Reagan succeeded because he was a blitering idiot, the anti-intellectual bias of the American media and their political masters being the 'base' they operate from. It's easy to see why an idiot like Bush idolizes him. The Great Communicator and The Great C Student. It's a marriage made in heaven.

Reagan also paid Tim Osman to fight the Soviets for us in Afghanistan. Tim Osman was Bin Laden's old CIA code name during the Afghanistan war. He also sold weapons to Iran. And Iraq. Hmm ... that means that all the people Bush has set out to fight ... Reagan gave money and weapons to. And we can't leave out old VP poppy Bush who clearly was involved in all these shady weapons transfers. Dad's old friends turn in to the son's enemies. Man. Some future Shakespeare better make a good history play out of this.

The most damning thing I've ever heard about Reagan was uttered by Jimmy Carter. He said that Reagan "made us comfortable in our prejudices", and I believe that was on the mark. Ironically, the one aspect of Bush's character that is modestly positive is that he seems to have some empathy for ethnic minorities, particularly Hispanics. No doubt that's at least in part due to political calculations, but it did take guts for Bush to trot out his guest worker program (never mind the good or bad wonkery of it) after Lou Dobbs' minions were howling to skin the Mexicans alive. Reagan by comparison seemed to see only white America (plus, maybe some Cubans I suppose, but that's all). "Welfare queens in designer jeans" was not a randomly chosen phrase.

Another thing about Reagan was that he was pretty averse to ad-libbing. He would have never have said the nonsense that just pours out of Dubya's mouth when he tries to wing it. Reagan would have known the "Fool me once..." jingle.

Historians, even those who lean left, now concede that Reagan can be credited with some undeniably substantive achievements, especially in bringing an end to the Cold War that favored the US. He falls well short, however, of joining the ranks of such luminaries as de Gaulle, Churchill, and FDR, because of the way in which he "won" the Cold War. To win a strategic victory over an apparent superpower, not only without firing a shot but also without demanding sacrifices from one's people, has had an unfortunate, baleful effect in that the American public came to believe that they could have the world do its bidding without lifting a finger. The belief that the invasion of Iraq would go smoothly and not need any planning for a difficult occupation would not have been widespread had the USSR not folded so quickly in the way that it did. So, even if the conservatives are right and Star Wars did the trick in forcing the collapse of communism, it fostered the illusion that American power alone, even without sacrifice and commitment from American citizens, could end tyranny.

One of the great ironies of history: how a group of people who love to repeat that "there is no free lunch" (i.e. end the New Deal) arrived at a military policy based on getting something for nothing. It worked in Grenada and Panama, but as La Rochefoucauld once said, it takes greater virtue to receive (and bear) good fortune rather than bad.

Is that a real word? Or is it supposed to be inconsistencies? Google doesn't define it.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/inconcinnity

in·con·cin·ni·ty (nkn-sn-t)

n.

Lack of congruity or harmony; unsuitability.

Guess I learned a new one today.

I refuse to speak or think well of Ronald Reagan. He was a long way from a great, or even good president. The only things he did well were pander to the bigots that make up the Republican base and tell carefully-scripted lies.

Those who would claim that he is responsible for the things that happened in Russia during his administration are the sorts who would look outside, see the sun shining, and give Reagan credit for the nice day.

Haven't we been through all this before? Revisionist history is basically a fools game. You can fill the empty bed with almost anything you damn well please--and what difference does it make in the final analysis?

Reagan knew how to ride the horse that puts men into power in this county--call it "the easy way." That's what is worth paying attention too. His real masters were the guys at all those corporations who were writing the checks and representing "traditional" Republican voters. He may have proven disloyal to the intellectuals and ideologues, but what difference did that make in order for him to play his part as President?

Bush, on the other hand, has remained true to the ideologues, and kept the coffers hidden. In the end, if the truth ever comes out about Iraq, he also may prove more faithful to the corporate interests than Reagan imagined being--thanks to Cheney--who has no equal in the history of the nation--and made us into an overt rather than simply a covert colonial power.

The real question is how many Americans now living and to come will begin to see through the veil of eletism that keeps sending their children to death and perverting the national conscience so a few very rich men can get richer. The disparity in income in this country has never been greater--and the threat to the dream of equality never more pronounced, yet it is hardly mentioned in the presidential contest currently taking place.

Despite it all, I think Americans are basically a decent people, who if informed of their real history and what can done to preserve peace will do so--and not be suckered by the cries of the merchants of war.

Don't forget how the great god encouraged us all to "charge it". What's the best thing you can do for your country? Go shopping! You want that new whatever but don't have the $$$ now? Put it on your credit card! You don't have to save for anything, you deserve it Right Now! We're Americans for goodness sake! Wear sweaters? C'mon, turn the heat up! Buy that big car! Besides, cars don't pollute - trees pollute!