Ronald Reagan gets a colorful send-off from Christopher Hitchens that is worthy of, well, in Hitchens case, Bob Hope and Mother Theresa.
Archives for 2004
Hunh?
Someone please try to make some sense out of this bloody mess of a post:
I admit to having little to add on Ronald Reagan. I’ve had a magnificently cynical fear that his death would come in an election year and lead to conservative resurgence — or at least unification — fueled by his spectral presence. That may be happening, showing that cynicism isn’t always misplaced.
As for the man himself, I was born in 1984, so the Reagan revolution didn’t impinge on my consciousness all that much. Josh Green has a terrific article on how unconservative Reagan was, but I’m really in no place to evaluate the tussle over his legacy. What I will say is that focusing on his approval ratings to debunk the myth of his popularity misses the point — America decided retroactively that he was popular, probably for reasons connected to the era of good and evil more than anything else. To attempt to diminish a myth at the exact moment that man becomes martyr isn’t very smart politically and misses a truth of human nature. People like legends and, when they attempt to create them, rarely look fondly upon those who stand in the way. They’re not even supposed to be based on past’s truth (MLK Jr. was quite the womanizer), they’re made for the future.
People decided they liked Reagan after the fact?
1980 General Election:
Reagan- 43,901,812 votes, or 50.9% of the vote, equalling 489 electoral college votes.
Carter- 35,483,820 votes, or 41.1% of the vote, equalling 49 electoral college votes.
1984 General Election
Reagan- 54,455,000 votes, or 58.8%, equalling 525 electoral college votes.
Mondale- 37,577,000 votes, or 40.5%, equalling 13 electoral college votes.
Seems like they liked him from the beginning, and as his vote count increased in his second election, perhaps they liked hime even more. By comparison, the most people to ever vote for Clinton were 47 million. Is Ezra arguing Clinton was unpopular, or that Clinton’s popularity was a myth?
Here, btw, is a graph of the Gallup approval ratings of the past seven Presidents, here is a head to head match up between Clinton and Reagan, which is frighteningly similar with Clinton pulling out ahead.
Tomorrow, as a continued public service, Ezra will take on the myth of gravity and then explain to us that Cheers, Seinfeld, and MASH really weren’t that popular.
Here We Go Again
When your partisan blinders are so snugly fit on your skull, it is easy to take anything out of context. Today’s example- Oliver looks at a Rumsfeld statement as a scathing indictment of the administration:
The Failure Of Donald Rumsfeld
I can’t believe he said this.
Rumsfeld fears U.S. losing long-term fight against terror
The troubling unknown, he said, is whether the extremists — whom he termed “zealots and despots” bent on destroying the global system of nation-states — are turning out newly trained terrorists faster than the United States can capture or kill them.
“It’s quite clear to me that we do not have a coherent approach to this,” Rumsfeld said at an international security conference.
It is quite clear to me that Rumsfeld, far from being a failure, is doing what he should be doing- asking the tough questions, questioning our policies, trying to make sure we are doing the right thing. Why do I say this? Because this is EXACTLY THE SAME DAMNED THING HE SAID 8 months ago in a memo the Democrats tried to distort and use for partisan gain then:
Today, we lack metrics to know if we are winning or losing the global war on terror. Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?
Does the US need to fashion a broad, integrated plan to stop the next generation of terrorists? The US is putting relatively little effort into a long-range plan, but we are putting a great deal of effort into trying to stop terrorists. The cost-benefit ratio is against us! Our cost is billions against the terrorists’ costs of millions.
Do we need a new organization?
How did Oliver try to spin the rhetorical questions posed in the memo when it first came out? There was this:
This administration has not screwed up this fight completely, and the battle is long and complicated, but I honestly feel we haven’t been using our full brain on this. We do what feels like may be good, but then it fades away to bite us in the rear another day.
Then there was this post, in which he tried to use the memo as proof that we were failing in Iraq.
They sold us a war. And our kids will be paying the bills.
I will give the Democrats this much- they are not intellectually honest, but they sure are consistent.
Amusing
Here is a quick test to tell if you have succumbed to irrational Bush Hatred. Read your posts back to yourself, and if it sounds like something Maureen Dowd wrote after two cosmopolitans, you are an irrational Bush hater. Check out this ridiculousness:
Sopranos Finale
I think last night’s episode sort of made up for a rather slow and lackluster season. All-in-all the decision-making reminded me of the Bush administration interagency process. As one of the captains said, “I’m willing to die for a good cause, but this is bullshit.” Meanwhile, the fearless leaders stuffs his face with ice cream while dreaming of Rommel.
It’s all there- projection, distortion, and contempt, all wrapped up in a condescending wrapper of references to pop culture.
BTW- that wasn’t written by Dowd. That was written by the ‘moderate’ Matt Yglesias (who, btw, went to Harvard), and is really smart- just ask him. At anyrate, Dowd would probably need more than two cosmopolitans before writing that crap.
Hey Lunatics- Take A Hint from Max
Look- I don’t expect liberals and the left to mourn Reagan. I understand they don’t like his policies. I doubt very much I will be building a shrine to Clinton when he passes, nor will I shed many tears at Carter’s passing. However, I will not try to take away from the positive aspects of Clinton’s presidency- Clinton presided over a booming economy without hindering it, Rubin’s refinancing of debt drastically helped our finances, Clinton did sign a balanced budget and ran a surplus (yes- I know who ran Congress- but they have been running Congress under Bush, too), went against his party and signed NAFTA, he stood up to his party and did not gut the military, and he did the right thing in Kosovo.
