Reagan the Original Tea Party.

http://www.npr.org/2011/02/05/133506347 ... -candidate



I don't see any racism here. This is what most were trying to do. This is about a difference in opinion.

Is this not the same president who signed the largest tax increase in history at that time, and authorized the largest amnesty program for illegal aliens, and signed off on the largest deficit in history at that time?

That was not my point. My point is that the racism thing was not what all this was about.

CinnamonGirl, liberals have to introduce their own talking points. They merely have long mantras. They are full of hate, not logic and reason.

Liberals are also full of facts that are indisputable, and historically true. Reality has always had a liberal slant. And facts trump hero-worship.

---

Five myths about Ronald Reagan's legacy

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 03104.html

THE RONALD REAGAN MYTH

http://prorev.com/reagan.htm

Ronald Reagan Myth Doesn't Square with Reality

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162- ... 03544.html

Debunking the Reagan Myth
By PAUL KRUGMAN

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/opini ... .html?_r=1

How Republicans created the myth of Ronald Reagan

http://www.salon.com/books/excerpt/2009 ... ald_reagan

The Myth of Ronald Reagan

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joan-e-do ... 27951.html

Will Bunch: Tearing Down The Reagan 'Myth'

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =100253947

major bean wrote: CinnamonGirl, liberals have to introduce their own talking points. They merely have long mantras. They are full of hate, not logic and reason.

No offense but it happens on both sides. i was trying to introduce an idea that we both have differences in opinions and sometimes they are both noble causes. Just different. The way it gets dirty and nasty is the problem not the differences in how people want to run the government.

I am horrified at the name calling and assumptions and, in my view, THAT is why things are a mess. The core differences, in my opinion are not.

I consider myself a fiscal conservative. As you all probably know. I am socially way more left than alot of conservatives.

I do not look at Courthouse discussion as a war to be won. How I look at it is a way to discuss and understand the other posters. I just want to know what they think so i can understand and learn.

CinnamonGirl wrote: That was not my point. My point is that the racism thing was not what all this was about.

The article to which you linked did not discuss Reagan's stance in regard to racism, but on the perception that Reagan was the embodiment of the Tea Party ideals. I was pointing out the hypocrisy of that perception, that while Reagan cut taxes on the very wealthy, blue collar individuals ended up paying a higher percentage of their income in taxes during his presidency, that he raised taxes every year he was in office, that he was an advocate for amnesty for illegal aliens, that he grew the size of the federal government during his presidency, that the federal deficit ballooned to record levels during his presidency, that unemployment grew to over 10% during his presidency, etc. Is this the embodiment of Tea Party ideals?

Actually Bill Clinton would be a better model, the federal government shrank during his presidency, the deficit was erased, the economy grew.

I thought the article was looking at how people would have seen the tea party and what Reagan would have thought about it, not about specifics about RR. Even though there were a few.

"I think he would embrace us, not on our principles only. I think he would embrace us on our striving for freedom and constitutionality," she says. "There wouldn't be just a conservative approach; he would be recognizing us, as speaking for the people."

Reagon had an image of America that was instilled into him in his youth. By applying himself he was able to be successful in all areas of his life. This confirmed to him that his image was correct. This fueled his desire to preserve and promote his image of America. He was not out to change but to preserve and strengthen.

His driving force was a rather dangerous drive. It was based upon conviction. Fortunately his convictions were altruistic (tempered with a little pragmatism). Perverted conviction has the tendency to produce offspring such as Hitler.

I do not know if the Tea Party embodies the image of America which Reagon possessed. He lived in a different time and age. Even as President he was a dinosaur. But he would have used the Tea Party.

(As a sidebar: Nearly all politicians today have no conviction or vision of America. They are merely self promoters and vain.)

Something:

I think you need to check your facts. Carter left office with unemployment in double digits, inflation in double digits, interest rates at 22%. Reagan brought it all back. Carter also gave us the problem with Iran, that mimics what Obama seems to be doing in Egypt. Clinton did nothing but fire off all of our Cruise Missiles, LewinskyGate and bomb Aspirin factories.