McLaughlin effectively hammers Bush

[wadestock]

Did you see the McLaughlin Group Sunday June 12?

McLaughlin, in his analysis of the Reagan presidency concluded:

a. If Reagan had been president today, he would NOT have gone into Iraq. He cited his overall temperance in the Lebanon Marine killings and Korean downed airliner, and the fact that “he would not have let his ideology get in the way”. Boy was that a profound statement when considering that W and the dream team are literally choking to death on their ideology. You may also note that McLaughlin has been slowly forming an opinion over the last year that going into Iraq has been a can of worms. Even Buchanan has been outspoken against the war.

b. Bush is no Ronald Reagan by any means and he can’t even claim to be in his league. I’m paraphrasing. The way he made this point was to show an “expert” analysis of presidents, showing Reagan rated as very good. Bush was not included yet, however daddy got an average rating.

c. Last question for the group....will the outpouring of sediment and America’s quiet reflection on Reagan be a plus or minus for Bush in the upcoming election? The group basically didn’t get it. McLaughlin concluded that it would be an overall negative. I got it....#1 reason being that Bush has not handled the Iraq war well...and other reason being that for those loyal Reaganites giving pause to truly consider the alleged greatness of Ronny, they must seriously come up short when considering W.

Overall, I thought McLaughlin was very insightful and the show a good kick in the ass for those Reagan-nit-wits (Limbaugh et al) that think Bush is carrying on the “Reagan legacy”.

[rfranklin]

1. The "Reagan legacy" has little to do with Regan the man...

It does, however, have to do with allegiance to the ideology, which Reagan represents to them, even though he barely implemented the wish list of the far right. Since that ideology is being furthered by Bush Jr., they feel that there is a legacy.

[Jacobin]

2. Bill Press had an article in my local paper yesterday saying

exactly the same thing.

Called Smirk "pig headed"

:-)

[bluestateguy]

3. Reagan would not have gone into Iraq

Indeed, he and Saddam were good buddies. Had Saddam not gotten cocky and invaded Kuwait in 1990, he would be sitting pretty today with a huge military, US aid flowing inn, billions in oil revenues and most likely he would have been invited to attend Reagan's funeral.

[LuminousX]

5. Exactly

And Saddam wouldn't have invaded Kuwait if Reagan was on duty because Reagan wouldn't have sent mixed signals. I appreciate nuance in politics, I really do. But Bush the Elder was TOO nuanced and TOO interested in keeping options open which led to Kuwait which led to this mess.

I'm not saying Saddam was a great guy and Reagan was right in backing him, but I am saying that Iran was/is the bigger threat in the region and all we have done is ensured we'll never be able to address the Iranian problem - ever.

Reagan was a proponent, for right or wrong, of funding internal dissidents to fight against gov'ts he didn't like. Unfortunately, that turned out to be mostly for the wrong, but the methodology isn't inherently evil just because it was used for evil purposes.

[wadestock]

8. Hey that's a good point...

Don't forget though....Saddam asked King George I whether it was OK to go into Kuwait...
They had complained about Kuwait's side drilling etc....and at one point there was a potential something on the table that considered Saddam taking a portion of Kuwait.
Not sure how this broke down....but it seems pretty clear to me that something was engineered to suck him in.

I'm sure there are plenty of people in Iraq that have suffered from short term historical memory loss...but evidently there are about 1/2 now that have pretty hard core resistance to American occupation, who don't forget how it all came down with King George I and who see this whole thing as a reoccurring nightmare.

[LittleApple81]

4. "outpouring of sediment".... now you are calling like it is. No sentiment

on my side, no sireee.

[Richardo]

9. I saw that too, LittleApple81

HA!

[checks-n-balances]

6. You KNOW the chimperor is in trouble when McLaughlin is a critic

Sorry I missed that show, but thanks for filling us in. BTW, I think you meant to say "sentiment" and not "sediment." But no problem - let's hope for a generous outpouring of sediment onto RW propaganda whenever & wherever it's found!

[ShaneGR]

7. This is why I chose not to criticize Reagan during the last week...

Republican Voter: "I loved Reagan."

Democratic Voter: "Yeah, I thought he was ok. I disagreed with him on a lot of issues but in hindsight, he had personality and he made a lot of Americans feel really good about themselves during a difficult time. He deserved a tribute."

Republican Voter: "He was fantastic."

Democratic Voter: "I just wish Bush was half the President Reagan was, we need strong leadership right now."

Republican Voter: Shrugs.... "yeah."




The trick is to use their memories of Reagan against Bush. They may deny it in their subconcious but when you present it to them in this manner it forces them to THINK.