Clinton was also exceptionally popular, an extremely gifted public speaker and an engaging person, and maybe it was his inborn Machiavellianism that has blinded even me, but I honestly think that Clinton did what he felt was right, most of the time, and honestly liked and cared about people. That final characteristic is not a bad measure of any man, and it is to Clinton’s credit.
Many would say that he only did so in attempts to build his legacy, but I believe Clinton honestly tried to be a broker for peace regarding the whole Israel/Palestine mess. Clinton had a whole number of shortcomings, failures, and things I don’t want to go into here, but if someone with such a distatse for Clinton as me can still list his positive aspects, why can’t the left admit Reagan’s successes, of which there were just as many, many of which had far greater historical importance than the achievments of the Clinton era.
At any rate, jerks like Atrios, Democrats.Com, the Democratic Underground should take a cue from Max:
I won’t be mourning. I disliked him a lot, but gloating would be stupid and obnoxious, and expressions of homage insincere. He doesn’t need any pity. He was a lucky man, he had a pretty good life, and in his own right he was successful. You can’t beat him because he has already won. Fortunately the game has more innings.
Respect is due the bereaved, as well as to those who have a good feeling about him. It’s just the decent thing to do.
Maybe they will listen to John Kerry, who struck exactly the right tone (and, IMHO, his statement was better than Bush’s):
Ronald Reagan’s love of country was infectious. Even when he was breaking Democrats hearts, he did so with a smile and in the spirit of honest and open debate. Despite the disagreements, he lived by that noble ideal that at 5pm we weren’t Democrats or Republicans, we were Americans and friends. President Reagan and Tip O’Neill fought hard and honorably on many issues, and sat down together to happily swap jokes and the stories of their lives. The differences were real, but because of the way President Reagan led, he taught us that there is a big difference between strong beliefs and bitter partisanship.
He was the voice of America in good times and in grief. When we lost the brave astronauts in the Challenger tragedy, he reminded us that, ‘Nothing ends here; our hopes and our journeys continue.’
“Now, his own journey has ended-a long and storied trip that spanned most of the American century-and shaped one of the greatest victories of freedom. Today in the face of new challenges, his example reminds us that we must move forward with optimism and resolve. He was our oldest president, but he made America young again.
“Our prayers are with his family, and the wife he loved in a way all the world could see. And to the end, she loved him with courage and complete devotion. She helped all of us better understand the cruel disease that took him away before it took his life, and what we must do to prevent and cure it.
“Teresa and I and our family extend our deepest sympathies to Nancy Reagan and the Reagan family. Today, from California to Maine – ‘from sea to shining sea’ – Americans will bow their heads in prayer and gratitude that President Reagan left such an indelible stamp on the nation he loved.”
Max is right: “Respect is due the bereaved, as well as to those who have a good feeling about him. It’s just the decent thing to do.”
Unfortunately, decency is something that simply escapes many in the current climate.
Atrios and His Fools
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.
The Benefits of Nuclear Power
Mark Kleiman has a must-read piece on nulear power, in which he cogently outlines the case for nuclear power. However, as a partisan and a polemicist, I shall choose to focus on this part of his post:
Nuclear waste. This is a problem only if you think that we need to plan waste disposal that will (no, I’m not making this up) survive the end of civilization and be safe for the ignorant primitive nomads who will wander the earth 10,000 years from now. Actually, the solution isn’t technically very hard.
Current plans are to deal with all the waste, high-level and low-level, together. The idea is bury the stuff in deep salt caves and pray the water table doesn’t rise. And of course no one wants to have the burial site nearby; that fact just might cost George Bush, who broke a campaign promise and did the right thing, Nevada’s electoral votes.
In the Washington Post today, George Will writes:
John Kerry recently stopped in Las Vegas to say: “Rest assured, Nevada. If I’m president, Yucca Mountain will not be a depository…”
But in 1996 President Bill Clinton promised to veto any attempt to make Nevada even a temporary repository. That promise helped him beat Bob Dole there by just 4,730 votes, the smallest state margin that year.
In 2000 George W. Bush promised not to make Nevada a temporary repository, but said “sound science” would guide him regarding establishing a permanent repository there. He beat Al Gore 50-46 (301,575 to 279,978). A switch of 10,799 votes would have made Gore president.
In 2002 Bush approved Yucca Mountain as the permanent site. Congress said Nevada’s governor could veto the selection but that his veto could be overridden by majorities in both houses. He vetoed it; Congress overrode him.
By this protracted dance of democracy the interests of an American majority — 161 million live within 75 miles of today’s storage sites — prevailed, respectfully, over the objections of an intense minority, the approximately 2 million people who live in southern Nevada. Kerry’s willingness to overturn this accommodation reflects a cold, and factually correct, calculation having nothing to do with the national interest: For the intense and compact Nevada minority, unlike for the diffuse American majority, this is a vote-determining issue.
Two points:
1.) Bush flip-flopped to do the right thing. Kerry seems to have changed his mind as a result of political calculations.
2.) It isn’t the GOP and the mainstream media unfairly portraying Kerry as having consistently changing positions. It is the fact that Kerry has consistently changing positions, based on crass political opportunism.