Semi-Daily Journal

Much better to have a president who's getting a blowjob while discussing troop deployments. Or is sexually assulting a campaign supporter while his ex-Treasury Secretary waits in the Oval Office. Or is masturbating into a West Wing sink. THAT'S a president the history books will look back kindly on.

Touchy, touchy, touchy...

Isn't there a fairly large excluded middle in your argument, Mr. Bucky?

Isn't it possible to question the basis for all this Reagan hagiography without implicitly condoning everything Bill Clinton ever did?

Is this really the best you can do by way of argument? - Or is this just an example of the poverty of your mental universe?

Bucky's just throwing up a straw man since he can't blow down the evidence that his Personal God was mentally incompetent during his administration. A lot of conservatives think that Reagan was God's gift to America, (hence their drive to rename half of the country [not literally] in his honor) and they get their hackles up whenever somebody points out that the emperor had no clothe^h^h^h^h^h^hbrains.

>is this just an example of the poverty of your mental universe?

Exactly. Anyone who fails to recognize Reagan's idiocy is simply a moron.

And anyone citing the banal tawdryness of the White House's last 20th century occupant is a partisan hack.

Sorry, Mr. DeLong.

It didn't have to be like this - but you've crossed a red line, and we're going to have to shut you down.

>...he can't blow down the evidence...

Couldn't have said it better!

> And anyone citing the banal tawdryness of the White House's last 20th century occupant is a partisan hack.

There's a difference. Clinton's supporters (like me) usually concede his tawdryness but don't see that as relevant to his performance as president. I mean--yow!--the guy was an idiot throwing so much away over some 20-something intern and genuinely has a problem. But despite all that I do agree with a lot of what he was trying to do and I appreciate the extent to which he revitalized (albeit temporarily) the Democratic party and made it seem possible that we might actually start trying again to make people's lives better instead of embarking on some dreary crusade or another.

Dwelling on Clinton's problems doesn't make you or anyone else a partisan hack. It's your prerogative and I respect it. You will not see me signing a petition to suppress the showing of any anti-Clinton, anti-FDR, or anti-JFK miniseries no matter how bad it would most likely be and how biased it might be. It's not good sportsmanship, and while not technically censorship it goes against the spirit of the first amendment.

By contrast, Reagan's supporters rarely concede that he was disengaged as President or not very curious or not very bright. He was not simplistic; he showed moral clarity. His saber rattling and military spending was not a fiscally irresponsible obsession, but actually part of a carefully conceived strategy to drive the Soviet Union to bankruptcy--and so on and so on. Reagan's supporters rarely concede any point that suggests he was anything other than a saint or a hero.

Liberals are willing to admit that Clinton is a flawed man but appreciate his good points (notwithstanding that he is moderate, not liberal, on most counts). Conservatives (more often) bristle at any suggestion of Reagan's flaws and retreat into myth-making. I believe this says more about the liberal vs. conservate mindset than it does about Clinton or Reagan.

Was it really the case that RR's being disengaged was the point of dispute, or rather was it that the CBS scriptwriters had invented--evidently out of whole cloth--quotes making him sound like a bible-tumping homophobe or apocalypse weirdo?

Don Regan was an embittered ex employee who was in over his head, screwed up and was fired.

David Gergen--well, not the greatest judge of character or anything else in the world.

Peggy Noonan? Not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

But, Brad, why do you care about any of this?

>...I appreciate the extent to which he revitalized (albeit temporarily) the Democratic party ...

Yep. He did such a good job that from the moment he put his hand on the bible in January 1993, the Democrats have consistently lost power, to the point where they no longer hold either side of capitol hill, and are thisclose to a filibuster-proof senate. And then there are the governorships....

Reagan's idolitors, of which I am NOT one, are matched in their lunacy by the demonizers of Bush.
Neither are a pretty sight, but it's a mistake to generalize from charicatures we see in the press.

If the Reagan fans want to think of his personal nature in glowing terms, I really don't care. What offends me is how they paint the 1980's as this period of roaring economic growth. It was not. Reagan's fiscal mess led to an exploding debt, less savings and investment, a large current account deficit, and reduced real growth combined with rising poverty. Yet, we hear ad nausam the distortions of this record from his fans. We also hear how he was the champion of free markets despite his trade protectionist record. He did continue the deregulation of the financial markets without paying sufficient attention to the problems with FSLIC. Now the economic record alone makes Reagan one of the worst Presidents in our history. So I'm content to leave the personal stuff alone.

>I'm content to leave the personal stuff alone.

Thank you. Reasonable people can dispute the value of Reagan's actions. The constant need by the Left to poison the well of public discourse with inane mockery ill-serves them.

Not a single slat missing in your treehouse, Hal. Well said.

Bucky

Thank you but one question - those jabs at Bill Clinton. Did you do that only to mock personal attacks in re Reagan? I hope you are fair and balanced and would not toss out these jabs when discussing policy deicsions from 1993 to 2000. Would you? I hope you rise about the Ann Coulter & Sean Hannity style of 'debate'.

Way to go Hal.

Isn't there anything that can be done about combating the false record of the 1980s so called economic boom that only exist in the imagination of the Reagan buffs and supply side advocated.
I mean, afterall if the Red Soxs ever won the world series the supply siders would say it ws because of the Reagan tax cuts.

> those jabs at Bill Clinton. Did you do that only to mock personal attacks in re Reagan?

Yeah. There've been good to-and-fros here on the Reagan/Clinton economic records. Those points should stand on their own.

There's enough issue-related material on both sides to have an interesting discussion.

The gratuitous swipes at [insert non-Democrat] are tedious.

66 Things to Think About When Flying Into Reagan National Airport by David Corn

The firing of the air traffic controllers, winnable nuclear war, recallable nuclear missiles, trees that cause pollution, Elliott Abrams lying to Congress, ketchup as a vegetable, colluding with Guatemalan thugs, pardons for F.B.I. lawbreakers, voodoo economics, budget deficits, toasts to Ferdinand Marcos, public housing cutbacks, redbaiting the nuclear freeze movement, James Watt.

Getting cozy with Argentine fascist generals, tax credits for segregated schools, disinformation campaigns, "homeless by choice," Manuel Noriega, falling wages, the HUD scandal, air raids on Libya, "constructive engagement" with apartheid South Africa, United States Information Agency blacklists of liberal speakers, attacks on OSHA and workplace safety, the invasion of Grenada, assassination manuals, Nancy's astrologer.

Drug tests, lie detector tests, Fawn Hall, female appointees (8 percent), mining harbors, the S&L scandal, 239 dead U.S. troops in Beirut, Al Haig "in control," silence on AIDS, food-stamp reductions, Debategate, White House shredding, Jonas Savimbi, tax cuts for the rich, "mistakes were made."

Michael Deaver's conviction for influence peddling, Lyn Nofziger's conviction for influence peddling, Caspar Weinberger's five-count indictment, Ed Meese ("You don't have many suspects who are innocent of a crime"), Donald Regan (women don't "understand throw-weights"), education cuts, massacres in El Salvador.

"The bombing begins in five minutes," $640 Pentagon toilet seats, African- American judicial appointees (1.9 percent), Reader's Digest, C.I.A.-sponsored car-bombing in Lebanon (more than eighty civilians killed), 200 officials accused of wrongdoing, William Casey, Iran/contra.

"Facts are stupid things," three-by-five cards, the MX missile, Bitburg, S.D.I., Robert Bork, naps, Teflon.

David Corn, March 2, 1998, The Nation

That about covers it.

>>The constant need by the Left to poison the well of public discourse with inane mockery ill-serves them.<<

David Gergen may be a power-hungry chameleon, but Peggy Noonan and Don Reagan are definitely people of the right.

Jesus Bucky, Ronald Reagan was dumber then shit and dishonest as well. The only reason he got elected was because the power brokers behind H.W.Bush saw him as a perfect front man, which he was. From the treasonous Iran-Contra/Hostage Deal ( that's right, I'm calling Reagan and both Bushes rank traitors to America..) to running the largest deficit ever, Reagan was a disaster.

Right wing poodles like you *have* to worship Reagan and continually buff his rusting statue, lest the spell wear off.

Bucky is acting like a paid off "elf." That's what you are Bucky, right? ( You have to deny it. It's part of the contract. )

Brad DeLong's site has enough readers and enough heft to warrent it's own right-wing elf, eh? Maybe he gets two or three. However many Scaife can afford ( lots. )

Jesus Bucky, Ronald Reagan was dumber then s**t and dishonest as well. The only reason he got the nomination was because the power brokers behind H.W.Bush saw Reagan as a perfect front man, which he was. From the treasonous Iran-Contra/Hostage Deal ( that's right, I'm calling Reagan and both Bushes rank traitors to America,) to running the largest deficit ever, Reagan was a disaster.

Right wing poodles like you *have* to worship Reagan and continually buff his rusting statue, lest the spell wear off.

Bucky is acting like a paid off "elf." That's what you are Bucky, right? ( You have to deny it. It's part of the contract. )

Brad DeLong's site has enough readers and enough heft to warrent it's own right-wing elf, eh? Maybe he gets two or three. However many Scaife can afford ( lots. )

Jesus Bucky, Ronald Reagan was dumber then s**t and dishonest as well. The only reason he got the nomination was because the power brokers behind H.W.Bush saw Reagan as a perfect front man, which he was. From the treasonous Iran-Contra/Hostage Deal ( that's right, I'm calling Reagan and both Bushes rank traitors to America,) to running the largest deficit ever, Reagan was a disaster.

Right wing poodles like you *have* to worship Reagan and continually buff his rusting statue, lest the spell wear off.

Bucky is acting like a paid off "elf." That's what you are Bucky, right? ( You have to deny it. It's part of the contract. )

Brad DeLong's site has enough readers and enough heft to warrent it's own right-wing elf, eh? Maybe he gets two or three. However many Scaife can afford ( lots. )

Jesus Bucky, Ronald Reagan was dumber then s**t and dishonest as well. The only reason he got the nomination was because the power brokers behind H.W.Bush saw Reagan as a perfect front man, which he was. From the treasonous Iran-Contra/Hostage Deal ( that's right, I'm calling Reagan and both Bushes rank traitors to America,) to running the largest deficit ever, Reagan was a disaster.

Right wing poodles like you *have* to worship Reagan and continually buff his rusting statue, lest the spell wear off.

Bucky is acting like a paid off "elf." That's what you are Bucky, right? ( You have to deny it. It's part of the contract. )

Brad DeLong's site has enough readers and enough heft to warrent it's own right-wing elf, eh? Maybe he gets two or three. However many Scaife can afford ( lots. )

>The constant need by the Left to poison the well of public discourse with inane mockery ill-serves them.

