The new and improved, fight-free Romney vs. Obama thread!

Now, on Reagan.

There are, for sure lots of types of intelligence. "Multiple intelligences" is a educational theory. Basquiat couldn't string two coherent sentences together most of the time, but he was a brilliant artist, for example. To the extent that Reagan was intelligent, many of us are. He possessed what I'd admirable traits. He could laugh at himself. He could make little jokes. He could remember a little fact about someone or be a good host. He had a knack for turning a phrase or bringing levity to a tense moment.

I don't know that I'd classify any of those traits as the mark of great intelligence. Especially during his presidency, when, due to a combination of factors (senility, venal advisors, the fact that Russia was going into the shitter for a decade, and lied about it) when Reagan had less than his intellectual A game.

But if we assume his intelligence, we cannot simultaneously absolve him of the stoo-pen-dous errors his administration made on a variety of fronts, but most notably in foreign affairs, where America's involvement in a series of ridiculous proxy wars (Iraq/Iran, Angola, Central America, Afghanistan, Labanon) created a full Pandora's Box of problems 20 years later that we still haven't rid ourselves of.

The militarized escalation of a drug war that led to out-of-control budget problems in prison overcrowding and on police forces, where pensions/pay ballooned thanks to GOP fear-mongering? That's on Reagan, who complicated this matter with said proxy wars, fueled on the "revolutionary" side by drug dealing.

The death of the Fairness Doctrine and the relaxing of FCC ownership rules that's not only killed local radio but guaranteed that you'll hear almost nothing but right-wing talkers on AM stations until, I don't know, the sun burns up the Earth? That's on Reagan.

The idea that every poor person should own a home via low-cost, adjustable mortgages, a scam that blew up in our faces in 2008? That's on Jack Kemp. And Reagan.

A needless Arms Race that left Russia bankrupt and willing to settle whole warehouses of weapons to third-world dictators and terrorists? That's, in part, on Reagan, who agreed that a Star Wars approach to the Cold War was necessary so America didn't "fall behind" the Communists. The USSR was in the financial tank by 1980, as it turns out, and we had decent access to that reality, arguably choosing to ignore it to line the pockets of defense contractors.

We can go on here. The point is: If Reagan wasn't a patsy for his advisors, if he wasn't the actor they put onstage while they tweaked the nation in ways that played right into the hands of the powerful and greedy, then Reagan played an active, knowing role in that. When he said he couldn't recall things, he actually could and just wasn't telling the truth. When he hosted what amounted to an Angolan war criminal in the White House, championing his fight against Communism, he apparently knew that the guy was a sociopath. If that's what we're claming, fine.

But I don't honestly think that. There was a lot Reagan simply didn't know and wasn't intellectually curious to find out. He wasn't street smart at all, in fact; Nancy knew half of his team was a bunch of jackals. The ideological inmates were running the asylum there for 6 of the 8 years. They ran it for about five under W before, at long last, he woke up a little bit near the end, too late though it might have been.

 

Brian Schweitzer
Ed Rendell
Bill Richardson
Evan Byah

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_vice_presidential_candidate,_2008

 

Oh, yeah, they more or less did. Even Palin had no interest going back to the job once she knew she could get paid to go around and mouth off while her daughter got money to be an object of derision on reality TV shows.

 

Boob jobs aren't free.

 

Don't bother. Biden was there for his working knowledge of Iraq/foreign affairs.

Palin's record boiled down to her distrust of anyone who had one and, if you listened closely to her rhetoric, just about anyone who had anything she didn't.

 

Romney 2012

You know you want it!

 

This is great. Paint successes as failures. Brilliant!

Defense spending and proxy wars were wrong? Then, what was right?

The drug war (hardly an exclusively Republican idea) was a disaster? Where would we be if it hadn't been waged?

The Fairness Doctrine & relaxing FCC ownership rules? Holy fuck, even if these were mistakes, it they're in the top 3 of a Presidency, I'll take it. But, they weren't. They let the free market apply. Terrible, huh?

Reagan & Kemp are responsible for the mortgage bubble? Oh, Lord. You've gone off the deep end. You've entered Starman territory.

That was some time bomb they constructed, wasn't it? Too bad a super genius like Bill Clinton, Barnie Frank, or Charles Rangel couldn't spot it, and disarm it in time. Instead, they just made sure the wiring was intact, and the explosive materials were kept fresh.

But, blame it on Reagan & Kemp. I'm sure that makes sense in your small mind. They probably ruined the newspaper industry too, right? And, they did it to hurt you & Starman specifically. (Even though Starman was just a 22-year-old neophyte, clinging to his daddy's coattails at the time.)

 

Wait, someone thinks Alma has a small mind?

 

BTW, is there some Democrat politician/President/Presidential Candidate that I'm unaware off who cured cancer, or invented some great, new technology? Who came up with an innovative way of doing something extraordinary?

Did any of them run as intellectuals?

Bill Clinton was just a Big Mac lovin' regular guy, who smoked a little weed, and played a mean saxophone. He used to have an el Camino with astroturf in the back. What a loveable character?

John Kerry ran as a war hero, and regular guy who was a bicyclist, windsurfer (lol), and duck hunter.

Jimmy Carter was just a humble peanut farmer.

Obama was a forthright community organizer, who promised "hope & change". He was fresh, and new -- a different kind of politician.

Mondale? Dukakis? Were they intellectual heavyweights? Did they try to portray themselves that way to the electorate?

But, hey, maybe I'm being unfair. Who's the Democrat equivalent of Basquiat?

 

In terms of politics? For sure.

He sees everything one way. Can't give a single Republican credit for a good idea, a good soul, or a an alert mind.

Every problem is the fault of Republicans, and Democrats deserve no blame.

He has a victim mentality the likes of Starman.

It's sad. And, it's small minded.

 

Oh come on. To attribute these to Reagan is to ignore the fact that we had tons of proxy wars over the decades before. True, he could have chosen not to, but this approach to statecraft didn't originate with the Gipper.

I got nothing. Maybe this was a failure of Reagan's. Just so we don't have to get in to it, I'll stipulate just to move on.

Oh for heaven's sake. I could argue this, but I won't because, sheesh, so what?

See above re: proxy wars. More home ownership has been the goal of multiple administrations. And further, what you seem to be arguing for is either: A) poor people not owning homes; or B) people who own homes only doing so if they can afford a higher-cost, fixed-rate mortgage.

So your argument is that it was a mistake to give that tottering edifice the final nudge? That we, and everyone else, would have been better off had Reagan not forced the Soviets' hand?

I never voted for Reagan because I, like Starman, came of age during his administrations and, as someone once said, when I was young and stupid I acted young and stupid*. But I can still remember vividly what it was like before, and frankly I am glad his administration came along.


*Please note that I am not saying it was stupid to be against Reagan at the time. Rather, I am saying that my opposition to Reagan rested on really, really shallow and stupid reasons.

 

OK, YF, try to open my mind a little.

Name ... let's try ... five things that the GOP has proposed in, let's say, the last 20 years that would DIRECTLY help the middle class and the poor. For argument's sake, let's say, for people who make $75,000 or less.

And when I mean directly, I mean that nobody above that threshold receives the primariy benefit. For example, don't say that a tax break to a millionaire means someone can have a job. I'm talking about what has the GOP done that has helped the Davids, not the Goliaths.

Convince me why I should be willing to see that the GOP has my best interest in heart.