Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Reagan Myth
Opinion Journal ^ | July 17, 2006 | Fred Barnes

Posted on 07/17/2006 4:21:23 AM PDT by The Raven

-snip-

Liberals pretend the Reagan years--in contrast to the Bush years--were a golden idyll of collaboration between congressional Democrats and a not-so-conservative president. When Reagan died in 2004, John Kerry recalled having admired his political skills and liked him personally. "I had quite a few meetings with him," Mr. Kerry told reporters. "I met with Reagan a lot more than I've met with this president."

-snip-

(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial
KEYWORDS: carter; fact; genreagan; presidentcarter; presidentreagan; reagan; reagannation; reality; ronaldreagan; truth
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-70 next last

1 posted on 07/17/2006 4:21:24 AM PDT by The Raven
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: The Raven

I admired Reagan a lot, but today we know he made a very big mistake in telling Israel to get out of Lebanon when they had conquered it. Let's face it: either Israel runs Lebanon or Syria does - one or the other.


2 posted on 07/17/2006 4:25:22 AM PDT by RoadTest (Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just, and this be our motto: in God is our trust.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Raven

And so, by being claimed by politicians of all stripes as one of their own, Reagan enters the pantheon of the great Presidents.


3 posted on 07/17/2006 4:26:40 AM PDT by Celtjew Libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Raven

I'm sure there are a long list of small mistakes made by the Reagan administration that can now be found with the gift of 20/20 hindsight. But the thing I remember most about those years was the personal differences between Reagan and Carter.

On the whole, I say, it was Reagan who shot Liberty Valance, and that's good enough for me.


4 posted on 07/17/2006 4:30:16 AM PDT by tcostell (MOLON LABE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Celtjew Libertarian
And so, by being claimed by politicians of all stripes as one of their own, Reagan enters the pantheon of the great Presidents.

Claimed or just used? Either way I agree it is a sign of greatness. What politician does not try and use the words of the founding fathers? However, I'm glad someone took on the issue of St. Reagan being used as a way to Bush-bash.

5 posted on 07/17/2006 4:30:56 AM PDT by rhombus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: tcostell
But the thing I remember most about those years was the personal differences between Reagan and Carter.

Indeed yes. And should we not recall the contrast between Clinton and Bush as well?

6 posted on 07/17/2006 4:32:00 AM PDT by rhombus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: The Raven
Well the liberal are overstating this...

But Reagan had three advantages over Bush43.

1. The Iranian hostages were freed the day he was inaugurated.

2. Even Democrats were tired of Carter

3. Reagan was a once in a generation speaker.

Then he was shot, lived and came back even stronger and brought the iron curtain down while lowering taxes. Even people who didn't like his politics had grudging admiration for at least some of that.
7 posted on 07/17/2006 4:36:43 AM PDT by gondramB (The options on the table have been there from the beginning. Withdraw and fail or commit and succeed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rhombus; tcostell
tcostell: But the thing I remember most about those years was the personal differences between Reagan and Carter.

rhombus: Indeed yes. And should we not recall the contrast between Clinton and Bush as well?


Yes, but... The Democrats weren't tired of Clinton in the way they were fed up with Carter.
8 posted on 07/17/2006 4:39:09 AM PDT by gondramB (The options on the table have been there from the beginning. Withdraw and fail or commit and succeed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: gondramB
Yes, but... The Democrats weren't tired of Clinton in the way they were fed up with Carter.

Which makes what Bush had to do even harder.

9 posted on 07/17/2006 4:41:43 AM PDT by rhombus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: rhombus

>>Which makes what Bush had to do even harder.<<

Agreed. And whoever comes next is gonna have a hard time too - the country is really split.


10 posted on 07/17/2006 4:43:47 AM PDT by gondramB (The options on the table have been there from the beginning. Withdraw and fail or commit and succeed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: gondramB
Agreed. And whoever comes next is gonna have a hard time too - the country is really split.

I agree that there is a split in the country. However, I won't go so far as to say it is the worst it has ever been. Geez, we had a civil war. You can't get much more of a split than that. Also we've yet to see members of Congress physically attacking each other which we've also seen in the past. The appearance that we are split in terrible ways is promulgated by the old guard main stream media because they have lost their ability to define unity of thought. With the rise of alternative news sources we are finally free to enjoy that split rather than suffer from the pronouncements of Walter Cronkite, Dan Rather et al.

