Republicans look to Reagan era for inspiration

[Damocles]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Looking to the future after their "seismic" loss of power in the U.S. Congress, some Republicans are turning to the past and the glory days of Ronald Reagan's presidency for inspiration.

"We are in the wilderness because we walked away from the limited government principles that minted the Republican Congress," Rep. Mike Pence (news, bio, voting record) wrote to colleagues after Democrats seized control of the House of Representatives and the Senate in this week's elections.

The Indiana Republican, a major voice of the conservative wing in the House who is seeking a leadership position in his party, described himself as dedicated to providing "a credible and persuasive voice for the Reagan agenda."

link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061110/pl_nm/usa_elections_congress_republicans_dc)

[uscitizen]

The real Republicans will, but to the bushies that is history and irrerelevant to today ;)

[Cypress]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Looking to the future after their "seismic" loss of power in the U.S. Congress, some Republicans are turning to the past and the glory days of Ronald Reagan's presidency for inspiration.

"We are in the wilderness because we walked away from the limited government principles that minted the Republican Congress," Rep. Mike Pence (news, bio, voting record) wrote to colleagues after Democrats seized control of the House of Representatives and the Senate in this week's elections.

The Indiana Republican, a major voice of the conservative wing in the House who is seeking a leadership position in his party, described himself as dedicated to providing "a credible and persuasive voice for the Reagan agenda."

link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061110/pl_nm/usa_elections_congress_republicans_dc)


times are different now. The GOP is now controlled by the religious right.

In reagan's day the religious right was powerful, but reagan was able to confine them to the attic, like families used to do with the crazy grandmother.

[evince]

I just dont think the Reagan days were so inspiring

[uscitizen]

Actually the Regan Era was when the cons really started their labelling war. Liberals became a bad word and equated to satan after Regan.
But then I guess Nancy saw that in the Astrological signs......

[evince]

It gave us phoney crap like Reagan standing in front of a wall Gorby had already told him he was pulling down making tuff and saying "Mr Gorbachev tear down this wall".

It gave us massive deficits in disguise of beating Russia which Gorbachev was already dismantling.

It gave us Iran Contra where the president got qaway with playing stupid to stay in office.

They economy was OK but Clintons kicked ass while cutting gov and giving us budget surpluses.

[Cypress]

It gave us phoney crap like Reagan standing in front of a wall Gorby had already told him he was pulling down making tuff and saying "Mr Gorbachev tear down this wall".

It gave us massive deficits in disguise of beating Russia which Gorbachev was already dismantling.

It gave us Iran Contra where the president got qaway with playing stupid to stay in office.

They economy was OK but Clintons kicked ass while cutting gov and giving us budget surpluses.

It gave us phoney crap like Reagan standing in front of a wall Gorby had already told him he was pulling down making tuff and saying "Mr Gorbachev tear down this wall".

Yeah, it was staged, and yeah Gorby was already dismantling the Soviet Union.

But, it was still a great moment in presidential history. I'll give reagan props for that. The target audience wasn't Gorby. Reagan was showing solidarity with eastern europeans who were just beginning to throw off the yoke of their Soviet overlords.

[Connecticut Stud]

I just dont think the Reagan days were so inspiring

they weren't for po' dems

[uscitizen]

They were inspiring for those who raised Bush to power......

[Damocles]

They were inspiring for many. Many Ds left that party to join the Rs... Long ago they were the first to be coined "Neo-Cons"... of course the meaning changed along with the newly labelled group.

[uscitizen]

All this was foretold by Regans astrologers....

[LadyT]

It gave us phoney crap like Reagan standing in front of a wall Gorby had already told him he was pulling down making tuff and saying "Mr Gorbachev tear down this wall".

It gave us massive deficits in disguise of beating Russia which Gorbachev was already dismantling.

It gave us Iran Contra where the president got qaway with playing stupid to stay in office.

They economy was OK but Clintons kicked ass while cutting gov and giving us budget surpluses.

I agree Desh. While Regan was a much better leader than Bush (that's really not saying much) there's nothing awe inspiring about him. You left out the fact that he largely ignored the AIDS epidemic when it was in its infancy.

[OrnotBitwise]

I agree Desh. While Regan was a much better leader than Bush (that's really not saying much) there's nothing awe inspiring about him. You left out the fact that he largely ignored the AIDS epidemic when it was in its infancy.
Not to mention the Iran/Contra Affair. Doesn't look very inspirational in hindsight, does it?

[uscitizen]

He also officially ignored Sadam using chemical weapons on Iranians and his own people.

[Cancel7]

I just dont think the Reagan days were so inspiring


I don't either, but I like how Cypress desribes what Reagan did with the religious right. And he did do that.

