Is it OK to praise Reagan?

[Former Republican]

Yesterday on a C-SPAN DNC meeting, Lieberman said, "The Republican Party was once the party of Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Eisenhower, and REAGAN."

What in the name of Christ? The Republican Party still is the party of Reagan, the first psychotic neoconservative president. Why would Lieberman say something like that. I only disliked the man until yesterday. Now I hate him.

Can someone clear this up?

[TacticalPeek]

1. Maybe he was just referring to aircraft carriers or something?

R's do love to go for rides, you know.

:shrug:

[thebigidea]

2. apparently its the latest rage

and you can bet ol' Joe will be first in line with a tearful eulogy come The Passing of the Gipper.

I bet he already wrote one.

[kentuck]

3. Reagan doesn't need praise from Democrats...

He receives sufficient worship from the idolaters in the Repub Party..

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. I Voted Against Reagan Twice

but I like him better than *....

I can imagine downing a beer with Reagan but never with *....

* strikes me as just plain mean...

[Former Republican]

5. Then what the hell is Lieberman's problem?

Is he on drugs or something? Bush is practically the second coming of Reagan in terms of hating the worker and massacring people in other countries.

[dmr]

19. He wants to win over the Reagan Republicans that now hate Bush*

You know the ones - the ones who believe in the great Reagan myth. The Reagan voters who prospered under Clinton, and are now losing their jobs and homes under Bush*.

[AP]

6. This reminds me of how disgusted I was to see Democrats at Nixon's funeral

acting like Nixon's next stop wasn't eternity in hell.

I'm worried about my sanity when Kissinger dies. If any Democrat praises him, I'm going to get sick.

[Former Republican]

8. Comparing Reagan and Nixon

like apples and oranges. I don't like the Nixon/Kissinger coup in Chile, but Nixon had a sound foreign policy with the USSR.

Reagan was a senile imbecile who paved the way for Bush-ism.

[salmonhorse]

7. Praise Reagan?

For what? Taxing waitress' so that Ken Lay & the Bush Family Oligarchy can go 'scott free'?

:shrug:

[JVS]

9. No. He is already idolized by the right.

If you praise him, don't be upset when every town in the country has a school named after him. He's becoming the american equivalent of Lenin as far as naming things goes.

[Former Republican]

11. But why is Lieberman kissing his ass?

That's absurd. Reagan doesn't deserve to be idolized.

[JVS]

16. hey, why is Lieberman even running for president?

You are correct, Reagan deserves to have the national debt named after him and that is all. Maybe Lieberman thinks that if he praises Republicans like Clark did, that he can be a front-runner too.

[nwstrn]

10. What's your opinion of Reagan?

Former Republican:

Sorry if I missed this in your explanation as to why you recently joined the Democrats, but did your revelation also include a new understanding of Reagan, or were you always opposed to his policies?

[Former Republican]

12. OK

I never liked Reagan. Even when I was a Republican, I thought the guy was a cult-of-personality.

I supported his tax cut policies back then. His massive military spending was irresponsible, however; and his foreign policy was dumb ("mr. gorbachev tear down this wall..." heard of diplomacy, stupid?).

Nixon and Ford are another story, however.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

13. Why praise the guy who dealt with Iranian terrorists?

I guess Lieberman didn't get the memo from Israel- you don't deal with hostage takers. Period. And....
as a special double bonus penalty of imbecilic proportions, you then don't take the blood money from your hostage deals and purchase weapons for an illegal war conducted by other terrorists.

[mndemocrat_29]

14. No, Reagan needs no praise from Democrats

He was a neo-con. However, he's much better than Bush, Jr. (than again, who isn't). Reagan is worshipped by Repukes, he doesn't need anymore.

[Mikimouse]

15. Who? Sorry, I can't recall that name...

n/t

[maha]

17. It's Lieberman.

Lieberman needs to go away.

