|

Ronald Reagan an icon among liberals?

 reagan-mondale__1222382108_09032.jpg

Yeah, I said I was going to give that debt crisis thing a rest for a while, but I’m willing to make an exception for my old buddy Ronald Reagan.

It says HERE that Democrats are regularly invoking memories of Reagan these days, mainly because of the Gipper’s emphatic support for raising the debt ceiling to ward off economic chaos:

[U]nlike many Republicans [currently] in the House, the fiscally conservative late president believed it was essential for the United States to make good on its all obligations and raise the debt ceiling.

And Democrats across the spectrum on Wednesday have been holding the conservative hero up to Republicans as an example they should follow.

“I find myself these days quoting Ronald Reagan,” said Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) at a news conference Wednesday. “‘The full consequences of a default,’ he said, ‘or even the serious prospect of a default by the United States are impossible to predict and awesome to contemplate. Denigration of the full faith and credit of the United States would have substantial effects on the domestic financial markets and the value of the dollar in exchange markets. The nation can ill afford to allow such a result.’”

FOOTNOTE: Another reason that I like Reagan is that his presidency, in some ways, represented lots of things that today’s right-wing wackos despise.

I noted here just last week that from the Tea Party point of view, as THIS GUY MOCKINGLY SUGGESTS, the case could be made that Reagan’s was “the worst presidency in American history”:

This president [Reagan] is a president every conservative Republican and Tea Party member should loathe.

This president nearly tripled the national debt. This president signed an immigration reform bill that granted blanket amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants. This president talked with our enemies. This president raised taxes 11 times. This president, in fact, raised payroll taxes in order to pay for government-run health care. This president presided over double-digit unemployment. This president expanded the size of government and created new federal departments. This president cut and ran, withdrawing troops from hostile regions. This president put two justices on the Supreme Court that voted to uphold Roe v. Wade. This president closed tax loopholes to ensure “every corporation pay their fair share.” This president even advocated gun control on the op-ed pages of the, gasp, New York Times.

Share:

3 Comments

  1. Wisconsin is the future

    But Americans are identifying them with Bush, except that everything that they said about Bush wasn’t really true about Bush. Obama is a lot like Obama’s description of Bush, not Reagan. Pat, it shows. Under Obama, 75% of Americans believe that our country is heading in the wrong direction. What was it in 1984?

  2. Dan F.

    Barbara Boxer is my senator, a she is a complete lunatic. If you need proof, just ask a freshman philosophy student to study the logical structure of the comment that you quoted.

    Boxer is saying default would be catastrophic, but then she supports policies that will pretty much guarantee the very thing she claims to fear. How irrational is that? Look at the various scenarios under which this budget psychodrama in Washington could play out. The one scenario with the highest probability of eventual default is precisely the one that Boxer is supporting: higher spending, higher taxes and regulations that gum up economic growth, refusal to cut government spending, and shameless apathy about balancing the budget.

    What further evidence do you need that the woman is utterly disconnected from reality? But remember, she is from the Bay Area, where I now live. City workers here get subsidized sex-change operations. Every Easter there is a “Hunky Jesus” beauty contest in nearby Dolores Park. I hear the F-word in church now and then, even in prayers and sermons. If you fill out a form here, it doesn’t ask whether you are male or female–it asks, “By what gender do you self-identify?” The place is wall-to-wall insanity, and they elect insane politicians like Boxer. That’s why I read rrstar.com and post comments. I am trying to warn my family and old friends in Rockford that liberalism is a complete failure that always ends in tears and wastelands.

    And besides, no serious proposal from the GOP calls for default. When the liberals scream that the GOP wants to drag the nation into default, they are either deliberately lying or they are simply repeating stupid things that other stupid people have taught them.

    On other fronts, last week you scoffed at my comment that Obama was running behind a generic Republican and you asked me to name a poll where Obama was trailing a named Republican. Didn’t have to wait long… RealClearPolitics today shows Romney at 43% and Obama at 42%. And Romney is a giant yawn!

  3. Dan: Your comment is nonsense.

    You write: “The one scenario with the highest probability of eventual default is precisely the one that Boxer is supporting: higher spending…”

    But Boxer has specifically said she favors a plan that includes spending cuts — and higher taxes on the wealthy, which your plutocratic Republican friends stubbornly oppose.

    And then there’s your rant about cultural stuff in your neck of the woods that has nothing whatever to do with deficits or taxes or spending: “Every Easter there is a ‘Hunky Jesus’ beauty contest in nearby Dolores Park. I hear the F-word in church now and then, even in prayers and sermons. If you fill out a form here, it doesn’t ask whether you are male or female–it asks, ‘By what gender do you self-identify?’ The place is wall-to-wall insanity, and they elect insane politicians like Boxer.”

    Well, I could cite other locales — in the South, for example — where the cultural insanity is of the opposite variety, where end-times foolishness and theocracy are spouted from the pulpits, where racism and homophobia prevail, where science is scorned and superstition reigns supreme, and where they elect right-wing Republicans. But so what?

    If you don’t like the culture where you live, then move. (But, please, don’t move here. We don’t need any more wingnuts.)

    Oh, and you’ve misrepresented the RealClearPolitics report on polls in which Obama faces Romney in a hypothetical matchup. The RCP average of such polls shows Obama ahead:
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html

    The only such poll that shows Romney ahead is the one from Rasmussen. But, as I’ve explained here before, Rasmussen polls are highly dubious and rarely track with the results of polls conducted by more reliably scientific methods.

    So, considering your comment as a whole, I look forward to your next pack of nonsense and lies.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CAPTCHA Image

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>