The _left_ is poisoning the well of public discourse with mockery? Ann Coulter, is that you? You

What???? I come her for my usual fix of good sensible economic news and evaluation, and find the freepers. (Or whatever they are called.)

Sorry folks, as much as you try to shine the Reagan image, as much as you have your hero worship, history will judge him. It has a way of doing that.

I think he was what he was. Most likely somewhat disconnected from what was going on around him, but a wonderful actor. And history will probably say that there was some early Alzheimers developing while he was in the White House.

"What I Saw at the Revolution" (Noonan's book) is neck and neck with Kathie Lee Gifford's "Tell It To My Heart" (with this one really funny story about how upset little Cody was when she threw away his binkie and then told him that the garbageman stole it) as the funniest book by a humorless professional Christian I've ever read.

She only ever met Reagan a very few times (and she made a point of saying that Nancy was hostile to her nonetheless), but every meeting was a mountaintop visitation to a holy man.

Her postmodern interpretations of what he had to say to her on those few occasions were masterpieces of desperation - well, he had to mean something really deep and american, he's Ronald Reagan, for goodness sake (as it were).

My favorite: she somehow has it stuck in her head that Reagan is somehow psychically connected to the scene in Yankee Doodle Dandy where Cagney tapdances down the White House steps after he's been awarded his Medal of Freedom (geez, you'd think a good Republican would have vomited, wouldn't you? but then, Cohen was a unionbuster too). She asks Reagan on one of their rare meetings if he was as strongly affected by that scene as she thought he was - she seemed to think it was the cornerstone of his presidency - and he said "Yeah, we were all surprised. No-one knew he could dance"

I'm not even completely sure that the story's true - Cagney made Busby Berkeley musicals too - but let's say it was.

Ol' Peggy decided that was a total confirmation of her theory, and it just reinforced in her mind [sic] that she was totally right about Reagan's, well, his darn americanness.

She also thought that Reagan helped her choose the poem about the surly bonds of earth, even though he said he'd never heard of it.

Not a woman with the burden of proof at her heart, the pegster.

Bucky Dent says:

"Neither are a pretty sight,"

While exhibiting disdain for the structural rules of a language, can one's opinion be respected as learned?

Bucky Dent says:

"Neither are a pretty sight,"

While exhibiting disdain for the structural rules of a language, can one's opinion be respected as learned?

Carter commented, when he briefed Reagan upon handing over the presidency, that Ronnie took no notes and asked no questions. The Great Leader preferred to be in his pajamas and watching movies by 5pm.

Our present leader is different. Ron exemplified his manliness by chopping wood on his ranch. George exemplifies his by clearing brush on his.

No cattle on either ranch, unsurprisingly.

No cattle on either ranch, unsurprisingly.

Hat, though. Lots of hat.

>No cattle on either ranch, unsurprisingly.

But there were several horses kept up at the Reagan spread in Santa Barbara, and both of the Reagans regularly rode.

There are no horses in Crawford. Dubya doesn't like horses, and horses don't like him.

Golf carts and pickup trucks fill the gap.

(Segways are banned from the bar-W ranch after the unfortunate incident in Kennebunkport. Falling off of an allegedly foolproof scooter in sight of press cameras is inauspicious.)

-

"Right wing poodles like you *have* to worship Reagan and continually buff his rusting statue, lest the spell wear off."

Joey Giraud,

Are you sure you're on the right website? Perhaps you were looking for Atrios, or Democratic Underground, and chanced on here by mistake? I don't see that this forum needs to be polluted by the sort of nonsense you've attempted to pass off above as thought. Wander over to Daily Kos or Indymedia or something - I'm sure they'll just love the ad hominem attacks over there.

Becky,
as a matter of fact I DO prefer a President with his full intellectual faculties intact analyzing troop deploymnets as he is getting a blowjob. The fact that he is able to both well is testament to his skill and dexterity.

On the other hand you have an Alsheimer's riddled puppet actor to whom Mr.Weinberger had to sell the concept of a biggger Defense budget by actually bringining a huge cut out of GI Joe because Weinberger understood he was dealing with someone of such limited intellectual faculities that anything more "abstact" like actual words or numbers on the page would not do.

Also Regan DATE RAPED one of the Hollywood actress. I think it was June Allyson I am not sure but that FACT is documented in her autobiography. So if you want to sling mud look at your moronic saint first.

Regan's retarded childlike simplistic understanding of the world, without any attempt at sophisticated analysis or appreciaition of nuance is perefctlty emblematic of the whole conservative intellectual foundation. Bedtime for Bonzo indeed.

Abiola Lapite, I appreciate your kind suggestions, but I have chosen the correct location to inform Mr Bucky X that Reagan was stupid, uneducated and a lousy president. If any profession should be insulted by Ronald Reagan, it should be economics. ( and airline control :)

Your attempt to appear "above the fray" belies a lack of understanding of rhetoric and humanity. Perhaps you would be better served by avoiding the Internet and limiting your human contact to dry academic conferences and lectures.

Have a nice day!

>Also Regan DATE RAPED one of the Hollywood actress. I think it was June Allyson I am not sure but that FACT is documented in her autobiography. So if you want to sling mud look at your moronic saint first

And here I was, being a good netizen, refusing to mention that DeLong's govt employer raped Juanita Brodderick, because I thought that would be a low blow, when you introduce this most lurid of stories.

Of course, Reagan didn't have his [alleged] victim AUDITED by the IRS when he took office, as Clinton did.

Bucky BS:>"DeLong's govt employer raped Juanita Brodderick"

Except that Juanita Brodderick *lied* and was also being given money by another Richard Mellon Scaife front group.

In other words Bucky Boy, Clinton is innocent of those charges. Is there no end to your lies and deceptions?

Have you gotten your Scaife Bucks for the month yet, Bucky? Putting in a little weekend overtime, spamming your spin over the web?

Let's get to the nub of the issue.

Ronald Reagan will be remembered by history as one of the greatest of American presidents. Bill Clinton will not be.

It's as simple as that. Simplisme. Each of you on the left surely cringe at the thought, but if you deny it you are only lying to yourself.

You can insult Mr. Reagan personally, make way too much of a few out-of-context quotations like DeLong does in the post above, or engage in a substantive argument about his policies. But at the end of it all, the Gipper will still be adored by millions of Americans and be remembered as one of the greats.

Sorry, but the truth hurts.

God bless Ronald Reagan!!!

Abiola, the new, improved, Iron-butt Bucky brings out the worst in people. And this topic is an Atrios-type topic anyway. We're not talking about the economic effects of the capital gains tax here.

"The constant need by the Left to poison the well of public discourse with inane mockery ill-serves them."

Forgive us!

"Ronald Reagan will be remembered by history as one of the greatest of American presidents."

By the millions of Americans who get thier news only from Murdoch's Fox Networks.

The rest of America who aren't brainwashed by the right wing media will remember Ronald Reagan as the vegetable who sold weapons to America's enemies, invaded two non-threatening nations killing thousands of innocent civilians in the process, ran up the largest debt America had ever "enjoyed," and lied about it all quite convincingly. Because he was a decent actor at least.

You Mellon-paid elves really get into your work, doncha?

Brad Brad Brad are you ever wrong. We do have Kings far more surely than England. Queens too, Lise.

"The rest of America who aren't brainwashed by the right wing media will remember Ronald Reagan as the vegetable who sold weapons to America's enemies"
...
"You Mellon-paid elves really get into your work, doncha?"

Well, I have to hand you this much - you certainly have an amusing way with words! This language is so overwrought that I find it difficult to believe you aren't playing this for laughs. In any case, I think I'll take your advice and stay on the sidelines of this particular thread.

Abiola, innocent bystanders like yourself should keep your head down lest some crossfire hurt you.

I'm sorry your conversational haven has been invaded by right-wing flying monkeys ( or as they call themselves: elves, ) but they must be fought wherever they encroach, lest all web denizens brains be snatched and all logic,civility and reason be dashed forevermore.

Please note whom I am addressing in my more "extreme" commentary. It is not you.

Now where is that "Bucky" guy? here Bucky Bucky Bucky, I've got a rhetorical "present" for you!

"President Reagan said (in June, 1982) that the day of Soviet tyranny was passing, that freedom had a momentum which would not be halted. He gave this organization (the NED) its mandate: to add to the momentum of freedom across the world. Your mandate was important 20 years ago; it is equally important today.

"A number of critics were dismissive (what an extraordinary understatement!) of that speech by the President. According to one editorial of the time, "It seems hard to be a sophisticated European and also an admirer of Ronald Reagan." Some observers on both sides of the Atlantic pronounced the speech simplistic and naive, and even dangerous. In fact, Ronald Reagan's words were courageous and optimistic and entirely correct." President George W. Bush, Nov. 6, '03, speech at the 20th anniversay of the Natl. Endowment for Democracy, full text here http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/11/20031106-2.html

Or this speech at the Oxford Union, similarly substantive, apt and thoughtfully textured, though from a different angle: http://oxblog.blogspot.com/2003_11_02_oxblog_archive.html#106821413951533888

Indeed President Reagan was making these comments vis-a-vis the Soviet regime prior to '82 (e.g. '80, prior to being elected: "I'll get the Soviets to the negotiation table..."). All the while, during this time and after, economists and other self-assurred, self-vaunting academics and policy wonks (such as M. Albright) were engaging in the, then as now, ubiquitous practice, prominent among the SS squads of the soft and the harder left: snarking smirks, smirking sneers, sneering schadenfreude.

Or if there is no present occasion for schadenfreude, then its time for gleefully anticipated, hoped-for exercises therein. And if not that then, for your viewing and listening pleasure, an ever narrowed, myopic view of Reagan's leadership or some other contortionist, revisionist appraisal.

Too, always and consistently in tandem with that studied myopia, a careful forgetfulness when it comes to Galbraith's, Albright's, Samuelson's, Thurow's et al (and there were many, many indeed) comments of that period - and throughout the early, mid and even into the late '80s. (Though the only commentators making strikingly positive assertions and predictions about the Soviets in the late '80s were economists such as Thurow and Samuelson.)

Yet the determination of the soft and harder Left's SS squads will not be - easily - thwarted. Their common credo, seemingly, is "reality be damned."

Michael B offers an erudite spin on Reagan's prediction of the collapse of the U.S.S.R. while managing to smear Reagan's critics.

I've always been amazed that so many "credible centrists" thought the USSR was ever a significant threat. When a civilian can travel through the USSR and conclude that the nation was impoverished and weak ( Robert Heinlien, Expanded Universe, 1980 Ace Books ) but our expert military analyists were supporting Reagan's now incredible claims of Soviet superiority, you know there is some serious official misdirection going on. The proof of that misdirection was the collapse proper, which revealed for all to see just how wrong the old common wisdom was.

Think about that; Reagan was claiming the Soviets were way ahead of us, thus the need for Star Wars. At the same time, he was predicting it's demise.

Just what are you saying here, Michael B? That Reagan lied about the Soviet Threat? or that the State Department officials you name (Galbraith, Albright, etc ) were fools for standing behind the common but false wisdom about that threat?

Or are you just posting some nonsense in order to insult Reagan's critics with some Nazi labels? ( SS does refer to the infamous Nazi SS, right? )

And remember Michael B, when it comes to smirking and sneering, no one beats the current administration. There are lot's of pictures to prove it.

George W. Bush and Dick Cheney make the smirking sneer "respectable" again!

Michael B offers an erudite spin on Reagan's prediction of the collapse of the U.S.S.R. while managing to smear Reagan's critics.

I've always been amazed that so many "credible centrists" thought the USSR was ever a significant threat. When a civilian can travel through the USSR and conclude that the nation was impoverished and weak ( Robert Heinlien, Expanded Universe, 1980 Ace Books ) but our expert military analyists were supporting Reagan's now incredible claims of Soviet superiority, you know there is some serious official misdirection going on. The proof of that misdirection was the collapse proper, which revealed for all to see just how wrong the old common wisdom was.

Think about that; Reagan was claiming the Soviets were way ahead of us, thus the need for Star Wars. At the same time, he was predicting it's demise.

Just what are you saying here, Michael B? That Reagan lied about the Soviet Threat? or that the State Department officials you name (Galbraith, Albright, etc ) were fools for standing behind the common but false wisdom about that threat?

Or are you just posting some nonsense in order to insult Reagan's critics with some Nazi labels? ( SS does refer to the infamous Nazi SS, right? )

And remember Michael B, when it comes to smirking and sneering, no one beats the current administration. There are lot's of pictures to prove it.

George W. Bush and Dick Cheney make the smirking sneer "respectable" again!

>Juanita Brodderick *lied* and was also being given money by another Richard Mellon Scaife front group...

Interesting, then, that Dr. DeLong's employer, given numerous opporunities to deny said attack, failed to do so.

And please, tell us the name of the "front group". This is the first I've heard this one.

As an aside, did Lloyd Bentsen, Clinton's first Treasury Secretary, also lie when he said he saw Kathleen Willey running away from the then-President after he tried to grope her in a room right off the oval office?

Did Juanita Brodderick and Paula Jones both lie when they said they were being audited by the IRS?
Or was that just coincidence?

Bucky Dent:>"Interesting, then, that Dr. DeLong's employer, given numerous opporunities to deny said attack, failed to do so."

It is interesting, isn't it, that a politician can be so buried under a mound of allegations and accusations that all turn out to be completely without merit? So buried that it makes no political sense to respond to one of the most ludicrous?

The front group was an unnamed businessman associated with the American Specator who "hired" Brodderick for a high salary after the imbroglio.

At least he was unnamed in the API story I read about the job. Of course, the API could have been making it up.

Brodderick, don't forget, claimed that she had not in fact been assulted in any way by Clinton in a deposition Jan. 2, 1998. Later she changed her story, presumably after being offered some money.

This is all gossip of course. If it were anything else, Clinton would have had a day in court. But like all the rest save LeMonica, the accusations were vapour. This matters not to the flying monkey right, who repeat discredited charges as if they were valid.

Meanwhile, Ronald Reagan, a genuine traitor to America, is being canonized by the right wing echo chamber.

The most remarkable thing about Ms. Broaddrick's charges (which struck me the moment I saw her original interview on "60 Minutes") is that she could remember every single detail of that rape -- except that, despite repeated questioning, she just couldn't remember the day, month, or season of the year in which it occurred. Right... Which, of course, is exactly what one would expect from someone peddling a lie and unwilling to provide enough details to give Clinton the chance to provide himself with an alibi for that time.

As for Clinton's initial failure to deny it: either Slate or Salon (I can't remember which) pointed out at the time that had he done so while he still in office, it would give her lawyers the opportunity to haul him back into court yet again and start grilling him once again on his (undeniable) lies about Monica Lewinsky, thereby giving Ken Starr the opportunity to crank up his own legal machine yet again. This doesn't explain Clinton's failure to deny the charges now that he's out of the White House; but given the grotesque implausibility of her charges for the reason mentioned above, I imagine he just wants to let sleeping lies lie.

My Deepest Apologies, Bucky Dent. I neglected to respond to your other vicious anti-Clinton smears.

Lloyd Bentsen, the Conservative Republican Texan who Clinton appointed in an impressive, but ultimately unadvisable display of bipartisenship? Yep, he was probably lying.

It's an ideal Republican lie: completely un-disprovable.

Now OTOH, there might have been one or two IRS officers who were Clinton supporters, and we all know that IRS officers have considerable latitude concerning who to audit. We can blow a lot of bandwidth listing all the Democrats who have been audited at suspicious times.

But you know the old saw: If Jones and Brodderick were being legit in reporting their taxes, they would have nothing to fear from an IRS audit. Nothing at all.

But this all distracts from the real issue: Ronald Reagan's treason to America. He sold arms to Iran, a sworn enemy of our nation, and then lied about it to escape justice.

Interesting the way the comment thread seems to have deteriorated from the get-go: a post about Ronald Reagan and his attention span (or lack thereof) during his admistration immediately calls forth a vitriolic attack on Bill Clinton - and equally strong ripostes: what, in fact, do the two have to do with each other? The furious nature of the "Right"'s denunciations of any and all critiques of RWR have always struck me as somewhat over-defensive: as if Reagan's Presidency embodied so much to its supporters that criticism of it hits some sort of existential nerve-ending:

"Ronald Reagan was a bad actor, a mendacious hack, and a senile old buffoon besides"
"No he wasn't - he was an All-American God, and the greatest president we've ever had"

versus:

"Ronald Reagan had some attention-span issues while President"
"No he didn't- he was an All-American God, and the greatest president we've ever had"

Little difference (and not just on this blog - the flap over the CBS Reagan miniseries [a disgraceful cave on their part, IMO] has brought out the Reaganolaters in full chorus): it seems as if there is a sensitivity to examination of their Hero's Adminstration quite lacking on the other side of the aisle (FDR hatchet-jobs, anyone?)

For me, the whole Reagan Presidency could be summed up as a TV Guide entry for a bad 70's TV-movie:

The President of the United States is replaced by an actor and no one notices

The British right-wing magazine The Spectator published an article whose thesis was that the Cold War was a lie, whose purpose was to maintain Western Europe under the control of the USA. That the SU never was a credible threat. In the mesure that Reagan knew it, we must believe that his motive, in magnifying the soviet menace, was to get the USA to feed the pork barrel of what Ike called the military-industrial complex in its Farewell Address:

http://www.eisenhower.utexas.edu/farewell.htm

I don't want to resist to put some of these words here, since then feel so much to the point:
"[...]
V
Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we-you and I, and our government-must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.

VI

Down the long lane of the history yet to be written America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be, instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect.

Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield.

Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose difference, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war-as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years-I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.
DSW

I agree, Antoni. Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is absolutely neccesary. That's why it's truly galling that some glorify Reagan, who was at least symbolic of creeping militarism and more deadly war machines, if not an active advocate of same.

It should disturb all Americans that our military industry is the driving force behind most of the world's armed conflict, in that our sales of military machinery makes possible a level of death and destruction that would be hard to achieve otherwise.

Of course China, Russia, France, Great Briton and Germany all sell weapons. But we alone sell about 1/2 of all of it. One half. And our research and development is activly pushing the envelope of technology.

You know the nightmarish robotic killing machines of the post-apocalyptic science fiction movies? They are being invented and developed right here, by Lockheed, Raytheon, GE, etc.....

Just the other night, PBS ran a program about the new joint strike "X fighter" that was mostly glorifying our technological prowess, without identifying which particular threats this new high tech death toy would protect us from.

Here in the American heartland, we are inventing and building the machines to destroy the world. ( assuming our current "leaders" get their way...)

This is not the America I was sold as a trusting child in 1965.

---------
Carter commented, when he briefed Reagan upon handing over the presidency, that Ronnie took no notes and asked no questions.......

Posted by bad Jim at November 8, 2003 12:03 AM

Considering Carter's abysmal record as a president, that strikes me as a pretty shrewd move. Should he have listened to his advice on freeing the hostages in Iran. Remember which day is was that they were released?
-------
Lloyd Bentsen, the Conservative Republican Texan who Clinton appointed in an impressive, but ultimately unadvisable display of bipartisenship? Yep, he was probably lying.
Posted by Joey Giruad at November 8, 2003 11:55 AM

Jeez, Joey, Bentsen was a Democrat, famously so.

>Lloyd Bentsen, the Conservative Republican Texan who Clinton appointed in an impressive, but ultimately unadvisable display of bipartisenship? Yep, he was probably lying.

http://politicalgraveyard.com/bio/bentsen-bereuter.html

Bentsen, Lloyd Millard, Jr. (b. 1921) -- also known as Lloyd M. Bentsen -- of Austin, Travis County, Tex. Married to Beryl Ann Longino Bentsen; uncle of Kenneth E. Bentsen, Jr.. Born in Mission, Hidalgo County, Tex., February 11, 1921. Democrat. Served in the U.S. Army Air Force in World War II; state court judge in Texas, 1946-48; U.S. Representative from Texas 15th District, 1948-55; U.S. Senator from Texas, 1971-93; candidate for Democratic nomination for President, 1976; candidate for Vice President of the United States, 1988; U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, 1993-94. Presbyterian. Member, Freemasons. Still living as of 2003. See also: congressional biography.
--
Not only is Bentsen a Democrat, his presence in the Oval Office is confirmed by the White House' detailed security logs.

One can make the case that Clinton's *policies* were good, just as one can do the same for Reagan.

But I'm afraid the simplistic ad hominum Reagan hit pieces like this one, by the former Clinton official and defender of Enron consultants, must draw parallel fire. You can't have it both ways, as much as you'd like

"Don Regan was an embittered ex employee who was in over his head, screwed up and was fired.

David Gergen--well, not the greatest judge of character or anything else in the world.

Peggy Noonan? Not the sharpest knife in the drawer."

Republicans always, always use the tactic of smearing the character to try to discredit anyone who they don't want to listen to.

Bentsen a Dem? Gee, I guess you're right. I'm not wrong about his conservativeness though, am I?

Bensen.... VP candidate for Dukakis in 88, right? Wasn't he chosen to help shore up the conservative vote?

Hmmm, a googling reveals that Lloyd Bensen was received major contributions from Ken Lay.

Might Bensen be a Zell Miller Dem?

At any rate, I can't find any indication that Bensen ever said he saw "Kathleen Willey running away from the then-President," but there's plenty about Willey's testimony where she says that Bensen was the first person she saw after the alleged event.

Bucky might have his attributions reversed. Lloyd Bensen didn't say he saw Willey, rather Willey says she saw Bensen. I can't find any indication that Bensen ever corroberated that claim.

And now I remember: Bensen was a moderate conservative Democrat. The "inadvisable" Republican appointment that Clinton made was Louis Freeh.

A minor mistake on both parts. We're even. :) And I admit my mistakes. </warm feeling of moral superiority>

- Now where is that "Bucky" guy? here Bucky Bucky Bucky, I've got a rhetorical "present" for you! -

Now, this is funny in the perfect Al Franken way.

Thanks Joey.

Emma, as a proud owner of both "Rush Lim...is a " and "Lies and the..," that was the nicest compliment I've ever had ( from anyone not my wife, that is..:)
Thank you, you made my eve.

I once read "Way Out There in the Blue : Reagan, Star Wars and the End of the Cold War" by Frances FitzGerald. The foreign policy during the Reagan years was something akin to the Keystonee Cops. Reagan was offered to trade Star Wars for deep cuts in Nukes. He did not take the deal because he believed that Star Wars would actually work. It does not work. The Physics behind it are in favor of the offense, and against missile defense. We are currently spending over $10 Billion to deploy a non-functioning missile defense system. Reagan rang up $1.8 Trillion in debt. Calculate the yearly cost in tax dollars for the debt service on that number! Reagan was part of that generation that had to go through the depression and WWII, but then benefitted the most from New Deal programs, GI Bill, and the golden era of government investment in its citizens. Yes that generation achieved much and made progress, but the government was there supporting them every step of the way. Once the boomers hit college in the 60s it has been all steady erosion of support for the very programs that built US prosperity.

"But I'm afraid the simplistic ad hominum Reagan hit pieces like this one, by the former Clinton official and defender of Enron consultants..."

Oh, please, Bucky. You aren't going to restart Andrew Sullivan's psychotic drivel to the effect that Krugman is actually a stooge of Enron, are you?

As for any statements that Reagan was more than a bit out of it supposedly being "ad hominem hits", you might read the passage in Edmund Morris's biography of Reagan where he lists the mind-boggling series of literally idiotic mistakes that Reagan made -- repeatedly -- despite repeated corrections by his despairing advisors. (It was reprinted in Newsweek.) The enduring mystery about Reagan remains how he could do this while simultaneously being so good at delivering speeches.

Krugman worked for the Reagan administration.

Joey, in your response you (literally) reveal a sum total of zero evidence that you comprehend anything you read in my one earlier post. I'll make one more attempt.

When I cited historical quotes and examples that do not favor your position, that does not indicate I'm "smearing" anyone. Rather, am simply citing some historical references, so others can verify my references if they so choose.

One example was this, itself taken from the current President's recent speech at the NED:

"President Reagan said (in June, 1982) that the day of Soviet tyranny was passing, that freedom had a momentum which would not be halted. He gave this organization (the NED) its mandate: to add to the momentum of freedom across the world. Your mandate was important 20 years ago; it is equally important today.

"A number of critics were dismissive of that speech by the President. According to one editorial of the time, "It seems hard to be a sophisticated European and also an admirer of Ronald Reagan." Some observers on both sides of the Atlantic pronounced the speech simplistic and naive, and even dangerous. In fact, Ronald Reagan's words were courageous and optimistic and entirely correct." President George W. Bush, Nov. 6, '03, speech at the 20th anniversay of the Natl. Endowment for Democracy, full text here http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/11/20031106-2.html

I also mentioned Reagan was making these comments even before he was elected in 1980 and provided a dated quote from that period as well.

Then (and recall Brad's topic of being oriented to space and time), I mention there were several prominent economists and other luminaries of the period who (merely) naysayed Reagan's vision and approach to help forward the end of the Cold War era. Specifically citing Albright, Thurow, Galbraith and Samuelson, though I could cite and provide direct quotes from many, many others from that period comprising the very early '80s through the mid '80s (and even through to the end of the '80s, in the case of economists such as Samuelson).

Hence it is these would-be luminaries of the period whom we might question: "Oriented to space and time?" But that's a subject that Brad and his myopic groupies studiously avoid dealing with. I say "studiously" because it requires some concentrated effort to be so selective in one's approach to this topic when there's a mountain of evidence to support the same idea vis-a-vis various economists, etc. of the period.

And btw, I didn't mention Clinton so much as a single time. Hence it's clear those complaining about that type of tactic are simply looking to be dismissive and are looking to avoid honest debate and a more genuine and thorough engagement of this issue and period.

Agree R Reagan had strong sides and weak sides but who dont. Geez. How about economists. Huh!

Maiden Lane, "Considering Carter's abysmal record as a president, that strikes me as a pretty shrewd move. Should he have listened to his advice on freeing the hostages in Iran. Remember which day is was that they were released?"

That's funny. I suppose arms-for-hostages was a much better policy.

Michael B quoted this: "President Reagan said (in June, 1982) that the day of Soviet tyranny was passing, that freedom had a momentum which would not be halted. He gave this organization (the NED) its mandate: to add to the momentum of freedom across the world. Your mandate was important 20 years ago; it is equally important today."

Too bad for all those murdered in Central America that his lust for freedom had a somewhat limited scope.

Michael B wrote, "Then (and recall Brad's topic of being oriented to space and time), I mention there were several prominent economists and other luminaries of the period who (merely) naysayed Reagan's vision and approach to help forward the end of the Cold War era."

But the issue is far more complex.

First, there's the implicit claim that Reagan significantly accelerated the demise of the USSR. While this is plausible, it's far from proven. A competing argument would be that the USSR finally collapsed due to self-inflicted economic problems, and that Reagan's efforts were peripheral at best.

Second, if we're going to think economically, we should think about costs and benefits. Suppose it's true that Reagan accelerated the demise of the USSR by (say, for argument's sake) 15 years. Part of Reagan's strategy was placing Pershing missiles in Western Europe. It's quite plausible that this move highly increased the risk of world immolation: Pershings were (or would be viewed by the Soviets) as highly accurate, first strike weapons, leading the Soviets to increase their reliance on launch-on-warnings technologies. Depending on the associated risks, it's not clear that accelerating the collapse of the USSR was "worth it". (Assuming, as I pointed out above, that Reagan had much to do with it anyway.)

One of the way the Reagan presidency tried to abate the SU was helping the islamic fundamentalists that fought against the then communist government, and helping them to get allies, one of which is the now infamous OBL, at the time possibly a personal friend of the Bush family. Had Reagan let the SU to evolve peacefully maybe, and only maybe, quite a few instances of war would not be.

DSW

"Or is masturbating into a West Wing sink."

Huh? What evidence do we have that would lead us to believe that Reagan didn't masturbate? Let's be realistic here...

This thread has convinced me of something I have long suspected. This country is headed for another civil war. We will never agree about the history of the 80's and 90's and the concequences of these two decades will be played out with more and more venom over the next decade.

I'd say the war will get started over the Social Security Entitlement around 2015 or so. Anyone want to lay odds...

Stephen, Central America. (And recall yet still again Brad's topic of being oriented to space and time.)

Nicaragua. Since the early '90s a great deal that was not known during the '80s is now known. So much so that PBS's (not exactly a "right wing media outlet") program "The American Experience," led with this in a lengthy report first aired in the late '90s:

"It is by now a matter of record that Reagan's assessment of the Sandanistas was largely correct, and the American public was in fact duped."

To be clear, they're indicating the American public was duped by the Left/Dem opposition of the early and mid '80s in conjunction with Daniel Ortega. And of course when elections were held the Sandanistas were booted out and have been in successive elections. (Ortega has run is all or most of the elections, in 2001 he ran - believe it or not - as a supporter of free markets.)

The Sandanistas killed plenty of the peasant population themselves. (Though they were not politically correct peasants, they were often conservative and religious - hence killing them is presumably ok in your mind?) In fact the often maligned (by the Left) Contras were almost entirely composed of indigenous Nicaraguan peasant populations. Too, while it was hotly denied at the time by Dems such as Chris Dodd and many others, the Sandanistas were a client of Cuba and the Soviets (one of Reagan's contentions that the PBS program was alluding to) and were also in fact funneling Cuban and Soviet arms to places like El Salvador (yet another of those contentions alluded to).

(We knew the Sandanistas were receiving Cuban and Soviet arms in the '80s, but it was being proclaimed by Ortega and by the U.S. congress in opposition of President Reagan that it was 1) merely for local use, not export to surrounding Central American countries and 2) the only reason it was occurring in the first place was because we were giving arms and support to the Contras. Both of these contentions have been roundly refuted by former Sandanista officials in the years since the vote.)

I.e. your assertion proves itself to be wanting when the details and complexities are examined more honestly. Almost as wanting, in fact, as the book "bakho" referenced to cast doubt on Pres. Reagan vis-a-vis SDI, one of the most misbegotten (and laughably devoid of historical veracity) books on the subject. But that's a different subject.

Hence Reagan's orientation on this (Central America) was right when the Left and Left/Dems were against him, much as he proved to be right vis-a-vis Albright, Samuelson, Thurow, Galbraith, Bundy, and many, many others of that period when it came to the Soviet Union more generally. Unsupported insistencies and assurances not withstanding.

"I once read "Way Out There in the Blue : Reagan, Star Wars and the End of the Cold War" by Frances FitzGerald." - bakho

Since I mentioned this, these are (some of) the items proved incorrect in Fitzgerald's book, a book about as reliable as the one she wrote on Vietnam (and the following comes from now disclosed Russian source material, not a U.S. source):

1) She stated Soviet ICBMs posed no 'first strike' threat. They did.

2) She states Russian military spending had been frozen at 1976 levels. Hardly, they escalated dramatically, a good deal of it targeted at client states and insurgencies in Central America.

3) She indicates the Soviets themselves did not deploy a natl. defense system. They did, of dual purpose (offense/defense), nuclear tipped missiles.

4) She indicated Soviet military spending was only a modest part of overall GDP. In fact it reached well over 30%.

5) She indicated the Soviets did not have a massive civil defense and war recovery plan in place. They did.

6) She indicated the Soviet's SDI effort was virtually non-existent or that it never really produced anything of substance anyway. Wrong again, and again according to Soviets records, not ours.

7) She claimed Pres. Reagan got his idea for SDI from Hitchcock's 'Torn Curtain.' Risible. (This is the only one of the seven whose refutation does not stem directly from Soviet archive material.)

Still further, the preponderance of the evidence, by far, suggests this (SDI) was largely an elaborate bluff (from the beginning) by Reagan. Can cite supportive material for this as well.

For yet another aspect of related material during this era you can google on the "Farewell Dossier" as well.