[Brucey]

18. Raygun sucked, but Joe wants to court all the knuckleheads

who bought the hype and see Raygun as a strong, mythical grandfather figure. Joe is cornering the market on the repuglican democrats.

[spooky3]

20. There are more of them than air traffic controllers. (eom)

[TacticalPeek]

21. Amen.

Scabs.

[JVS]

22. Is anyone else disturbed by candidates swinging right in the primaries?

Imagine what it will be like in the general election.

[pansypoo53219]

23. lieberputz

takes bi-partisanship way to far. he is nothing but a collaborator.

[Snellius]

24. Don't believe any of this Grover Norquist Reagan revisionism

Reagan was an out-of-touch, ideologically driven space cadet who lived in a complete fantasy world of his own imagination. Even while he was president his own aides opening discussed with the press whether or not he was mentally fit to fulfill his office. Even his hand-picked biography, Edmund Morris, tells endless stories Reagan told about himself, and genuinely believed, but which were completely made up.

[villageidiot]

25. Sure. Why not?

But since I don't know in what context this Lieberman quote was made I'm afraid I can't clear this up for you. Thank you though for pointing out how Lieberman liked Reagan. As to whether or not it's okay for him to do this, this should be a question best answered by yourself.

How do you feel about this? Do you feel it was okay? I'm guessing that this didn't meet with your approval since you now hate Lieberman because he said this. Not to worry. There are plenty of other Democratic Candidates so just cross Lieberman off your list and look at someone else.

Nixon gets my vote for being the first psychotic neoconservative Republican. If Lieberman praised Nixon. Now that would be a hoot!

Republicans have praised Kennedy, but only because he cut taxes. Maybe Joe was using a bit of this selective bipartisanship when he made this shocking comment.

I'm sorry. I forgot. What was your question?

[JanMichael]

26. No, it's not.

Unless of course you're (or you were) in favor of destroying the post-Depression U S of A.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

27. No

Reagan's terms in office were the first step in rolling back the political/economic clock to the nineteenth century. He was nothing but an amiable front man for this era's robber barons.

[leftofthedial]

28. praising Reagan is in the same category as praising Hitler

in my book.

he was a simpleton, already suffering form Alzheimer's, but his regime was purely evil, anti-American and got us into the mess we're in now.

[Loyal]

37. That is disgusting

Almost no one likes Reagan here, myself included, but it is just stupid to compare Reagan to Hitler.

[noiretextatique]

40. two words: central america

the comparison to hitler is well-earned.

[mlawson]

42. Exactly. And don't forget Bitburg!

He DID decorate graves of the SS, the same group of monsters who ran Dachau and Auschwitz.

Ronnie wasn't that senile then; he knew exactly what he was doing. He didn't care, and THAT is unforgivable!

[leftofthedial]

67. how many people died in Central America due to Reagan's policies?

How much of America's core values were subverted by Reagan's win-at-all-costs, greed-is-good ethic?

Place your disgust where it belongs.

I did not say Reagan was Hitler. I said admiration of him was in the same category as admiration of Hitler. Until Dubya Shitforbrains, Reagan was the worst president in American history and was responsible for changes in America and the world that we may never overcome.

[papau]

29. Praise anyone-even Reagan- if they did some good- - -but what good did Ron

ever do?

Treason in Iran/Contra

Drug dealing in LA via the CIA - putting mentally ill onto streets as Gov of CA (not funding the replacements for the warehouses for mental illiness that were horrors and closed) and in the Aug 81 Budget that ended federally funding for the mentally ill.

Tax cuts for the wealthy that required a $1.7 trillion addition to the birth tax - Nationa Debt - to overcome the drag caused by the tax cut caused deficit and therefore higher long term interest rates- so that he could achieve the same economic growth as Carter (GNP compound annual rate of 3.33% compared to Carter's 3.25%)

Perhaps the invasion of Grenada and the arrest of 31 Cubans with hand guns (at a cost of a 100 american lifes - albeit from non-combat air accidents). Or the cut and run in Lebanon after 300 die from Bin-laden and friends - proving to bin-Laden that the US was a paper tiger. leading to the WTC and 911.

