are 24/7 and your response to cconfronting the leviathan should be with harpoons, not decent old men like McCain (a very nice man, by the way). You need warriors, not shiny-toed haaaavad lawyers…and its time to either dissect out much of the GOP leadership or start speaking Chinese. They at least have a future.
(And stop being intimidated by pseudointellectual east coast phoneys. Elite, my ass. It’s a racket.
How is it that the biggest business/government fascist-state propagators have everybody thinking their racket represents “the people”? Because you let them get away with it, not becuase they are smart).

Feb 14, 2009 - 7:33 am 65. saveliberty:

http://www.reason.com/news/show/29318.html
*Snip*
Inside Ronald Reagan
A Reason Interview

July 1975 Print Edition

“I don’t believe in a government that protects us from ourselves.” *Snip*

It’s an interesting interview.

Feb 14, 2009 - 7:39 am 66. punditius:

The American People no longer want to be free. We want to be secure.

It is almost as if “freedom” has been redefined It no longer means “liberty,” so much as it means “security.”

What a majority of us don’t understand anymore is that the attempt to be secure through government means we will lose our liberty. But that majority really doesn’t care about that.

We didn’t care about the liberty we lost under Bush in the name of security from terrorism. Further back, we didn’t care about the liberty we lost under Roosevelt and Johnson in the name of security from economic disruption and medical failures.

I could suggest several causes for this change in our national character, but I will offer only four:

(1) the large scale incorporation into our country of peoples who did not have a culture of liberty and have not adopted what used to be ours, due to the misguided philosophies of diversity and multiculturalism.

(2) the indoctrination of several generations of schoolchildren with the notion that a government bureaucracy is entitled to run their lives on an everyday basis, which occurred by the mere process of those children being in schools and having those schools take over instruction in sexual, political and religious values from the children’s parents, and the governing of their behavior both in and out of school through extracurricular activities and homework, and even by feeding many of them.

(3) the adoption of the income tax, which over time morphed into a system that provided the government with the money to expand its power over us. It accustomed us to the notion that the government is entitled to a portion of our labor and wealth for its own use, in an amount that is determined by the government, and that in extracting that amount, it could invade our lives.

(4) the necessity of government interference in our economic, social and political relationships because of the refusal of a large minority of our people to extend fair treatment to the black man.

I don’t see a return to liberty. The sad fact is that more of us prefer Obama to Reagan. And as time goes by, there won’t even be a choice, because the people will have no real knowledge of Reagan, and what he stood for, any more than they understand the objectives of the Revolution. All there will be is the Obamas, and an increasing oppressive and invasive government that people will regard as normal and even desirable.

Feb 14, 2009 - 8:04 am 67. alice:

Why is it that there always have to be good guys and bad guys? Each side is flawed and each side has flawed people in it. Even Ronald Reagan, even the conservatives of which I am one. This is the human condition

It is silly to think it will ever be otherwise.

Feb 14, 2009 - 8:24 am 68. savage24:

Your colunm is really great. The difference I see between Reagan and Obama is Reagan was an American, and Obama is a Marxist.

Feb 14, 2009 - 8:32 am 69. thegre8_1:

57 peg you are right they are giving Gov Jindal more exposure. A) response to BO on Feb 24 he will make BO look like an imbrcile. B) he is giving a speech in Mar at a GOP dinner the speech was previously given by Pres Bush C) Newt Gingrich did an interview with Morley Safer of 60 minutes discussing Gov Jindsl. GOP has realized we must get Obama out in 2012 or it will be too late and Gov Jindal is the best shot. The way he handled Hurticane Ike compared to Katrina was incredible and NOT covered by our Pravda media .

Feb 14, 2009 - 8:58 am 70. peter jackson:

Reagan was quite concerned with public virtue, including opposing abortion and fighting the war on drugs. Somebody needs to put together a list of his remarks on these topics to explode the myth that he was a libertarian.

No one said Reagan was a libertarian. Yes, Reagan was concerned with public order—as are many Democrats for that matter—but they were not his primary concerns.

