Does pointing out Obama's "mistakes" make George the Worst look better? Never mind...I know how that one will be answered.

Silly me. I forgot the operative template: Repubs/Cons bad, evil,greedy, racist,etc...., Dems/Libs compassionate, caring, pure, infallable,etc....

Mr. Schue and I have been friends for over 30 years. I happen to be poking at Jim. I know he's not endorsing Obama/Carte, just the same as I am not elevating Bush 43 by pointing out Obama's mistakes. Matter of fact, I don't recall pointing out Obama mistakes in this thread.

Not hardly Jim, not hardly. Nice try though. Those of us old enough to actually remember how it was know better. Most of us anyway.

 

By "not hardly," are you saying that there isn't an active movement to deify Reagan and whitewash the warts of his presidency?

Silly me. I forgot the operative template: Repubs/Cons bad, evil,greedy, racist,etc...., Dems/Libs compassionate, caring, pure, infallable,etc....

Mr. Schue and I have been friends for over 30 years. I happen to be poking at Jim. I know he's not endorsing Obama/Carte, just the same as I am not elevating Bush 43 by pointing out Obama's mistakes. Matter of fact, I don't recall pointing out Obama mistakes in this thread.

 

:thumb: :thumb:

Not hardly Jim, not hardly. Nice try though. Those of us old enough to actually remember how it was know better. Most of us anyway.

 

I'm old enough and remember both the good and the bad of the 80's.

Does pointing out Obama's "mistakes" make George the Worst look better? Never mind...I know how that one will be answered.

 

George may hold the title of "the Worst" shorter than anyone else ever has. Plus, I'm not sure anyone to date has been worse than Carter.

By "not hardly," are you saying that there isn't an active movement to deify Reagan and whitewash the warts of his presidency?

 

Deify? Yep, that's what I'm saying.

 

However, if you want to leave off the hyperbole I have no doubt that there are people who want to polish his image and whitewash the warts. Same as there are people who want to diminish his accomplishments. Do you think that's unusual for a popular president?

I'm old enough and remember both the good and the bad of the 80's.

 

Same here. You must also remember the contrast from the 70's.

George may hold the title of "the Worst" shorter than anyone else ever has. Plus, I'm not sure anyone to date has been worse than Carter.

 

That is a very valid comparison and battle. Those are the two worst presidents of the past 50+ years IMO (i.e. Bush W and Carter).

That is a very valid comparison and battle. Those are the two worst presidents of the past 50+ years IMO (i.e. Bush W and Carter).

 

Neither will be at the top of the heep in 2 more years. At his current pace Barack Hussien Obama will wear the crown. He is certainly already the least qualifed.

Deify? Yep, that's what I'm saying.

 

However, if you want to leave off the hyperbole I have no doubt that there are people who want to polish his image and whitewash the warts. Same as there are people who want to diminish his accomplishments. Do you think that's unusual for a popular president?

 

I think Reagan has become some sort of mythical figure for Republicans. I don’t think it’s simply defending his presidency or glossing over any errors as is typical for partisans and their respective presidents. Almost all Republicans will throw in a few lines of praise, solicited or not, to Ronald Reagan or demand that policies be brought in line with what Reagan would have done, whether those policies match his policies or not. The Republican National Committee recently proposed a “litmus test” for its candidates called the “Reagan’s Unity Principle for Support of Candidates” where potential candidates were asked to state their affirmation of principles such as “a lower national deficit” and “no amnesty for illegal immigrants.” During the last Republican primary, John McCain said “I think we went on a spending spree that, frankly, betrayed Ronald Reagan's principles about tax cuts and restraint of spending.” Primary candidates were also repeatedly asked if they would be endorsed by Ronald Reagan and often explained without prompt why their candidacy was closer to Reagan than the others’. Charlie Crist, defending his conservative credentials, claims Reagan would be “turning over in his grave” over federal spending. When asked about Obama’s nuclear treaty with Russia, Sarah Palin said “we miss Ronald Reagan who would say to our enemies: ‘we win, you lose.’” But, if you actually look back at the Reagan presidency you would find that the federal deficit skyrocketed, illegal immigrants were granted amnesty, and a nearly identical treaty on nuclear arms was signed with Russia. There are plenty more examples. But, my point isn’t to say Reagan was a bad president – he wasn’t – but to say that his name is incessantly invoked by Republicans and often used to bolster support for policies that Reagan didn’t or where the record of his presidency suggests he didn’t emulate. It’s as if it doesn’t matter what the actual Reagan record is, but that he has simply become a Rorschach test for conservative policies.

I think Reagan has become some sort of mythical figure for Republicans. I don’t think it’s simply defending his presidency or glossing over any errors as is typical for partisans and their respective presidents. Almost all Republicans will throw in a few lines of praise, solicited or not, to Ronald Reagan or demand that policies be brought in line with what Reagan would have done, whether those policies match his policies or not. The Republican National Committee recently proposed a “litmus test” for its candidates called the “Reagan’s Unity Principle for Support of Candidates” where potential candidates were asked to state their affirmation of principles such as “a lower national deficit” and “no amnesty for illegal immigrants.” During the last Republican primary, John McCain said “I think we went on a spending spree that, frankly, betrayed Ronald Reagan's principles about tax cuts and restraint of spending.” Primary candidates were also repeatedly asked if they would be endorsed by Ronald Reagan and often explained without prompt why their candidacy was closer to Reagan than the others’. Charlie Crist, defending his conservative credentials, claims Reagan would be “turning over in his grave” over federal spending. When asked about Obama’s nuclear treaty with Russia, Sarah Palin said “we miss Ronald Reagan who would say to our enemies: ‘we win, you lose.’” But, if you actually look back at the Reagan presidency you would find that the federal deficit skyrocketed, illegal immigrants were granted amnesty, and a nearly identical treaty on nuclear arms was signed with Russia. There are plenty more examples. But, my point isn’t to say Reagan was a bad president – he wasn’t – but to say that his name is incessantly invoked by Republicans and often used to bolster support for policies that Reagan didn’t or where the record of his presidency suggests he didn’t emulate. It’s as if it doesn’t matter what the actual Reagan record is, but that he has simply become a Rorschach test for conservative policies.

 

:thumb: He is becoming mythical. I will say that I liked Reagan as president, but I was in elementary (and middle) school at the time of his presidency.

ALL the great Presidents had a few warts....If you want to dwell on the negative I guess thats fine... Reagan will go down as one of the greats of all time warts and all...

I think Reagan has become some sort of mythical figure for Republicans. I don’t think it’s simply defending his presidency or glossing over any errors as is typical for partisans and their respective presidents. Almost all Republicans will throw in a few lines of praise, solicited or not, to Ronald Reagan or demand that policies be brought in line with what Reagan would have done, whether those policies match his policies or not. The Republican National Committee recently proposed a “litmus test” for its candidates called the “Reagan’s Unity Principle for Support of Candidates” where potential candidates were asked to state their affirmation of principles such as “a lower national deficit” and “no amnesty for illegal immigrants.” During the last Republican primary, John McCain said “I think we went on a spending spree that, frankly, betrayed Ronald Reagan's principles about tax cuts and restraint of spending.” Primary candidates were also repeatedly asked if they would be endorsed by Ronald Reagan and often explained without prompt why their candidacy was closer to Reagan than the others’. Charlie Crist, defending his conservative credentials, claims Reagan would be “turning over in his grave” over federal spending. When asked about Obama’s nuclear treaty with Russia, Sarah Palin said “we miss Ronald Reagan who would say to our enemies: ‘we win, you lose.’” But, if you actually look back at the Reagan presidency you would find that the federal deficit skyrocketed, illegal immigrants were granted amnesty, and a nearly identical treaty on nuclear arms was signed with Russia. There are plenty more examples. But, my point isn’t to say Reagan was a bad president – he wasn’t – but to say that his name is incessantly invoked by Republicans and often used to bolster support for policies that Reagan didn’t or where the record of his presidency suggests he didn’t emulate. It’s as if it doesn’t matter what the actual Reagan record is, but that he has simply become a Rorschach test for conservative policies.

 

Amazing how little time it takes to revise history. Won't be long until Clinton lost control of the deficit...

 

http://www.slate.com/id/100474

Amazing how little time it takes to revise history. Won't be long until Clinton lost control of the deficit...

 

http://www.slate.com/id/100474

It really happens as to how you look at it.... Clinton "controlled" the deficit by carving the worlds fourth largest fighting force out of our own military... Most Clinton backers won't talk about the base closings and the thousands that were put out of work and the tons of small businesses that were forced to shut down... They only want to say he "controlled" the deficit...

It really happens as to how you look at it.... Clinton "controlled" the deficit by carving the worlds fourth largest fighting force out of our own military... Most Clinton backers won't talk about the base closings and the thousands that were put out of work and the tons of small businesses that were forced to shut down... They only want to say he "controlled" the deficit...

 

It will be interesting to see what some of the numbers look like when, God willing, we get ourselves out of these two wars.