...and then they'll have their warm milk and cookies, and someone will make sure they each have a fresh, clean adult diaper, and lay them down and tuck them in for their afternoon naps.

Seriously, are there Republicans who care who geriatric social x-ray Nancy Reagan endorses?

But I'm waiting to see who Tricia Nixon Eisenhower endorses before making my decision.

I'm waiting for Julie. I don't care what Tricia thinks.

I don't make a move without his approval.

I guess the stars like McCain. I wonder if she talked to Ronnie. He misses her so...

He has about the same amount of relevance.

Wow. The potent application of a circa-80s literary reference to a circa-80s relic... brought me right back to those dark times.

I stand in awe of you, sir. In all sincerity, that's a good'un!

I thought she asked everyone to "Just say no."

Who else was she going to endorse - Obama?

"I am proud to endorse [HIM] for president," Mrs. Reagan said. "He is doing a fine job of carrying on Ronnie's legacy. His agenda of tax cuts, smaller government, and a strong national defense will build pride in America just as it did when my husband was president."

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/05/17/reagan.bush/index.html

Of course, that quote is from May 2000 when she endorsed George W. Bush. She endorsed him again in 2004, despite Bush's opposition to embryonic stem cell research.

CParis1 is right: "Who else was she going to endorse?"

a meeting of the richey-rich's. Nancy Reagan leaving her 125 million dollar estate to endorse the lower-taxes-for-the-richest candidate?

Perhaps they can come up with a new campaign slogan like let them eat cake or something.

Alex, is Joan feeding you these stories so Hillary's lies are kept off of Salon? Today Hillary is trying to bring up Wright again as the media starts to focus on her phony resume and while they ignore the story of Hillary's own bizarre and scary religious connections - see Alternet and Ehrenreich's story. But nothing from Salon on these stories... how strange.

In a similar scenario in 1980, the Republicans ran an overage, hack politician and B-movie actor named Ronald Reagan. Everyone laughed, but the old coot won, began the decline of the US as an economic powerhouse, plunged us into a recession, ignored the AIDS crisis until it was too late, traded weaponry to Iran to fund misadventures in Nicaragua, made embarrassing statements for the next eight years and became the idol of right wing extremists and shit for brains know-nothings everywhere. The primary cause? Democratic overconfidence in the 1980 election.

For a maverick, McCain sure is getting the red carpet treatment from the Republican establishment lately. Oh yeah. He's their last chance.

I was more impressed when Dwight D. Eisenhower's grand-daugher endorsed Obama. Really. She did.

Or the relevance, for that matter?

Must be a slow news day.

Ed Sullivan is still dead. Grant's Tomb contains the remains of the Union General and American President who did the embalmer a favor by pre-pickling his body. Now, watch the thugs go all weepy over Nancy With the Glazed Smile on her Face (apologies to Frank Sinatra). Nancy was another republikan trade-in wife. Seems to be a pattern; that, or suppressed gay lust. GOP: goosesteppers, oligarchs, and pharisees.

That much evil in two beings being brought in together such close proximity and even touching may bring about earthquakes, meteor showers, plagues of rats, gamma ray bursts and repeats of American Idol. Why, this may even stir evolution, into existence itself!

When their steely soulless eyes meet, they could well laze and send out a beam of pure evil itself halfway across the galaxy. This cannot be good. Perhaps the excitement of being in her Satanic Presence shall be too much for the old guy and, you know Mitt is probably hiding in the backyard waiting for the cue to step forward.

John, if she offers you an Apple, go ahead, take a bite.

/one for the gipper

I have a profoundly different recollection of the 1980 presidential election, my first opportunity to vote. Then President Jimmy Carter had inhereted an economy beset by stagflation mainly from the oil embargo and the Viet Nam war. His position was worsened by the Iranian Hostage Crisis and the botched rescue attempt. Carter's approval ratings were low and 3rd party candidate John Anderson took alot of votes away. Reagan was talking tough to the Iranians and the Russki's. The Democratic party was anything but confident, let alone overconfident.

"You Make Me Feel So Young..."

Macdonald land rejoices!

So why did the Iranian hostage crisis and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan happen around the same time?

These deadly events occurring so close together was not a coincidence. These two events were both blowback from Nixon's foreign policy in the region.

First thing -- Nixon and the Shah of Iran were thick as thieves. The Shah brutally oppressed all opposition, and thanks to Nixon, America helped train his secret police.

So not just the Communists but also the Muslim fundamentalists were more than ready for revolution by 1979.

Second thing -- Nixon also messed things up in Afghanistan. While the Shah was torturing Marxists in prison, Nixon was helping them into power in Afghanistan.

In the name of stopping the flow of hashish and hippies between Afghanistan and America, Nixon helped the Afghan Marxists overthrow King Zahir Shah, a Sufi devotee of hashish himself, in 1973.

The CIA, through the Noor Eye Clinic in Kabul, helped get the King out of the country so the coup could take place without major bloodshed.

And the Shah of Iran helped finance the coup by offering the Afghan Marxists billions of dollars in aid from Iran.

Since Afghan Marxists only had the support of 10% of the Afghan population at best, this government failed at reforming the country or solving any of its problems. It fell by assassination and there was another Marxist coup. Then another.

The Afghan Marxists' only success was in turning their tribal opposition into a mujahedin army.

The rise of the mujahedin army in Afghanistan had two effects:

1. It encouraged Iranian fundamentalists to rise up in armed revolt against the Shah.

2. It caused the Marxists in Kabul to ask for Soviet intervention.

Yuri Andropov at first argued that Afghanistan was not a good candidate for state socialism and so the USSR should not intervene.

But he changed his mind mysteriously overnight and sent the Red Army in to take control over the steadily worsening situation.

Both of these events spelled D-O-O-M for Jimmy Cater.

I don't think the Democrats were overconfident.

I think they were naive and clueless about how fucked up a world Nixon had really left behind him when he resigned.