“If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals — if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.”

Ronald Reagan
Reason Magazine
July 1975

Feb 14, 2009 - 9:22 am 71. Edmund Onward James:

Obama vs Reagan. No chance. But BO tries to comment and make quotes that sound profound and memorable. He will go down in histroy like Lincoln, FDR, Kennedy, and, of course like the master orator Reagan.

I do miss Reagan and his quips.

I miss Ronald reagan: A Great American Patriot
http://onwardjames.blogspot.com/2009/02/i-miss-ronald-reagan-great-american.html

Feb 14, 2009 - 9:32 am 72. Citizen Paine Blog » How far we’ve fallen: Reagan versus Obama:

[...] is brilliant. From Texas Rainmaker via Roger Simon Pardon me while I go [...]

Feb 14, 2009 - 10:02 am 73. tanstaafl:

The battle continues over whether FDR shortened or lengthened the Depression with government programs.

It’s true that many self-respecting people during the Depression didn’t want to get sucked into dependency on government handouts.

It’s true today that when you “get” a house through programs like Carter (and then Clinton’s) Community Reinvestment Act (or get a house like Henrietta Hughes) you don’t appreciate it in the same fashion as if you had worked and saved to achieve it. You would be a lot more apt to decline on a mortgage you couldn’t afford in the first place.

The 10 scariest words in the English language…

“Hello, I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”

Feb 14, 2009 - 10:11 am 74. tanstaafl:

decline

default

Paraphrasing James Madison , the water is being slowly heated in the pot and we frogs aren’t aware we’re about to be boiled alive.

Feb 14, 2009 - 10:14 am 75. Russ:

A last comment. You all gave up this nation to the marxists when you gave up the public schools to the fiendish public unions. What do you think the template of the scum NEA is? Everything from rewarding bullet-proof jobs to the incompetent to the fundamental bias against competive sports and accomplishment, to the mindless zero-tolerance against [fill in the blank] anything that slightly smells of independence in kids is crushed. I taught in public schools for a bit, even the last dying whisper of generations with the American spirt had to be softly communicated to me, lest the (older) teacher become a target for the overpaid, underperforming lockstep thugs of the administrations (My kid had to put up with a week of Kwanza bullsh++ (that’s right, the “invented” UCLA socialist holiday, but Christmas was rigoriously suppressed. The murderous hatred of the Bill Ayers school of social “education” already rules and political purity is the only acceptable , and corruption conduct of a teacher, and is the fundament of these mediocre idiots(Stalin never missed a meal). You either take back the schools and restore freedom, or whatever the hell you think being free is… is over.

Feb 14, 2009 - 10:34 am 76. Russ:

Sorry for the above drop-outs, my editing sucked. I tend to flip out when I realize I am paying thugs for oppression. The marxists have the kids and the public unions (no surprise) in their pockets and the ability to tax, and the GOP hasn’t got a damn clue.

Anyway, sorry for making a hash of sentence structure.

Feb 14, 2009 - 10:42 am 77. Gary Rosen:

“As I said in the comments at Texas Rainmaker, I never liked soaring rhetoric, and coupled with creeping (leaping?) socialism, I like it even less.”

Sissy, you are a woman after my own heart. Totally apart from BO’s ideology (and that is problematic enough) I have been completely put off by his medicine man aura, people swooning over him without regard to the content (if any) of what he is reading off the teleprompter.

Perhaps that is because I am not a great speaker myself. I sympathized with Bush for exactly that reason, but there is another side to the coin. Bush hurt himself by his inability to express his policies, and Reagan of course was a great and inspiring speaker. The difference between Reagan and BO is that Reagan’s speeches were rooted firmly in his beliefs and there was never any question where he stood – “Evil empire”, “tear down this wall” – in stunning contrast to BO’s smarmy, empty platitudes.

Feb 14, 2009 - 11:23 am 78. goy:

@22. Mongoose: - David S: You are a gnat. Not even an ankle biter. You have all the moral clarity of a can of tuna fish.

LOL!! Styrofoam tuna, actually. By his own admission.

But that’s a whole other thread… about trolls, witless leftists and quasi-erudite ideologues with college degrees, zero life experience and no comprehension of history.

Feb 14, 2009 - 12:12 pm 79. Oh, bother:

Russ, your posts are clarifying. Thank you. Do you have a blog?

Feb 14, 2009 - 12:34 pm 80. deguello:

Russ are you sure you don’t have a gps system embedded in your brain? You are so on target!Take back and pay back should be the watchwords of a new conservatism;we need to create cultural and political ressitance orgaizations, that will engage the statist scum at the street level with demonstrations,pesonal attacks,backed by private detective work,and civil disobedience actions to smash what is becoming an icipient staliist state based on theft and anti-euroamericanism.We need to lose the traditional conservative respect for law and order,and take to the street. Law is simply what a libscum judge says and no more;why should any patriot have a problem with “breaking”it? For starters college students need to demand the closing down of affimative action(anti-white racism centers)by occupying the universities.We should raise the consciousness and undermine the loyalty to the pig state of army officers at the level of major down.Tax strikes, mobbing holywood lib scum,demanding they turn over half of their fortunes to the poor,demonstrations in front of Left wing media offices etc.Finally, in order to impoverish the cultural left scum like hollywood,and their wallst. left wing plutocrats that run the Democrat party(Soros,Rubin)We should call for a wealth tax on the very rich. Yes folks! right wing socialism;a political system that let’s syphilitic psychopaths like George Soros,,Madonna and others,keep so much money, lets them run our lives!Let’s get off our butts,and hit the streets!If we don’t,the left will yoke us and our children as milch cows for their welfare queens,and their cultural lunacies. PREPARE RESIST ATTACK! WIN!WHO IS WITH ME?

Feb 14, 2009 - 1:07 pm 81. Burke:

We look back to Reagan because he was the only Conservative to be elected to the Presidency. Regan was well versed in Friedrich Hayeck’s ideas and held them with a conviction that no other politician has ever matched. Given their opposition, I was glad that both Bush’s won. I would say that neither of the men understood or believed in smaller government and individual liberty. We need a candidate who can bring voice to our ideals before we travel too far down that road to serfdom.

Feb 14, 2009 - 4:48 pm 82. The Historian:

TIMES HAVE CHANGED: AS HAVE OUR VALUES
It is not recession. It is not Euro socialism. It is about our degenerating American vlaues.

http://greensrealworld.blogspot.com/2009/02/can-america-recover.html

Feb 14, 2009 - 6:20 pm 83. George:

While Reagan was concerned with wealth creation, Obama simply skips the creation part and, as good socialist, focuses on distribution.
While Reagan believed the government is the problem not the solution, Obama believes government is the solution and individuals are the problem.

Feb 14, 2009 - 6:51 pm 84. David S:

@24. Kevin:

Its put up or shut up time:

Oh good. That’s my favorite time.

1. Which of Reagan’s specific proposals doubled the national debt; which directly caused the S&L crisis

Reagan’s tax cuts and military spending were two major contributors to the doubling of the national debt. He retroactively changed the tax laws on “passive loss”, which helped to cause the S&L crisis (along with deregulation).

2. Which CIA memorandum (under the FoIA) are you referring to in which it was a foregone conclusion that Russia was teetering?

It’s not like there was just one memo. Why don’t you check out what the CIA has to say about it? “…we find it hard to believe that anyone who has read the CIA’s annual public reports on the state of the Soviet economy since 1975 could possibly interpret them as saying that the Soviet economy was booming. On the contrary, these reports regularly reported the steady decline in the Soviet growth rate and called attention to the deep and structural problems that pointed to continued decline…” This stuff isn’t classified – no FOIA needed.

3. Of the 100 crooks, please name names: just give us 10 and their specific crimes committed.

Ok. No problem.