Perhaps by the high morals of a guy who cheated on his wife Jane and then raped Selenns Walters. Perhap by proving selling out to money - as in GE - really pays?

What the fuck is Joe thinking about?

[Zhade]

59. FUCK REAGAN. He involved my father in Grenada.

And Herr Chimp's father, Poppy, involved my father in the deaths of 3000 civilians in Panama.

Hell is too cold for these bastards.

[Mairead]

30. He's unclear on his history: it was a different party before FDR's time

FDR was basically the one who turned the GOP into the party of the wealthy elites by forcing the Dems to be the party of the people.

[leesa]

31. Lieberman is a Republican.

[Octafish]

32. In Lieberman's head he's "Attracting" Reagan supporters...

... by mentioning him by name. In the real world, people see right through him and say, "Gee. This guy's really desparate for votes."

[tom_paine]

33. Bush I was our first "Emperor" for 12 years, IMHO

Quite an Augustan reign, eh?

Think about it. Reagan with Alzheimer's onset, maybe all the way back to 1980. Either way, affable and not very bright. Bush I runs and gets slapped down (there was actually a Republican Party with a semi-vigorous nomination process in those days, you know), so he and his boys...the same crew going back to Watergate and Nixon (these were the underlings who escaped unsinged) "jine up".

Hello, 1980 October Surprise, a Bush Treason special.

Reagan's only friend on the cabinet is Don Regan. Everyone else is a Bushevik.

Hmmm...

Eventually Regan is pushed out, just as Ronnie's Alzheimers sets in.

Hello, Iran-Contra (and God knows what else).

Bush elected in 1988-1992 = reign of 12 years

[knowledgeispower]

35. I concur - Bush I is the face of pure evil

You gotta keep in mind that Shrub's staff is made up of many people who served under Bush I, so really we are talking 16 year reign so far. It also explains why the Reich wingers hate Clinton so much: he broke up their plan..forcing them to delay their evil schemes eight full years. Furthermore explains why they were so desperate to win in 2000 that they would go so far as to blatantly steal an election.

[BigBigBear]

34. Reagan

was a terrible president. Lieberman ought to be ashamed.

[mitchum]

36. Just one more reason to despise Joe...

that mealy-mouthed corporate errand boy

[wyldwolf]

38. Sure it is!

Whats the matter with you people!

Reagan could eat jellybeans like no other president!

Reagan is the best president Genesis ever made a video about!

[Zorra]

39. No surprise. Joe used to be

top dog in the DLC.

[KittyWampus]

41. Who Was Lieberman Trying Reach With That?

Reagan was the guy who helped kill of family farms isn't he?

[mlawson]

43. How the HELL could Lieberman excuse Bitburg?????

He is Jewish, after all!!!

I know I have promised to not bash Dem candidates, but this is WAAAAAY beyond the pale! (pail?)

[Cheswick2.0]

44. gee I guess not

[noiretextatique]

45. LMAO, cheswick! a prudent decision, imho

:thumbsup:

[ElsewheresDaughter]

46. cheswick....i hear ya

:7

[Sephirstein]

47. Hey Skinner...

Still think LieberBush is a "prominent progressive"?

[Hippo_Tron]

48. I'm sort of a Reagan fan...

His social consevervatism (neo-con) movement I didn't care too much for but his fiscal and defense policies were okay. While the Republican party today is based on the policies of Ronald Reagan, ever since the Gingrich revolution the Republican party has become complete slime. Republicans have basically taken things that DON'T work from Reagan policies and adopted them as the repetative Republican platform.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

49. you think that Reagen's "fiscal policy was ok?..gesssh VOODOO Economics

[jobycom]

50. Can't agree

Reagan's fiscal policies led to the greatest deficit in human history, his so-called "peace-time growth" was largely funded by the debt he ran up building a stronger military to fight a DOA Soviet Union that had fallen before Reagan took office (Reagan reportedly had to loan Russia money to keep it afloat so we could keep using them as an enemy) and barely reached the levels of production that had existed when he took office (during a recovery, not a recession, as Repubs try to claim), his tax cuts led to the deepest recession this nation has ever had, and his economic policies caused wages to plummet so far that the one-income family disappeared during his administration. All this while he cut funding to education, drug rehab, and law enforcement-- leading to the greatest problems our nation faced for the next two decades. He cut education so drastically now that schools barely teach arts and music anymore, and he cut social and welfare spending so much that he created a homeless problem that didn't exist when he took over.

Those spending cuts, btw, rather than leading to a smaller government and lower taxes, led to a larger federal government and higher overall taxes for the overwhelming majority of Americans as state and local governments had to raise property and sales taxes dramatically to make up for what the feds no longer supplied.

His foreign policy propped up the Soviet Union long after it ceased to be viable, which led to a more crippling fall when it finally came. A good foreign policy could have helped ease the Soviets into a more capitalistic and democratic system without crushing them. Also, Reagan's constant need to battle the Soviets on every front made him look for allies in such places as Iraq and Saudi Arabia, where he funded Saddam Hussein and Usama bin Laden against the Soviets or Soviet-backed regimes like Iran. In Iran he was selling weapons to both sides, prolonging a war that would have died a natural death years and hundreds of thousands of lives earlier than it did.

Then there's the support of terrorists in Central America that undercut democracy there...

No, no praise for Reagan. No respect. He was worse than Bush, still.

As for why Lieberman is giving Reagan a nod-- he's just trying to win over the Reagan Democrats and moderate Repubs, and trying to convince conservatives that Bush is betraying the conservative values of Reagan. Smart move, mostly, though it won't be enough to help him.

[sandnsea]

60. Proxy wars we're still cleaning up...

were okay?? If we hadn't had Reagan's defense plan, we might not have Osama bin laden. Or weapons in every little third world country that somebody has to go in and clean up.

And his fiscal policy??? A deficit defense budget that padded the GDP and made it look like there was economic growth?? That's what Bush is doing today.

Reagan sucked. But still, if I have to say the Bush Cabal is nothing like Reagan, or the mainstream Republican party, in order to get them to take a hard look at what the Bushies are doing, I'll say it. Wake them up any way we can.

[tokenlib]

51. Will it be okay if I piss on his grave?

Sorry, but the shameful social darwinist budget priorities he initiated deserve nothing but condemnation.

[JohnKleeb]

52. dont be sorry token

He should be more so than you.

[Guaranteed]

53. It's alright to say "At least Reagan won the Cold War."

However, it is NOT alright to say, "Reagan was an economic genius."
It IS alright to say "Reagan, while mentally removed from his job, had a grandfatherly, comforting way about him."
But, it is NOT alright to say, "Reagan was a truly compassionate, caring man."
The proper, book, Democratic assessment of Reagan is this: "The guy was a bum, but he was too senile to know any better."

[Cooley Hurd]

54. Actually, it's NOT okay to say he won the cold war...

...because it's not true. The USSR was collapsing under its own weight and corruption long before Captain Hairdye came onto the national scene.

[Guaranteed]

56. Well that's not what The Book says.

;)

[sandnsea]

55. Strategy to beat Bush

Democrats are trying to differentiate Bush and the Cabal from past Republicans. People, try to think of the STRATEGY, not your own opinions. Republicans love Reagan and if you can show that Bush is NOT that kind of Republican, it HELPS. Hell, I'll praise Reagan if it makes ONE Republican toss the Bushies and vote Democrat next year. The fact is, Bush IS nuttier than anybody we've ever had in office and people have GOT to be made to see that.

[punpirate]

57. Sorry...

... but, to win, Democrats will have to move away from the right, not closer to it, as Lieberman implies of himself. Fuck the Repugs--they aren't going to vote for a Democrat, not in any numbers worth counting.

The swing voters are the independents and undecided Democrats (the latter being the ones most susceptible to the malarkey in TV political ads), and more importantly, the people who now don't vote at all--there are more of them than in the _entire_ Republican party. The more Democrats resemble the right, the more they put off all three of these groups, by confirming in their minds that there really is no difference in parties or candidates. And in that context, people will continue to vote for a known quantity rather than an unknown one.

For all the reasons given above, and more, Reagan deserves no praise from Democrats. His policies were the antithesis of good Democratic governance. His people, like Bush's, were thugs. If Robert Parry is right in his writings about the so-called 1980 October Surprise, then Reagan's people stole that election, too. Remember, this was the president whose head economic advisor, as a very lame means of justifying cutting money for kid's school lunches, said, "ketchup is a vegetable."

A president isn't a president all by his lonesome--it's also the people with whom he surrounds himself, and the bunch around Reagan, people he picked, are of the exact same ilk as those around Bush.

Bush is bitter and angry and contentious, but he is no less a front man for the people in the background than was Reagan. Bush just thinks he's in charge, whereas Reagan was never quite sure. Otherwise, no difference--it's the same bunch doing the same things.

This is not to say Reagan should be pitied--he was a failed, aging actor desperate for public notice and adulation, so he ran for political office (sound similar to someone we know?), even though his only qualification was a very right-wing ideology. For that reason, he's to blame--doing the wrong thing just because you can get away with it and leave the dirty details to others isn't excusable.

If Lieberman wants to attract a few votes by honoring a man who sanctioned an illegal, secret army to overthrow a legally-elected government and financed that effort by selling arms under the table to a country we listed as supporting terrorism, and then lied repeatedly to the American public about both of those operations, well, he's welcome to those few votes. He deserves them.

Cheers.

[sandnsea]

58. It's not about being like a Republican

It's about trying to wake up the goddamn American people and get them to recognize George W. Bush is not the kind of Republican they thought they were electing. Only a small percentage of people will support Bush no matter what. More and more are turning against him every day as they see what kind of nut he is. The more you can encourage that by putting Bush as far away from main stream Republicans, the better. It's a good strategy, I've used it with Republican friends, and it gives them just the out they need to reject him. Call it allowing somebody to save face in order to make a change. Call it diplomacy. I don't care. I just want to call it, Democrats Win White House!!! This is one piece of the puzzle in getting there.

[jobycom]

65. First of all

Did Lieberman really praise Reagan, or just differentiate Bush from Reagan. I hate Reagan passionately (see above post of mine) but when I tell Republicans how bad Bush is, I often point out that he's moved a long way from what Reagan wanted to do. He's no Reagan. That hasn't softened my stance on Ragan, it has only made the point that IF they like Reagan, they should be opposed to Bush.

That's a far cry from moving closer to the right.

This get's missed so much around here, and it's the reason I can only handle DU for a short time before I go on hiatus. We will never win an election by saying "We're right, everyone else is stupid, nanananana." We will win by convincing a majority of the voters that we are the best choice to lead the nation. That means two things. We have to convince them that our ideals are best, and equally if not greater, we have to convince them that our candidate is qualified to lead. Many of the swing voters don't even care about or understand ideology. They look at the person. If our candidate is running around pouting about how bad the other guy is, or was two decades ago, we aren't going to be seen as leaders or visionaries. We will lose.

Lieberman, as much as I don't like the compromises he makes and wouldn't consider voting for him in the primaries, is the only candidate running who has an ounce of political strategy. The rest are lightweights or nonentities, and will lose handily to Bush unless they figure it out soon. See, here's the deal. It does not matter one little bit how much people hate a candidate or love a candidate. They have to want the other person more. Bush can have a 10% approval rating, be in the midst of a depression and a losing war effort, and be considered an utter liar, and he will flat out eat our lunch in the next election if we don't have someone people feel better about. No matter how far Bush sinks, it means nothing to our candidate. Our candidate has to win on strategy.

Dean's strategy of hammering home how bad Bush is is very unlikely to do any good in the primaries if he doesn't have some positive reason people should choose him. Same with Kucinich, Dean, whatever. That's why Nader got so few votes. It's why Arnold will probably win (though maybe not). A candidate who says only negative things will not win. They have to formulate a vision for the future that people like, and they have to seem like a leader. They can trash the other guy a little, to help even the odds, but the campaign has to be fought on what they can do, not what the other guy can't do. Ask George HW Bush. People trusted him more than Clinton by a large margin, and he lost. People reelected Clinton over the beloved Bob Dole, even though Clinton's approval rating was low. There's only so much negative message people want to hear.

Lieberman is the only one running right now who knows how to appeal to voters that aren't in one party or the other yet, or who cross over. The other Democrats (except maybe Clark, who is still hard to figure) are trying so hard to win the Democratic nomination that they aren't worried about how to win the swing voters who don't care about either party, who think all politicans are the same. To them, most of our candidates look just like every other whining partisan candidate they've seen. Lieberman is trying to stand out. He's trying to persuade those in the middle that if they liked Reagan, they will like the Democrats more than they like Bush. It's hogwash, they know it, and if I recall Lieberman got his start campaigning against Reagan so he knows it's hogwash. But if it wins, then great. If you keep saying "I hate Reagan, I hate Bush, I hate Nixon, I hate W" then you exclude everyone who likes them from voting for you. You have too small a voting pool to win an election.

Again, as I read the comment, Lieberman didn't say he liked the presidents he mentioned, he only pointed out that Bush was a poor descendant of them. Since the Repubs like Reagan, if Lieberman can convince them that Bush isn't a descendant of Reagan, he gets us more votes. Yippie. Good for him. I still won't vote for Lieberman unless he's the one left standing, but I can accept when he's doing something right, as distasteful as I might find it.

Again, he's not moving to the right, he's trying to appeal to the right without moving (further) that way. There's all the difference in the world, and unless we Democrats figure that out, we can keep whining and moaning for another five years. Or thirteen.

Sorry to be so long. Shorter answers don't seem to sink in. Besides, no one will read this far anyway. :-)

[0rganism]

61. It would be okay if he'd done anything praiseworthy

I'm drawing a blank. I notice Joe didn't mention Nixon in his recital, and Nixon was ten times the president Reagan was. I really can think of a few decent things Nixon did, in addition to all the lousy crap we all know about. I can't even think of one decent thing Reagan did. Nothing.

[Renew Deal]

62. Yes if...

there is a reason to. We don't have to just hate every Republican out there. Even Republicans do good things at times. Of course, asking "Is it OK to praise Clinton" at freeperville will probably get your account booted. That's because their ego's to big to say anything nice about anyone other than an R.

[RobertFrancisK]

63. That wasn't good

It's impossible to deny that Reagan was a phenomenal orator and politician, but for a democratic candidate to praise him as some sort of American hero? That's a little extreme. Didn't he vote against Reagan?

[quaker bill]

64. Praise?

For what? I was there, I can't think of a thing.

[jobycom]

66. And another thing that might be a bit brilliant on his part

He slams Reagan into the history books with a statement like that. It announces that Reagan is dead and gone. If the comment sticks, it tells people that Bush isn't continuing Reagan's legacy because Reagan's an historical figure. He's as relevant to Bush as Eisenhower or Lincoln.

Damn I wish Lieberman was a better Democrat because he's the only Democrat running who understands politics. He's brilliant at it. He's just bad at actually working the job he wins.

[AnnabelLee]

68. Locking

This thread was started by a disruptor who has been banned.

Thank you
AnnabelLee
DU Moderator

[gulliver]

69. OK for Lieberman to put a wedge between ...

... Reagan and Bush Republicans.

We want Republicans to realize (finally) that their party has been completely bought by Bush Inc. Whatever gets that message through is fine with me.