11 posted on 07/17/2006 4:49:47 AM PDT by rhombus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: gondramB
I've maintained for a long time that for the Democrats, Clinton was the exception. He was a man of such strong personal charm that he was able to sell the same old tired class warfare and socialism package of the left to the Democrats one last time. Then he maintained his popularity by creating a false wealth through tax code changes. Then because he had little to no principles, whatever worked well he took credit for, and whatever failed he blamed other for.

But with him gone now, all we have left is the Democratic party of Jimmy Carter.

Universal appeasement

The peace of unilateral surrender instead of conflict which leads to victory.

Deeply held shame of America and all that it stands for.

Socialism, socialism, socialism.

The weakening of America's strategic position in international diplomacy.

It goes on and on. Howard Dean isn't the next Clinton... he's the next Carter. John Kerry isn't even the last Carter. Murtha IS the last Carter, but without the education. Pelosi, Boxer, Edwards.... they lack any real vision so they go with what they know, These are CARTER's DEMOCRATS.
12 posted on 07/17/2006 4:50:04 AM PDT by tcostell (MOLON LABE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: rhombus
And should we not recall the contrast between Clinton and Bush as well?

There isn't as much. I'm no fan of Clinton, but he wasn't a disaster on the scale of Carter. Once he abandoned the idea of universal health care, he basically let the economy trundle on on its own. While he let a lot of things slide foreign policy-wise, he didn't actively court disaster like Carter did.

I've a feeling Clinton will go down in history like Calvin Coolidge: Admired by the history-minded within his party, but otherwise dismissed, far from a national icon. Carter is going down like Harding: An embarrassment best forgotten.

The result is even if Bush were as great as Reagan -- which he's not -- the contrast between Bush and Clinton would be less than that between Reagan and Carter.

13 posted on 07/17/2006 4:50:15 AM PDT by Celtjew Libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: RoadTest
"I admired Reagan a lot, but today we know he made a very big mistake in telling Israel to get out of Lebanon when they had conquered it"

Reagan helped Israel pull out of Lebanon by using our troops to take over their positions. It was never Israel's intention to occupy Lebanon since Israel is a small country with limited resources. Conquering a country is one thing, occupying it successfully is next to impossible.
14 posted on 07/17/2006 4:53:21 AM PDT by Dixie Yooper (Ephesians 6:11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rhombus
>>I agree that there is a split in the country. However, I won't go so far as to say it is the worst it has ever been. Geez, we had a civil war. You can't get much more of a split than that.<<

And in 1800 we almost lost the Republic. In the 60's it seemed like the generations would be perpetually at war. This country is resilient.

BTW, down here we refer to that conflict in the 1860's as the War of Northern Aggression or The War between the states when we are trying to be polite. :)

15 posted on 07/17/2006 4:56:54 AM PDT by gondramB (The options on the table have been there from the beginning. Withdraw and fail or commit and succeed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Dixie Yooper
Whatever Reagan did in Lebanon, he forgot to avenge our Marines!!!!
16 posted on 07/17/2006 5:00:39 AM PDT by Coldwater Creek ("Over there, over there, We won't be back 'til it's over Over there.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: gondramB
Agreed. And whoever comes next is gonna have a hard time too - the country is really split.

After the Nov 8, 2006 mass liberal hate-fest, this will be less of a problem, as the loudest-barking moonbats will finish off the remaining credibility of the left once and for all.

17 posted on 07/17/2006 5:01:17 AM PDT by RobFromGa (The FairTax cult is like Scientology, but without the movie stars)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Celtjew Libertarian
There isn't as much. I'm no fan of Clinton, but he wasn't a disaster on the scale of Carter.

I fully agree. And he's just grown worse with age. Carter's ineptitude just made it easier for Regan once in office.

The result is even if Bush were as great as Reagan -- which he's not -- the contrast between Bush and Clinton would be less than that between Reagan and Carter.

I think you are making this judgement WAY TOO SOON and perhaps even and apples to oranges comparison since they both faced exremely different challenges. As you point out, Reagan had an easier row to hoe due to Carter being worse than Clinton. The advantage Bush had over Reagan is the rise of a more diversified media to help get the message out. Reagan's advantage as an actor served him well against the traditional media that was aligned against him. But a silver tongue alone does not greatness make. For now and the next 2 years Bush is our guy. Let our children's children worry about greatness provided they're not wearing Burkas.

