I think that's the thing that has made history so kind to Reagan, and that's how he knew the 'gift of the gab'. Be whatever you think of his economic plans, he produced memorable speeches, he had a little punchline to cut the tension at a conference, he was good to his allies and stern with his enemies.
I think presidency is 8/10s presentation, and if you can present something good to the public, or dress something that's not so good up in a manner that makes it look good...then history will remember you a bit more fondly.

If the Republicans want a chance, I think they might want to look at Scott Brown...I dunno, it's just a hunch...I'm not really that knowledgeable about state politics in the US, but he seems like he might have the panache to pull off a victory for the Republicans in 2012.
If Palin gets the vote though, then Obama will win...that's a given. The last Republican campaign is completely mismatched against the Democratic one. Obama's message was 'HOPE' and 'CHANGE' whereas McCain seemed only intent on telling everyone that the sky would fall in if they voted for Obama...which no-one believed because they wanted 'HOPE' and 'CHANGE' (some powerful words those) and it was that...plus perhaps the novelty of having the first non-white US president, that got Obama in.

I hope you weren't one of the ones who lambasted Clinton on that account then. He's another one I didn't like for political reasons, but the whole impeachment thing was nothing more than a witch hunt, no better than the attempts to get Reagan through Ollie North.

Some folks hold their morals high. The only thing I have against conservatives caught in the act is that they are the ones who point the finger when liberals do it. Mistakes I can tolerate, hypocrisy never.

Yep', good ol' X. The [timeframe] purity test for Y and proof that time heals all wounds, or at least all rational thought.

What they mean is that they will spend your money on things they (I mean, you) want money to be spent on at the expense of the money those other guys waste.

It's not hypocritical, it's just the mechanics of politics. Calm yourself, I'm not going on another libertarian text-version equivalent of the Bataan death march, just making a brief point.:DL

Politics is the natural result of the political system. Parties shift platforms and declare allegiances to this or that not by the merit of the cause but by the number of voted it will garner. That goes for both parties. I trust there are enough examples that the point stands on its own.

Yup, and it's the same reason the term Reaganomics was coined- politics.

Aaahahahahahaha :rotfl2: :har:

Eh I know it's only politics. I had a few drinks last night and felt like some good natured mud slingin'. :03: I don't talk politics in real life (partly because, as I like to say, being as left as I am in Texas is like admitting you're a Jew in Berlin circa 1941), so this is my only real outlet for it.

And today we're seeing the exact opposite. Lefties who have always accused the right of the biggest deficits are now defending their doing the same.

Yes but Steve, the hypocrisy is that the right has always portrayed themselves as the antithesis of the "tax and spend liberals."

A lot of Republicans now see Reagan's presidency through rose colored glasses, but it was not like that in 76 and 80. Many moderate republicans saw him as an extreme right winger out of touch with the country. Bush sr. ran his 1980 primary campaign on that basis. I remember many moderate republicans in 76 saying nominating Reagan would be as suicidal as picking Goldwater was in 64.

The supply side economics Reagan pushed in the early 80s, i.e. cut taxes and the resulting boom will produce more tax revenues was widely derided as Voodoo economics. He presided over one of the worst recessions in 1982-83 when interest rates topped 20%.

His firing of all the air traffic controllers on strike (81 or 82?), lowered the safety of air travel in the USA for many years afterwards. This was confirmed to me by civilian pilots who flew commercial flights back then.

His defence policies in the early 80s, especially the decision to deploy cruise missiles in europe in 83 increased tensions with the USSR. Recent articles have come out over the past few years that the premiers in 82-85, Andropov and Tchernenko were almost certain Reagan was planning a nuclear war and seriously discussed whether they should launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike.

The one good thing Reagan did was his handling of Perestroika and the negotiations with Gorbachev in 85-88 which brought about the end of the Cold War.

I am no fan of Obama, but his performance in 2009-2010 is already way better than Reagan's in 1981-82.

I think you're 4 years off. Jimmah Carter was President between 1976 and 1980. Bush senior didn't run for the presidency until 1984.

English language.
Two different campaigns with Reagan getting the same description in both for his economic policies
A Primary in one of those two campaigns where Bush running against Reagan lambasted Reagans economic policy.

That English is so complicated

I think that is an exaggeration.

Trading weapons with Iran while we were overtly supporting Iraq. Mining civilian harbours. Defying congress with funding terrorists/freedom fighters. Invading a country under false pretenses (we were attacked in Lebanon so he decided to invade Grenada). Classifying ketchup as a vegetable to slash food rations for low income students.

Cutting taxes in 1981 to fool the public and then raised them every single year for the next six years. Cutting social programs but increasing the debt to $150 Billion with military spending. Both of these with a Republican Senate and a Democratic House up to his last year in office. Agreeing to allow the Pakistani ISI to funnel the money and control for the support of the Mujahideen.

Lets consider some firsts in the Reagan administration which was the first administration in the history of the United States to:

Have a sitting cabinet member indicted.

Have an Assistant Secretary of State indicted.

Have an Assistant Secretary of Defense sent to prison.

Have over 100 members of an administration charged with crimes.

The first administration in American history to have more members of his administration charged with crimes than the cumulative total of all other presidents in the twentieth century.

Reagan accomplished a lot of good things in his term as President, but he is hardly the messiah that the republicans make him out to be. I voted for him twice. Primarily due to his charisma and the fact that the democrats did not have anyone better. But Reagan is hardly the saint that some paint him as.

I am aware of some of Reagan's shortcomings, he was as well.Reagan said he was not happy about the budget deficit and described it as "one of the greatest disappointments of his Presidency" but I see it as one of those things they had to live with since we were fighting the cold war, which we ultimately won.I like Reagan because he was a leader, stood up for America and believed in American values and way of running things, not a big government, nanny state who rapes many of it's citizens via taxes or who bends over and takes it from other nations, he looked out for America first as any President should.Reagan stayed pretty much to what he outlined in his nomination acceptance speech.Every admin is not without issues and yes he had some people get into trouble but that was them, not Reagan.I also really dislike his amnesty to the 3 million illegals, but he did what he saw as the best option at the time.

Unemployment went down after surviving the post Jimmy Carter recession, inflation dropped.My father has always said he did very well under Reagan and talked to plenty of people who did and lets be real here, a President does not leave office with 64% approval rating if things are not good for most people.Peace through strength won the Cold War because the Soviets took a President serious for the first time since JFK.Reagan appointed Sanda Day O Connor to the Supreme Court.Things are not going to be good for everyone, that is just just life, but 64% is a large number of people so Reagan did his job well, stuck to his principles and that is why he is remembered well.

Steve I'm not, I never cared about Clinton getting a blowjob, good for him lol. My issue is with his dishonestly.Remember, "Listen America, I did not have sexual relations with that woman" that was just blatant dishonestly to America. I agree it turned into a witchunt just like the Iran Contra thing did.

Scott Brown is electable because he is young, new, nice looking etc but doesnt seem that bright to me. I would have a hard time getting behind him politically, he is a RINO pretty much.Not a fan which is unfortunate because I was excited when he was elected after Ted Kennedy passed away but now, no.

I hope Steve doesn't mind me usurping his question.
The right has always portrayed itself as the antithesis of whatever the left was doing at the time. More specifically, the Republicans and the Democrats always portray themselves as the antithesis of each other, while really being more middle-of-the-road than anything else.

I hear that all the time, but I'm often left wondering if people really know what they're talking about when they say that, and why they dismiss it so easily.

What is described above, and policits in general are the natural result of a two party system, which is a natural result of a winner-takes-all system.

In a brand-new winner-takes-all system, there are two kinds of voters; those who will vote for A, and those who will vote for B on any given issue. When representatives are voting for you, it makes sense to elect the representative who will vote your way on the most issues of value to you.

However, you won't always get your way like that, whether you're a voter or a candidate, so like-minded groups get together into parties to combine votes, and this is where the trouble starts. (:roll: Don't we know it!) When a vote or candidate ceases to be of the individual type and becomes the party type, and interesting shift of paradigm occurs. Now it's not so much about getting what we want as it is getting enough votes to get what we want, and that's a whole different beast.

When conglomerates of voters and representatives find themselves in a winner-take-all system, they do exactly what you'd expect them to do; they polarize. Each party wants the majority of the votes, but in order to secure that majority they must appeal to the most people. Each party begins to amalgamate interests into its platform as fast as it can, and if party A gets to issue 1 first, party B is forced to adopt issue -1 for no other reason than the votes. Maybe B then gets issue 3, so A now has to take -3, etc... etc...

But politics doesn't stop there. Once the battle lines are drawn, there are still raids, skirmishes, and flanking maneuvers to perform. The most infamous of these tactics is seen on the battlefield of special interests. Special interests, as we all know, have power disproportionate to their size; not so much due to their financial contributions, but due to their ability to sap the enemy's vote. If special interest M (or whatever) goes to party A (who they like) and says, "What will you do for us, specifically?" and M is large enough, A will likely promise them a great deal. The members of M may be of varied opinions, but when M comes back from Washington and announces all the great things A will do for them, their vote becomes one. When the pre-aligned special interests run out, parties begin to seek unaligned special interests and court their vote with promises and such. And it gets a lot more complicated than that, especially in matters of trade and industry. Mookie knows this, I'm sure.

At this point, the original platform is unlikely to resemble its original self, but politics isn't done yet. Propaganda is next, but it isn't just propaganda - its counter propaganda and counter-counter propaganda, and counter-counter-counter propaganda, and it pervades every level of society. This is mostly what reaches the politically disinterested voter, but it also becomes engrained in the minds of party supporters. They find themselves supporting things they otherwise wouldn't care about because a party case has been made for it.

And it goes on, and on, and on, but that's enough for one post.

So if the liberals make political hay by accusing the right of having the "biggest deficit ever", they're not hypocrits when they make one many times larger and then say it's okay, they had to?

an interesting side note. As I was driving in to work today, the radio announcer pointed out that Reagan's approval rating at this point in his presidency (42% - august 1982) was lower than Obama's curent number: 47%.

I'd imagine that would depend on whose polls they are referencing.

This is where the GOP is at nowadays. Anybody that isn't an extremist is labelled a closet Democrat.

Whatever works to break the monopoly.