You just knew there would be some pretty energetic attempts to shit all over Reagan and to try to distort his legacy, and with the level of hatred among the modern left at anything to the right of Al Gore, this was to be expected. At any rate, Atrios has spent the last 36 hours with some of the most dextrous attempts at re-writing history mixed in with some venal Clinton worship. This one made me giggle:
The number of nondefense federal employees grew under Reagan, as they did under the first Bush. The number shrunk when Clinton was in office.
The economy under Reagan grew at an average rate of 3.5%, a healthy clip matched by the economy under Bill Clinton. The unemployment rate averaged 7.3%.
How bout this yardstick, jackass. How about we measure the before and after. Like, for example, what was the economic condition prior to Reagan taking office, what was it like when he left office. Just asking. BTW- Clinton inherited a recovering economy poised for a boom with a whole new sector taking off. That does not take away from Clinton not screwing it up, but Christ, you pissant, at least try to be objective.
It was hard to stifle a giggle with this idiotic post, too:
Sorry, Senator, but you’re just wrong.
Fellow GOP Sen. John Cornyn called Mr. Reagan “one of our greatest presidents.” – an assessment shared by more and more historians over the years. “He left the Oval Office as the most popular president in the modern era. Ronald Reagan loved America – and America loved him back.”
Atrios then posts Clinton’s approval ratings when he left office (65%) and Reagan’s (63%), using that as proof that Clinton was more popular. Which is great, except it proves that the Senator was exactly right. When Reagan left office, he was the most popular president in the modern era. Clinton was President after Reagan, unless my recollection history is as screwed up as Atrios’s.
Then there is this post:
From those crack reporters at NPR (specifically, Neal Conan):
Growing up in the little town America of Dixon, Illinois, during the Great Depression, Ronald Reagan was interested in sports and acting.
Reagan was 18 when the stock market crashed.
Apparently, we now have it codified that the physical age of 18 officially means that you have grown up, and any experiences afterward, however traumatic, mean nothing. BTW- if you are wondering why Atrios hates NPR, it is because they are not liberal enough. But really- Atrios is a moderate.
I understand there may be those who dislike intensely what Reagan did in office. However, this sort of revisionism is not going to stand, and Atrios and the haters can go to hell. The very fact that the mainstream left of the blogging community takes their marching orders from this jackass should be an embarassment (and dont tell me they don’t- if it appears on the anonymous slanderer’s sight, it will be linked by damn near everyone on my liberal blogroll by the end of the day.
All together now, guys:
“Really, Atrios may be a liberal, but he is really moderate.”
Not content with the bile and venom they leveled at him during his entire Presidency, they now want to shit on his grave, selectively misrepresent his record, and re-write history. Because, you know, everything was perfect in 1979 under Jimmy Carter, and just went to hell afterwards.
Myria
The level of obsessive hatred on that site is truely stunning, and a depressingly high percentage of his commenters are in serious need of major anti-psychotics. I honestly can’t imagine what it must be like to go through life so filled with hate that you can take joy in the death of someone you never even met.
Myria
frontinus
If you want to see some professional revisionism check out Juan Cole. I almost choked on my tongue when he admitted Carter actually began the assistance of the muj in Afghanistan. Maybe he didn’t proof it before posting and that little objective fact slipped through. Though he does go to some length to explain even that one away. About like those who try to dismiss JFK’s assistance to Holden Roberto in Angola. Or Carter’s indirect funding contravening the Clark Amendment. All the while holding up Reagan’s support of UNITA as the height of imperialism.
Also funny that the good professor takes up the tired refrain that Soviet Russia was crumbling and everyone could see. I guess Carter didn’t get the message while he was trying to patch together a plan to counter Soviet assistance to various African nations.
And the “destructive” Reagan policy regarding AIDS. I guess the adjectives would also apply to the United Nations who didn’t create an WHO program until 1987.
It is the same hackneyed gripes parroted by people who accept them unquestioningly because it fits their partisan cravings. I atleast expected a little less selective outrage from the professor. It’s getting harder and harder to keep his rag bookmarked.
shark
Listen, you’re barking up the wrong tree here. Atrios and his fellow travelers are at least being honest and consistant. I prefer that to seeing empty and false platitudes from Kerry, McAuliffe and the Dems who you know loathed Reagan and all he stood for.
So Atrios, etc- go ahead, say what you want about Reagan. I respect the consistency, if not you and your opinions.
Besides, when Teddy Kennedy dies, you’ll get a lot of it back :)
Terry
As with all animals suffering from distemper and similar afflictions, atrios and his ilk will be washed away with the passage of time. The substitute high school gym teacher (in reality, it’s risk assessment/insurance related activities)from Philadelphia will finally wear out his welcome even among the loony left. Shame is possible among many species, even lower order primates.
HH
clinton at his best got up to 65% favorability. Reagan? An average of 70%. Reagan had an astounding 525 electoral votes in 1984, a record I believe. Atrios takes ONE poll from May of last year saying Clinton was above Reagan in ranking the best presidents in a poll. Except in 2001, Reagan was #1. In 2002, Reagan’s retrospective job approval was 73% to Clinton’s 51. Even if you believe the May ’03 is proof that things shifted in favor of Clinton and to the detriment of Reagan, it was an obvious fluke, because in November of last year, Reagan was 3rd and Clinton was 5th.
HH
That last link should be here.
Brennan Stout
I really stopped expecting rational thoughts at Atrios. The site is all politics, all the time. It is to politics what Scientology is to religion.
I dropped in one time just to ask if “we”[Americans, non politicos] were on the same side in the fight against terror. I was informed that we may be on the same side, but not if I was on President Bush’s side. Apparently the President is with the terrorists according to popular opinion at Atrios.
I blogged about my experience.
Gary Farber
“…”if it appears on the anonymous slanderer’s sight [site], it will be linked by damn near everyone on my liberal blogroll by the end of the day.”
Some days I just know nobody wuvs me.
Tom Maguire
What is this “He left the Oval Office as the most popular president in the modern era” stuff, and why do I feel so old? I like Ike, and plenty of others did too, when he left office in the dark ages of 1961.
Also, the Polling Report just put up a new page on Reagn’s place in history. Clinton does not do as well as Reagan.
Tom Maguire
And let’s reiterate HH’s point – job approval ratings and personal favorability ratings measure different things; CLinton’s job approval was generally above his personal ratings; Reagan was the opposite.
el tejano inteligente, no como Bush
Ok, Myria, I agree that open hatred is the antithesis to civil discourse. However, here on Balloon Juice, I have seen people called “cunt”, “jackass”, “screwed up”, and “pissant” for having opinions that are not the same as the conservative PC crowd. Please explain how this fits with your world view.