[Damocles]

I agree Desh. While Regan was a much better leader than Bush (that's really not saying much) there's nothing awe inspiring about him. You left out the fact that he largely ignored the AIDS epidemic when it was in its infancy.
This article may change your view on this.

Article from NRO... (http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200312030913.asp)

The good parts are about halfway down... Here are some excerpts...



"As I recall, from 1984 onward — and bear in mind that the AIDS virus was not identified until 1982 — every Reagan budget contained a large sum of money specifically earmarked for AIDS," says Peter Robinson, a former Reagan speechwriter and author of How Ronald Reagan Changed My Life. "Now, people will argue that it wasn't enough," Robinson adds. "But, of course, that's the kind of argument that takes place over every item in the federal budget. Nevertheless, the notion that he was somehow callous or had a cruel or cynical attitude towards homosexuals or AIDS victims is just ridiculous."

In February 1986, President Reagan's blueprint for the next fiscal year stated: "[T]his budget provides funds for maintaining — and in some cases expanding — high priority programs in crucial areas of national interest…including drug enforcement, AIDS research, the space program, nonmilitary research and national security." Reagan's budget message added that AIDS "remains the highest public health priority of the Department of Health and Human Services."

Precise budget requests are difficult to calculate, as online records from the 1980s are spotty. Nevertheless, New York University's archived, hard copies of budget documents from fiscal year 1984 through FY 1989 show that Reagan proposed at least $2.79 billion for AIDS research, education, and treatment. In a Congressional Research Service study titled AIDS Funding for Federal Government Programs: FY1981-FY1999, author Judith Johnson found that overall, the federal government spent $5.727 billion on AIDS under Ronald Reagan. This higher number reflects President Reagan's proposals as well as additional expenditures approved by Congress that he later signed.


Reagan did far more for AIDS victims than he will ever receive credit for, in fact he cared very deeply about the effect of this disease...

[Damocles]

Does anybody remember his opposition to Proposition 6 in California? Proposition 6 called for the dismissal of teachers who "advocated" homosexuality in the classroom. He used a statement to the Press and wrote an article about it. At that time he was the Governor...



"Whatever else it is," Reagan wrote, "homosexuality is not a contagious disease like the measles. Prevailing scientific opinion is that an individual's sexuality is determined at a very early age and that a child's teachers do not really influence this." He also argued: "Since the measure does not restrict itself to the classroom, every aspect of a teacher's personal life could presumably come under suspicion. What constitutes 'advocacy' of homosexuality? Would public opposition to Proposition 6 by a teacher — should it pass — be considered advocacy?"


His opposition was considered instrumental to the failure of the proposition.

[uscitizen]

Look farther back when Regan was a union leading Demoncrat.....defending commies....

[OrnotBitwise]

I don't either, but I like how Cypress desribes what Reagan did with the religious right. And he did do that.True, but I think that's less important than some of the really heinous things he did with the other face.

I'm going to make an admission I will probably regret later. I actually agree with some of the conservatives here that the religious right isn't really as important as we libs sometimes make them out to be. Yes, they're ugly and horrible and pretty much worthless as human beings. The thing is that most people can tell that they're ugly, horrible and pretty much a waste of skin. The really bad ones make up less than 25% of the population and never will amount to more than that -- IMHO.

I think that, on the whole, the religious right is less dangerous to the nation than are the big business, anti-labor, proto-plutocrats. The pro-business lobbies within both major parties, combined with the all-too-willing militarists, will be the people who do in our nation.

And Reagan was God to that faction.

[uscitizen]

Yep, the religious right and others are just distractions from the greater goal of the corpies Ornot.

[Cypress]

True, but I think that's less important than some of the really heinous things he did with the other face.

I'm going to make an admission I will probably regret later. I actually agree with some of the conservatives here that the religious right isn't really as important as we libs sometimes make them out to be. Yes, they're ugly and horrible and pretty much worthless as human beings. The thing is that most people can tell that they're ugly, horrible and pretty much a waste of skin. The really bad ones make up less than 25% of the population and never will amount to more than that -- IMHO.

I think that, on the whole, the religious right is less dangerous to the nation than are the big business, anti-labor, proto-plutocrats. The pro-business lobbies within both major parties, combined with the all-too-willing militarists, will be the people who do in our nation.

And Reagan was God to that faction.

But the plutocrats only hold power, because of their coaltion with working class bible thumpers whom they've convinced to vote against their own economic interests. Without the bible thumpers, the plutocrats would never hold a majority. So, the ignorance of the bible thumpers is extremely dangerous for the rest of us, because they are so easily manipulated.