1. Lyn Nofziger–convicted on charges of illegal lobbying of White House in Wedtech scandal
2. Michael Deaver received three years’ probation and was fined one hundred thousand dollars after being convicted for lying to a congressional subcomittee and a federal grand jury about his lobbying activities after leaving the White House
3. E. Bob Wallach, close friend and law classmate of Atty General Edwin Meese, was sentenced to six years in prison and fined $250,000 in connection with the Wedtech influence-peddling scandal
4. Oliver North–convicted of falsifying and destroying documents, accepting an illegal gratuity, and aiding and abeting the obstruction of Congress
5. John Poindexter, Reagan’s national security advisor, –guilty of five criminal counts involving conspiracy to mislead Congress, obstructing congressional inquiries, lying to lawmakers, used “high national security” to mask deceit and wrong-doing
6. Richard Secord pleaded guilty to a felony charge of lying to Congress over Iran-Contra
7. Rita Lavelle was fired after accusing a senior EPA official of “systematically alienating the business community.” She was later indicted, tried and convicted of lying to Congress and served three months of a six-month prison sentence
8. Elliott Abrams was appointed by President Reagan in 1985 to head the State Department’s Latin American Bureau. He was closely linked with ex-White House aide Lt. Col. Oliver North’s covert movement to aid the Contras. Working for North, Abrams coordinated inter-agency support for the contras and helped solicit illegal funding from foreign powers as well as domestic contributors. Abrams agreed to cooperate with Iran-Contra investigators and pled guilty to two charges reduced to misdemeanors. He was sentenced in 1991 to two years probation and 100 hours of community service but was pardoned by President George Bush…
9. Robert C. McFarlane, Reagan’s National Security Advisor, pled guilty to four misdemeanors and was sentenced to two years probation and 200 hours of community service. He was also fined $20,000. He received a blanket pardon from President George Bush…
10. Alan D. Fiers was the Chief of the Central Intelligence Agency’s Central American Task Force. Fiers pled guilty in 1991 to two counts of withholding information from congress about Oliver North’s activities and the diversion of Iran arms sale money to aid the Contras. He was sentenced to one year of probation and 100 hours of community service. Alan Fiers received a blanket pardon for his crimes from President Bush…

I could go on, but you can check the link yourself. 138 convictions.

4. Which government body is the only one with the authority to pass appropriation/spending bills?

That would be the Congress – and which government official is the only one with the authority to veto such bills? (Hint: Reagan was…)

5. Who was primarily responsible for establishing the Resolution Trust Corporation?

The United States Congress, in 1989.

We await your reply….

Sorry to keep you waiting. It was a powder day – fresh tracks first. Let me know if I can help clarify any other bits of history.

Peace.

DS

Feb 14, 2009 - 8:15 pm 85. David S:

@78. goy:

But that’s a whole other thread… about trolls, witless leftists and quasi-erudite ideologues with college degrees, zero life experience and no comprehension of history.

Your comment makes it clear you are trolling. Your pointless personal attacks are not helping your credibility. If you can stay on topic, I will be happy to demonstrate my rapier wit, profound erudition, breadth of life experience and superior comprehension of history for your edification.

In fact I have, repeatedly, at your expense.

Peace.

DS

PS – Are you a putz in person, too?

Feb 14, 2009 - 9:27 pm 86. donttreadonme:

Ode to Obama

I raise this hammer O’ Great Leader
Let it smash the Capitalist that robs us
The oppressed will no longer cower
The coin shall be returned to its rightful owner

I raise this sickle O’ Great Redeemer
Let it slash the Warmonger that bleeds us
The downtrodden will no longer suffer
The eagle shall be caged in the name of peace

I raise this many hued Peacock O’Great Savior
Let its cry silence the Liar that deceives us
The proletariat will no longer grovel
The voices of dissent shall be silenced

I raise this form of Gaia O’ Great One
Let her tears drown the Vandal that despoils us
The innocent will no longer crawl
The resources of our Mother shall be preserved

Feb 14, 2009 - 9:29 pm 87. myth buster:

Jindal is good going forward, but in 2012 he should run for Vice President. Huckabee should run for President in 2012.

Feb 14, 2009 - 11:01 pm 88. Blackwell:

Economic freedom helped people escape the dead hand of midieval nobles and clerics. It made the US strong and kept government in its place for decades.

Government never creates wealth. It never expands freedom. It contracts both. It always has.

The government has stoked easy credit from time immemorial: gold as legal tender was abolished for years; gold coins withdrawn in the 30’s; silver coins have not been seen since 1965; the dollar isn’t tied to anythig.

This last bust was caused by the fed lowering interest rates to historic lows for an unparalleled time; they stoked the market with fannie and freddie insisting that banks loan to red lined areas that my neighborhood banker as a kid would never have touched.

Now with the wreckage of years of easy credit, the government snaps back its credit card and appalled at the corrective market measures in play, says “look at what you did!” Now it wants more control- – to loan tax dollars to malfunctioning GM and by extension, the UAW. And all the other porker beneficiaries.

With more control will come a host of new laws designed to make your life better as others see it.

Reagan never intended the SEC and FDIC to doze and allow federally insured–taxpayer insured-banks to invest in speculative paper. Bush was no Reagan.

What a shame the GOP ddn’t take its stewardship of Reagan’s ideas seriously.

Feb 14, 2009 - 11:56 pm 89. Gene Lalor:

How about Reagan vs. our other 43 presidents?

Presidents’ Week and Our Presidents–According to the Brits

It’s always entertaining when the British comment on American history; it becomes presumptuous when they evaluate and rank American presidents.

Staffers at the British publication, the Times, did just that during our last national campaign and came up with some interesting picks on the first forty three American presidents: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article5055404.ece.

Their choices for the top nine chief executives were pretty much on the mark and not open for much quibbling, although the order could easily be challenged. Finishing 1-2 in the rankings were Lincoln and Washington and there’s not much debate there though their spots are interchangeable.

FDR as Numero Three can readily be disputed. The British are understandably partial toward Franklin Roosevelt since he immersed us in World War II in large part to save their sorry posteriors and to insure they did not speak German today instead of the Queen’s English. I’d assign Reagan to that third place (from eighth), move Jefferson and Teddy Roosevelt up a peg into the fourth and fifth slots, Truman into sixth from seventh just ahead of Ike and, generously, let FDR claim the eighth position followed by James K. Polk.

Rounding out the Times’ top ten, Woodrow Wilson is another result of English indebtedness and partiality since he also saved their litle island when he made us a player in the First World War by involving us in that European conflict and helping to turn the tide against the Kaiser, at the cost of over a quarter million U.S. casualties. Wilson’s War to End All Wars didn’t even come close to accomplishing that goal and the Versailles Treaty paved the way for Hitler and the next world war.

Consequently, I’d put Woodrow somewhere in the third tier, if that.

Other peculiar choices were JFK (11) and LBJ (12). The Times acknowledged that, “Kennedy had a troubling and not entirely successful foreign policy record that included the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Bay of Pigs fiasco and the escalation of the Vietnam War” and that it was Johnson who turned Jack’s civil rights ideas into laws, but both also merit third, or second, tiers by virtue of involving us in Viet Nam and another loss of 60,000 lives in a losing cause.

Nevertheless, JFK’s continuing yet tarnished mystique still carried the day. As for LBJ’s mystique, maybe the Brits are into abusing dogs’ ears and presidents giving press conferences while sitting on the toilet?

President George H.W. Bush. . .

(Resd the rest of the British grading of our presidents at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=835)

Feb 15, 2009 - 12:28 am 90. Scott:

How inspirational to hear the Gipper’s sane voice of reason once again! I can’t seem to stop replaying the video.

Feb 15, 2009 - 7:04 am 91. 888:

Reagan was a humble, God-fearing, God-loving, America-loving believer in all that’s good about America and the potential of man. He was about helping others to prosper and be free.

Obama is an elitist, arrogant, self-absorbed, egotistical, shameless, hypocritical charlatan who uses his blackness, charm, and gloom & doom to fool his worshipers. He’s all about self and getting votes.

Feb 15, 2009 - 7:05 am 92. shins:

91. 888 . .. right on . . . he was a man for everybody . . . well, except for the air traffic controllers . . . and the gays, and the poor black single mothers he called “welfare queens” . . . and Nelson Mandela who RR said was the head of a “terrorist organization” . . . and the fact that RR was a flat our liar about helping Iran prosper by giving them weapons. . . so why do conservatives hold him in such high regard? Low standards.

Feb 15, 2009 - 10:16 am 93. view from afar:

Great article! Now, while Reagan was a great President, I see the same type of fawning and foaming at the mouth by many conservatives in awe of Reagan,he too was just a man! It’s no where near the rabid adoration of “that one” ( I use his name in English), but that is because more conservatives already have a God and a savoir, so no need to create a savior in the personnae of the President.

Feb 15, 2009 - 10:59 am 94. Latte Rules!:

Shins: The PATCO union struck in face of clear federal law prohibiting it. Reagan warned them, they called and they were fired–as they should have been. Are you suggesting they ought to have been rewarded? What a great precedent that would have set. The gays: what exactly did he do that makes you think he had it in for them? Obama said in the debates that he opposed gay marriage. AIDS was in its infancy in the early 80’s and gay organizations themselves came around-finally-to admitting that safe sex practices they had minimized were in fact the way to best control it. As for being a “flat out liar,” hmmmm, I wonder if any other presidents have said things that weren’t true. What do you think? Reagan got the most mail, was the most farseeing and historically appreciative, and was perhaps the most human of presidents since Lincoln (although I wasn’t at all keen on ihs wife).

Feb 15, 2009 - 12:06 pm 95. Nav:

Reagan was a piece of cow dung. What he did to Viet Nam War veterans is apalling. His administration fixed the Agent Orange lawsuit against the veterans to protect the corporations. That wasn’t enough they falsified the science of the Ranch Hand Report to get the corporations off the hook as well and keep them off, even today.
Reagans policies set up todays bank failures by way of deregulation. Ross Perot warned us in the elections of 92 of these failures and why it was going to happen.
It was Reagan that was against CAFE standards and alternatives and lowering the speed limits.
He played the President, he wasn’t president.

Feb 15, 2009 - 2:58 pm 96. Delia:

This excellent youtube vid is a perfect companion to this topic:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6DmjBneGBc&eurl

I miss Ronny.

Feb 15, 2009 - 9:25 pm 97. Jim B:

Reagan tripled the national debt.

Reagan tripled the national debt.

Reagan tripled the national debt.

Please realized that a good strong fiscal conservative would be great for America but Ronald Reagan tripled the national debt. Open your eyes and see the truth and not the stupid propaganda from a political party.

Obama is a moderate Democrat who seems to want rich people to pay moderate amount of taxes. I don’t have a problem with that.

Feb 16, 2009 - 6:56 am 98. JackT:

Reagan sucked, big time.

Feb 16, 2009 - 7:32 pm 99. SFASU7392:

Jim B:

Obama is about as moderate as Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, Lev davidovich Bronshtein or Iosif Visarrionovich Dzhugashvili.

Feb 17, 2009 - 8:36 am 100. Cybergeezer:

Answering the premise of this article: Not any chance.
Obama’s so poor in character he can’t even imitate any one with any semblance.
This pathetic individual is a disaster all on his own.
His legacy: Causing the U.S. to be nuked.

Feb 17, 2009 - 6:22 pm 101. Cybergeezer:

Almost as erudite and effluent as DAVID S.
And I use ‘effluent’ specifically.

Feb 17, 2009 - 6:28 pm 102. David S:

@101. Cybergeezer:

And I use ‘effluent’ specifically.

You might want to lay off the ‘effluent’, as it appears to be overflowing onto your keyboard. I don’t even want to know what you use it for.

Peace.

DS

Feb 18, 2009 - 10:04 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: