Politics As Usual

[SlaveNoMore]

It was great seeing Maggie again.

[Hank Chinaski]

I was surprised to see SAM come out as supporting the Pistons. The Lakers are the team of the liberal/media/hollywood elite- The team of throw money at a problem and it'll be fixed; the team of of course we'll win because we've hired mercenaries to come in at every position, the team of hard-work is wrong, dealing with problems is wrong, let's do something glitzsy! SAM is the only fuzz-head I've heard of against the Lakers.

It goes without saying that any Republican who truly values the ideals that have made this country great, namely hard work pays off, work hard every day, provide a great defense, torture the other guys, those principals in short that will provide a win to the Republican party of watershed proportions in November, can only support the Pistons. If any so-called Republican actually supports the Lakers, then I say that person should stare into their mirror and ask themselves if they wouldn't truly prefer Dean to Kerry. Certainly this so-called Republican is not truly supportive of Reagan or Bush.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
How Reagan Won The Cold War, Part XVII:
...
Jonathan Chait in TNR[/url]

God forbid the man might have had competing goals of defeating the Soviet Union by expanding the military at a pace with which they could not compete, and of taking measures to reduce the threat of immediate and/or inadvertent nuclear holocaust. Lord knows that the two could never sit in a presidency together.

Strangely, which of the two would the writer advocate as being more important? Given the second, can one explain how Reagan would have obtained the cooperation of the Soviets without the first?

If the writer's point was that Reagan's achievements weren't as simple as they are sometimes set out, then its a good point. If his point is that he doesn't understand the numerous and complex demands on the presidency, because he believes each president can only have one overriding objective in foreign policy (i.e., bankrupting the Soviet Union in Reagan's case), then he did a great job explaining the point.

Hello

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore

It was great seeing Maggie again.

Even though we all knew on some level that Regan couldn't be with us forever, I don't think we really prepared ourselves for his passing. But fear not, preparations are already underway for the day Maggie leaves us.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ironweed
Even though we all knew on some level that Regan couldn't be with us forever, I don't think we really prepared ourselves for his passing. But fear not, preparations are already underway for the day Maggie leaves us.

Look. You need to edit this and delete the link BEFORE Ty gets to work. This seems like something a limey clone did, and you'll be giving him ideas for his own Bush page. Ty does not need more "good ideas" for computer time.

Simple message from his last review was "More time on legal work- less time on internet."

I heard that was the sum of the review. Sidd, confirm?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I've yet to see any of these articles discuss one of the more interesting legacies of Reagan. Namely, "Reagan Democrats" and the gradual political transformation of the South.

On that one, Reagan is seen as the inheritor of Nixon's legacy.

Originally posted by Hello
God forbid the man might have had competing goals of defeating the Soviet Union by expanding the military at a pace with which they could not compete, and of taking measures to reduce the threat of immediate and/or inadvertent nuclear holocaust. Lord knows that the two could never sit in a presidency together.

Strangely, which of the two would the writer advocate as being more important? Given the second, can one explain how Reagan would have obtained the cooperation of the Soviets without the first?

If the writer's point was that Reagan's achievements weren't as simple as they are sometimes set out, then its a good point. If his point is that he doesn't understand the numerous and complex demands on the presidency, because he believes each president can only have one overriding objective in foreign policy (i.e., bankrupting the Soviet Union in Reagan's case), then he did a great job explaining the point.

I think his point was that Reagan's views and record are not captured by and fully consistent what his hagiographers say about him now. I don't think Chait was opposed to arms control treaties, but it kinda runs counter to a plan of bankrupting the Soviet Union.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
How Reagan Won The Cold War, Part XVII:

• ...although he was no liberal nor even a moderate, Reagan did repeatedly abandon conservative dogma. That he is nonetheless remembered as an unyielding conservative says less about Reagan than it does about the contemporary Republicans who lay claim to his cause. Consider, first, Reagan's contribution to the demise of the Eastern bloc. Reagan's decision to rebuild the debilitated post-Vietnam military supposedly compelled the Soviets to reform themselves by forcing them into a costly arms race that put even more pressure on their teetering economy. "In the end, Reagan won the Cold War not by defeating the Soviets militarily, but by showing them that we had economic resources they could never hope to match," wrote Bruce Bartlett last year in National Review Online. "They simply couldn't afford to keep up."
  
  Whatever you think of that explanation, it's hard to square with Reagan's 1987 agreement with the Soviets to ban medium- and short-range nuclear missiles. After all, if forcing the Soviets to deploy more weapons caused them to produce fewer consumer goods and weakened their leader's will, then letting them deploy fewer weapons, and divert the savings into the consumer economy, would have had the opposite effect. At the time, the right viewed the treaty as a betrayal. conservatives campaigning against missile treaty, read a New York Times headline; most candidates for the 1988 GOP presidential nomination opposed the treaty. Today conservatives simply gloss over that decision. This week's page-length Wall Street Journal editorial mourning Reagan made no mention at all of that highly significant treaty. Instead it praised his "willingness to walk away from Reykjavik and at other times from an arms control process that had become an article of blind faith among U.S. elites."
  
  The missile treaty was no fluke. Alongside Reagan's (justly) celebrated steely revulsion toward communism sat a wooly-headed, almost peacenik, sensibility. Washington Post reporter Lou Cannon's 1991 biography of Reagan--celebrated for its fairness by left and right alike--revealed Reagan's attachment to anti-cold war movies like The Day After and War Games, which inveighed against the horrors of nuclear war in the most syrupy way. He had a particular affinity for the 1951 science fiction film The Day the Earth Stood Still, in which an alien arrived and forced the United States and Soviet Union to make peace. Reagan invoked this trope so frequently that Colin Powell, his national security adviser, would tell his staff, "Here come the little green men again." Reagan even brought up the movie in his 1988 summit with Gorbachev--who, understandably, didn't know quite what to make of it--in the course of proposing a deal by which both sides would destroy their entire nuclear arsenals. All in all, his view toward the cold war was far different than the "moral clarity" that is currently ascribed to him.

Jonathan Chait in TNR

Reagan's agreement limited things that weren't being built. Both countries already had enough missiles. He refused to limit SDI, which would have to have been built. Read how the Iceland summit was seen at the times. Given the times, he also had to at least appear like he had a goal of reducing weapons levels. A substantial portion of the country was pretty sure he was heading to a nuclear war. He couldn't very well state that he was just driving SDI to fuck up the Soviets, and he didn't believe in it.

And quoting what Conservative columnists said in the '80s? Who cares. They're as clueless as the guys you cite. They have to say crap because its Sunday and the Camera is on- What to say what to say?

Ronnie talk to Russia before its too late
Before you blow up the World

Guess what symbol? He did talk to Russia- Bye Bye!

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I've yet to see any of these articles discuss one of the more interesting legacies of Reagan.

Namely, "Reagan Democrats" and the gradual political transformation of the South.

This is indeed one of Reagan's most enduring (and for a Democrat, exasperating) legacies, although only partially his - the forces of transformation of Southern Democrats started in the 60's, a Reagan was merely the nail in the coffin. Of course, it was really just a realinement in name only - it's not as if Southern Democrats were in any way liberal. They just didn't want to be part of the party of Lincoln.

I've always thought the South's facination with Reagan and his conservative successors was very interesting. Almost cult like, in that many areas would clearly be better served (on a local level) by voting Democrat (in the sense that if your area is net recipient of federal dollars [receives more benefits than it pays in taxes], it's generally against your interest to cut spending).

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
He did talk to Russia- Bye Bye!

I don't know what argument you think you're having. I'm not attacking Reagan. I'm saying that if we won the Cold War by outspending the Russians (and that's a big "if"), we did it by accident. Since you're with me on that point, I'll let you take the first run at answering club's next post. (They told me to delegate more work to people further down the food chain.)

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by baltassoc
I've always thought the South's facination with Reagan and his conservative successors was very interesting. Almost cult like, in that many areas would clearly be better served (on a local level) by voting Democrat (in the sense that if your area is net recipient of federal dollars [receives more benefits than it pays in taxes], it's generally against your interest to cut spending).

Hence the GOP strategy -- driven now by Southerners -- of talking a lot about cutting spending but increasing it, especially on your base. Reagan deserves credit for blazing that trail.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Guess what symbol? He did talk to Russia- Bye Bye!

The bottom line and all that matters is that whatever he did worked. Nothing else matters.

The liberals hate this as much as they the thought that it might work to establish democracy in Iraq. They would rather liver in an unstable world than have the Rep plan succeed.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I don't know what argument you think you're having. I'm not attacking Reagan. I'm saying that if we won the Cold War by outspending the Russians (and that's a big "if"), we did it by accident. Since you're with me on that point, I'll let you take the first run at answering club's next post. (They told me to delegate more work to people further down the food chain.)

Ty. that's mean. Symbol is Prince- that was a Prince quote. And what I said about the agreements is true, and ends your "argument." When Atticus logs-in I'm going to get a ruling on whether it wasn't a one-reply win.

And frankly the "food chain" comment evidences an elitism that I know most SF Democrats have, but usually keep hidden.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by baltassoc
it's not as if Southern Democrats were in any way liberal. They just didn't want to be part of the party of Lincoln.

A big part of the South's rejection of the Democratic Party is that the Democratic Party is ran by guys in the North who actually say and think shit like this. It is insulting.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
And frankly the "food chain" comment evidences an elitism that I know most SF Democrats have, but usually keep hidden.

That's the brutality of the free market, Hank -- there's nothing elitist about it. Did someone move your cheese again?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by baltassoc
This is indeed one of Reagan's most enduring (and for a Democrat, exasperating) legacies, although only partially his - the forces of transformation of Southern Democrats started in the 60's, a Reagan was merely the nail in the coffin. Of course, it was really just a realinement in name only - it's not as if Southern Democrats were in any way liberal. They just didn't want to be part of the party of Lincoln.

The exodus of the Southern Dems has been devastating for the Dem party. The provided a force that kept the party more moderate and thus more appealing to middle America. Without them, the party has become dominated by its special interest groups and this is the main reason the Dems have lost so much power in the legislative branch.

Originally posted by baltassoc
I've always thought the South's facination with Reagan and his conservative successors was very interesting. Almost cult like, in that many areas would clearly be better served (on a local level) by voting Democrat (in the sense that if your area is net recipient of federal dollars [receives more benefits than it pays in taxes], it's generally against your interest to cut spending).

I think that many people in the south care as much probably more about the big picture of keeping America headed in the right direction than they do about getting as much pork barrel spending directed their way. They see the Reps as having a better plan for America.