18 posted on 07/17/2006 5:03:33 AM PDT by rhombus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: The Raven

A very good article. It's been only less than 2 decades since Reagan era, yet there are so many myths about Reagan. Both from left and right.


19 posted on 07/17/2006 5:04:15 AM PDT by paudio (Universal Human Rights and Multiculturalism: Liberals want to have cake and eat it too!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gondramB
BTW, down here we refer to that conflict in the 1860's as the War of Northern Aggression or The War between the states when we are trying to be polite. :)

Hah! :-) Next time the South decides to make a stand for "states rights" pick a better issue. By standing up for cheap (free) labor the South did more to hurt States rights that ever before in the history of the Republic. Couldn't they have just hired illegal Mexicans to do the jobs Americans weren't willing to do? /sarc

Hey, I'm just kidding. Don't call out Nathan Bedford Forest's insurgents on me, OK? /more sarc

20 posted on 07/17/2006 5:09:33 AM PDT by rhombus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: The Raven
Too little is recalled of the churlish Tip O'Neill and his minions trying to prop up communist dictators all over the map, actively working to subvert Reagan's foreign policies.

I remember being struck by how they increasingly marginalized Reagan beginning with the '86 elections. During the campaign for the '88 presidential election, it seemed like the president was an afterthought. The pols & the media treated him as if he were a ghost-- they no longer had a use for him.

Watch for the same process to begin after these coming elections. Being a lame duck is a terrible indignity.

21 posted on 07/17/2006 5:09:38 AM PDT by thegreatbeast
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RoadTest

Wrong about the spending part Fred. Had the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress, no doubt Reagan would have at least had the power of impoundment restored. This would have allowed him to cease funding those true wastes of money, like the Legal Services Administration and greatly cutback on waste in all department. It would have been interesting to see how much of the NEA or CPB was left, if he had been able to impound funds. The fact that GWB hasn't asked for this authority speaks volumes.


22 posted on 07/17/2006 5:13:37 AM PDT by Jimnorwellwarren
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: tcostell

"I've maintained for a long time that for the Democrats, Clinton was the exception. He was a man of such strong personal charm that he was able to sell the same old tired class warfare and socialism package of the left to the Democrats one last time."

Oh, right. Like that was a hard sell. /sarc The Rats love that old schtick. It's all they have to unite the various interest groups that otherwise wouldn't hang out in the same room together.

The hard sell was the American people, who wouldn't have been fooled were it not for Poppy's tax sellout, which gave them a choice between a covert leftist and an overt liar.


23 posted on 07/17/2006 5:14:27 AM PDT by LibertarianInExile ('Is' and 'amnesty' both have clear, plain meanings. Are Billy Jeff, Pence, McQueeg & Bush related?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: The Raven
Liberals pretend the Reagan years--in contrast to the Bush years--were a golden idyll of collaboration between congressional Democrats and a not-so-conservative president

Liberals pretend to have liked Reagan so they can villify Bush. "Look, we LOVED Reagan, it's just Bush that's bad."

The truth of the matter is that they DISPISED Reagan & everything he stood for. They went against him at every turn.

24 posted on 07/17/2006 5:14:36 AM PDT by Puppage (You may disagree with what I have to say, but I shall defend to your death my right to say it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Raven
I think before you can make comparisons between the Reagan and Bush II administrations you must also include the party makeup of Congress during their tenure.
Congressional make-up by party during Reagan's tenure.
Democratic Party majority counts highlighted in yellow.

Source:
The office of the Clerk U.S. House of Representatives
Party Division in the Senate, 1789-Present

  House   Senate
  Reps Dems   Reps Dems
1981-1983 192 243 51   53 46 7
1983-1985 167 268 101   54 46 8
1985-1987 182 253 71   53 47 6
1987-1989 177 258 9   45 55 10
2001-2003 221 212 9   50 50 0
2003-2005 229 204 25   51 49 2
2005-2007 232 202 30   55 45 10

25 posted on 07/17/2006 5:18:19 AM PDT by BufordP ("I am stuck on Al Franken 'cause Al Franken's stuck on me!" -- Stupid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rhombus
>>Hah! :-) Next time the South decides to make a stand for "states rights" pick a better issue. By standing up for cheap (free) labor the South did more to hurt States rights that ever before in the history of the Republic. Couldn't they have just hired illegal Mexicans to do the jobs Americans weren't willing to do? /sarc

Hey, I'm just kidding. Don't call out Nathan Bedford Forest's insurgents on me, OK? /more sarc<<

It was a horrible, horrible war with no one completely in the right. The North was wrong to turn its back on the principles of the Declaration of independence and the South was horribly wrong to condone slavery. Nobody who fights their brother really wins.

The only winners are the decedents from both sides who share this great country.
26 posted on 07/17/2006 5:21:47 AM PDT by gondramB (The options on the table have been there from the beginning. Withdraw and fail or commit and succeed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: gondramB
Not to reopen the war but...

The North was wrong to turn its back on the principles of the Declaration of independence

Which principles exactly? I can't agree with you if I don't know what you are referring to.

27 posted on 07/17/2006 5:26:13 AM PDT by rhombus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: BufordP
Correction to my Post #25!

Democrat Party House majority count for 1987-1989 should read: 81 vice 9

28 posted on 07/17/2006 5:30:58 AM PDT by BufordP ("I am stuck on Al Franken 'cause Al Franken's stuck on me!" -- Stupid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Jimnorwellwarren

>>Wrong about the spending part Fred

Yep. He had Dems in both houses. In addition, the defense budget was far higher in those days. Clinton used the fast declining defense spending (the "peace dividend") and higher taxes to claim a balanced budget, while increasing domestic spending.


29 posted on 07/17/2006 5:31:04 AM PDT by The Raven
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: BufordP
"I think before you can make comparisons between the Reagan and Bush II administrations you must also include the party makeup of Congress during their tenure."

You forgot to include the "Trent Lott Factor" of 2003 which allowed the Democrats to impose a 60% vote factor to anything being passed by the Senate. Just wait and see what they do with that when and if they ever get control of the Senate again.
30 posted on 07/17/2006 5:32:26 AM PDT by Dixie Yooper (Ephesians 6:11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: gondramB

Art by Billie
31 posted on 07/17/2006 5:34:34 AM PDT by Calpernia (Breederville.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Dixie Yooper
And the Gang of 14 and and and ... you can always count on some RINO to muck things up.

Reagan didn't necessarily have a Lott, McCain, or Specter to muck things up for him. He didn't have anyone.

32 posted on 07/17/2006 5:47:44 AM PDT by BufordP ("I am stuck on Al Franken 'cause Al Franken's stuck on me!" -- Stupid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: gondramB
Even people who didn't like his politics had grudging admiration for at least some of that.

You're right that they should have, but all I remember was non-stop hatred and the persecution of his staff by way of the courts, and of course the Fifth Column . . . I mean the Fourth Estate.

33 posted on 07/17/2006 5:50:43 AM PDT by SamuraiScot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: BufordP

"Reagan didn't necessarily have a Lott, McCain, or Specter to muck things up for him."

Actually, Specter DID muck some things up for Reagan. He helped engineer the defeat of Robert Bork.


34 posted on 07/17/2006 5:58:55 AM PDT by blitzgig
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Jimnorwellwarren

You addressed the wrong person. I'm not "Fred". I didn't speak on the subject you're talking about, either.


35 posted on 07/17/2006 6:02:14 AM PDT by RoadTest (Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just, and this be our motto: in God is our trust.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: blitzgig
Touché
36 posted on 07/17/2006 6:03:13 AM PDT by BufordP ("I am stuck on Al Franken 'cause Al Franken's stuck on me!" -- Stupid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: The Raven
All in all, I think a good piece on President Reagan, contrasting him with President Bush.

I consider Ronald Reagan one of the great Presidents of the 20th century and in the top 7 of all time. Anyone wanting to read about him would be best served by reading his own writings (e.g. "Reagan in His Own Hand, Reagan in His Own Voice, "An American Life", "Where's the Rest of Me? - I know, I know, the last two were ghost written, but Reagan had substantial input).

We know about the Left feels about Reagan, but I find that more and more, there are books from the Right coming out that I would call "fluff books". Reagan was an outstanding leader, but he was not perfect - and he would be the first to acknowledge that, IMO.

For me, Reagan was at his best while governor of California, from 1981-1984 in the domestic arena, and from 1986-1988 in foreign affairs.

One thing that is odd is that President Reagan had coattails in 1980, but not in 1982 and 1986. Democrats gained seats in those elections, taking control of the Senate back in 1986. It's a shame, but I blaime that on his advisors (can't stand M. Deaver, who would not let Reagan be Reagan)
37 posted on 07/17/2006 6:15:17 AM PDT by Fury
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fury
"I consider Ronald Reagan one of the great Presidents of the 20th century and in the top 7 of all time"

From an economic standpoint, he is the greatest in the history of the United States. The DJIA when he took office was around 800. When he left office 8 years later, it was over 10,000. If David Stockman hadn't gone drinking with a reporter, it would have been well over 15,000.
38 posted on 07/17/2006 6:44:04 AM PDT by Dixie Yooper (Ephesians 6:11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: RoadTest

No, I replied to Fred Barnes. Understand you didn't write the column...Fred is usually right 80% of the time. This article is about 60% correct. Then again, back in that time he was more liberal.


39 posted on 07/17/2006 6:45:08 AM PDT by Jimnorwellwarren
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: rhombus
I think you are making this judgement WAY TOO SOON

Definitely. But since we're contrasting the contrast between Bush and Clinton vs. the contrast between Reagan and Carter, we have to make some sort of prediction of what history will say.

40 posted on 07/17/2006 6:53:28 AM PDT by Celtjew Libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Celtjew Libertarian
Definitely. But since we're contrasting the contrast between Bush and Clinton vs. the contrast between Reagan and Carter, we have to make some sort of prediction of what history will say.

History? Haven't met him yet. I sure hope it isn't written by the usual suspects. Of course times have changed which is probably yet another reason Reagan is being appreciated more. We don't have to trust the PhDs living off their Gov't subsidized jobs to tell us who is "great".

41 posted on 07/17/2006 6:58:02 AM PDT by rhombus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Fury
I consider Ronald Reagan one of the great Presidents of the 20th century and in the top 7 of all time.

Top four. There have been four Presidents, IMO, who, as President, made or remade America, for better or worse: Washington, Lincoln, FDR, and Reagan. (Only Jefferson, among Presidents, measures up to them in importance and that, IMO, is more for his work before he was President than as President.)

42 posted on 07/17/2006 6:58:05 AM PDT by Celtjew Libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: The Raven

>>>>"Kerry told reporters. "I met with Reagan a lot more than I've met with this president."<<<<<

Kerry gives all other parasites a bad reputation

TT


43 posted on 07/17/2006 8:02:01 AM PDT by TexasTransplant (NEMO ME IMPUNE LACESSET)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rhombus
>>Not to reopen the war but...

The North was wrong to turn its back on the principles of the Declaration of independence

Which principles exactly? I can't agree with you if I don't know what you are referring to.<<

I'm happy to discuss this - unless other people get too upset - I don't want to disrupt the board.

Short answer: The North did not allow the South the same self determination the colonies had demanded from England

Longer answer:

As I see it, the key principles of the American revolution wasn't that England was bad or that monarchy was unacceptable. It was first, that the right of the government to hold power comes from the consent of the governed. And second that when the people collectively conclude that the government is no longer just the people have the right to withdraw their consent and form a new government.

I would argue that the grievances the South had were less than those of the colonies but their right to secede was strengthened by the fact that they had joined voluntarily and thus could leave voluntarily.

Like the founders they didn't do it secretly. The Declaration says this "entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

The South followed those rules, and just as the state legislatures have voted them into the union they voted out. Thus, I would argue that the North was not true to the spirit of the founding of the country in refusing self determination.

But while I'll joke about Yankees I'm not blind to the truth about the South. In fact many of the leftover feelings about Yankees come from what happened during Sherman's march to sea when the war was already settled and reconstruction, not the war itself.

Yes, the north was treating the South like a colony and yes the North had a lock on congress that looked like it could never change - effectively eliminating the South from governance. But we had slavery of an entire race of human beings in all the Southern States - a condition as utterly wrong and unChristian as can be imagined except perhaps genocide.

My Southern friends will sometimes argue that the border states had slaves too. Thats true. And maybe that makes some in the North hypocrites but it doesn't make slavery in the South any less wrong.

You know, if I had been in charge when the handover of Fort Sumpter was demanded, I wouldn't have attacked. I would have sent a rowboat filled with fresh bread and meat each day along with the message that we would be as patient as necessary in resolving our differences peacefully with our Northern brothers.

Importing of new slaves was already banned but the wealthy landowners were terrified of losing their property and poor whites were worried about the competition of suddenly freed slave. In the North there were anti-draft riots as many Northerners did not want to fight to force the South to stay.

There was a proposal that the states would begin slowly paying market rates to slaveholders to free their slaves.

But General Beauregard opened fire on Fort Sumpter and everyone's heart hardened.

God knows its for the best that we remained one country - the world needs us and we have accomplished so much... but the war was a calamity. With 20% less troops than in World War 1 there were twice the number of wounded and almost 5 times as many dead.
44 posted on 07/17/2006 8:33:29 AM PDT by gondramB (The options on the table have been there from the beginning. Withdraw and fail or commit and succeed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Calpernia

Thanks for that post. We don't need to pretend President was perfect to recognize that not only was he a great man but that providence gave him to us at just the right moment.


45 posted on 07/17/2006 8:38:50 AM PDT by gondramB (The options on the table have been there from the beginning. Withdraw and fail or commit and succeed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: gondramB

Lincoln did win the election. Let's fast-forward to the year 2000. What if those in California and a handful of other states decided to secede because they didn't like the results of the hanging chad election. Then those states demanded the return of all military bases and federal parks located there. Would that be consistent with the principles of the Declaration of "self-determination"? If not, why? If so, where does it end?


46 posted on 07/17/2006 8:40:53 AM PDT by rhombus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: SamuraiScot
>>You're right that they should have, but all I remember was non-stop hatred and the persecution of his staff by way of the courts, and of course the Fifth Column . . . I mean the Fourth Estate.<<

I was reading through a book of old Bloom County cartoons last night looking for a cartoon I remembered at Lebanon and I saw a character I had forgotten. The newspaper editor, whenever anything bad would happen would scream "Its Reagan's fault!"

Deja Vue all over again.
47 posted on 07/17/2006 8:41:28 AM PDT by gondramB (The options on the table have been there from the beginning. Withdraw and fail or commit and succeed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: rhombus
>>Lincoln did win the election. Let's fast-forward to the year 2000. What if those in California and a handful of other states decided to secede because they didn't like the results of the hanging chad election. Then those states demanded the return of all military bases and federal parks located there. Would that be consistent with the principles of the Declaration of "self-determination"? If not, why? If so, where does it end?<<

This happens all over the world - my wife parents are from Latvia, captured by the Germans and then by the Soviets and annexed. Ronald Reagan worked hard for Latvian independence but on the principle of negotiation, not combat. If the Soviets can handle self determination then we could too.

But knowing that we are free and can change the government lessens the chance that step will ever be taken.

To answer the question, if California really was determined to secede, I think in the end we would let them go. But there would be a thousand details to be worked out.

48 posted on 07/17/2006 8:47:40 AM PDT by gondramB (The options on the table have been there from the beginning. Withdraw and fail or commit and succeed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: gondramB
To answer the question, if California really was determined to secede, I think in the end we would let them go. But there would be a thousand details to be worked out.

OK, in your world, when the going gets tough anyone who wants to leave can. However, I would think the same rules for admitting a state to the union should apply to rejecting a state from the union. In otherwords it's not just up to the legislators in that particular state particularly with respect to federal property which is owned by all of us (military bases, state parks, etc). Further when speaking of the Civil War you stated the North had not lived up to the principles of the Declaration. One of the first principles discussed is the follow: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." I'd say the North did a better job holding to that principle than the South did...unless of course one disputes the definition of the word, "men" which I guess is what the anger was all about.

49 posted on 07/17/2006 9:00:18 AM PDT by rhombus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: The Raven

Ho hum. Yet another of Barnes' tiresome revisionism attempts aimed at morphing the socialist Bush into the libertarian Republican Reagan. In an ironic twist, Barnes seems to be attacking historical revisionism in order to engage in his own.

Sorry, Freddie-boy, the argument doesn't get any better through repetition.


50 posted on 07/17/2006 9:40:34 AM PDT by NCSteve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-70 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson