Can someone explain this to me?

dono, he gave 4 million illegals amnesty, that means hes the devil right?

he beat communism, which is why the nation that's fast approaching to become the new dominating force in global politics is not, repeat not, communist.

but china is communist

umm...cuz they don't know any better?

There's nothing more Christian than worshiping an idolized dead guy.

I believe that Luther would disagree with you on that one.

I think the biggest thing about Ronald Reagan among Republicans was the coalition (i.e. reaching out to social conservatives) that he built....the results of the two elections of his Presidency were pretty amazing. He established what is now referred to as the three pillars (or legs of a barstool, in another analogy) of modern conservatism - strong foreign policy/national defense (Reagan's peace through strength), fiscal conservatism and social conservatism. The latter I have a big problem with, as the notion of the federal government legislating morality conflicts with Reagan's calls for a return to state's rights. Also, his fiscal conservatism is fondly remembered because of his tax cuts and subsequent reduction of inflation (supply-side economics at work), but there is revisionist history at work because during his time the federal spending deficit rose and the national debt skyrocketed (due to defense spending).
Looking back, I think he is fondly remembered because at the time the country was in a funk....post-Vietnam, high inflation, the gas crunch, the hostage crisis. Reagan came into the race in 1979 with is "morning in America" theme and promised to bring America back to the prominance in the world that it once enjoyed. In some ways he did.

In the end, Reagan's Presidency is romanticized to a degree. He did a good job....there was some bad, as there always is. Personally, I never understood why Bill Clinton is venerated by the Democrats....I suppose party members need their heroes to look back on.

You pretty much nailed it. What I find the most interesting out of all this, however, is that George W. is essentially a carbon copy of Reagan, yet while we had the Reagan Democrats, there was definitely no such agreement on the Bush administration.

True. Looking back, one of President Bush's big failures was right after 9/11. He had the country in the palm of his hand and could have built the same type of coalition but he squandered it by telling people to go shopping and love their family. That's not to say that America wasn't galvanized after that day, but he could have brought about so much in a country that would have followed.

That's a pretty solid explanation. The key, IMO, is that he was the face on the modern conservative movement with the three pillars.

Democrats had dominated domestic policy for over 45 years, and there were many people who were disenchanted with liberal policies (or things that they perceived to be the result of liberal policies), and Reagan managed to bring their diverse complaints together, while at the same time minimizing the just as large issues that those people had with each other.

For example, take teh "Reagan Democrats", those blue collar, largely unionized workers who were suffering economic depression in the late 70's. Reagan managed to turn their work ethic, economic uncertainty, fear of Communists, sentimentality, religious faith, and often their racial bigotry into a "return to values" theme that was embodied by the conservative movement. By placing greater value on social values and strong defense, they compromised their solid position in the middle class that had been secured by their unions and the Democratic Party for the previous half century or more.

The melding of Christian social values with free market economic policies and strong military defense is really one of the most mind-bending twists of logic and reason that has ever been accepted by a mass of people. German National Socialism made more sense. This is the great Reagan legacy. A generally likeable handsome man can get a large number of people to believe just about anything.

Part of it that all the young yuppies and college republicans of the first half of the '80s are now the establishment. You idolize the heroes of your youth more than the heroes of your middle age.
I wouldn't be surprised if Bill Clinton is raised to a similiar pedistal 5-10 down the road by the Democrats.

i think it has something to do with jelly beans

becuz he'z sow dreemy

Ahem. http://theskyiscrape.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=72239&hilit=bill+clinton

So who's the dreamy one?

i was out at the bar a couple weekends hittin on this girl..bout 20 mins in the conversation she and her friend were dead serious sayin that they like bush as a pres and how theyd like to fuck the shit outta him..id still do her and all..but still, that was a little nasty

I think it has something to do with the fact that Reagan was an actor and could act presidential. After 8 years of Bush looking like a complete moron in public, the right needs another puppet who can bullshit the country into believing things are somehow managable.

Senator Obama invokes the Reagan legacy:



A person I work with and I talked about this yesterday. She's a Democrat, and the mere mention of Reagan's name from Obama's mouth brought about this reaction - "I can't believe he wants to be the next Ronald Reagan. I wasn't sure who I was voting for up to now but he just made my mind up for me. I'm voting for Hillary. She isn't trying to follow in Reagan's footsteps. Fuck Obama."

It was interesting, as I think the mere mention of "Reagan" and the subsequent swipe at Bill Clinton clouded her understanding of what Obama was saying. To deny that Ronald Reagan built a coalition is to revise history. In short, I think Obama was saying that he wants to do for the Democratic party what Reagan did for the Republican party. After all, isn't this what Howard Dean has worked to bring to the DNC.....a 50 state strategy that goes beyond the typical "blue" states and reaching out to voting blocs they had given up on such as the religious right? This, to me, is what Obama is proposing, not a pitched battle against the "Right Wing attack machine" that Clinton is gearing up for.

Anyway, I don't know if Obama shot himself in the foot with his party or what, but I think this was a very wise statement in keeping with the theme of his campaign.

Funny...

Back to the real issue:


I have a problem with this. Are you saying that things are somehow NOT managable? Well, they are, look at FDR. Are you saying that the American public is so easily fooled by the appearance or demeanor of their president? I certainly hope not.

Bush looks, talks, acts, and presents himself as a fucking idiot. I wont argue that. But like his appearance, his politics are equally as horrendous. I dont think that the majority of Americans dislike Bush because he looks like a complete moron in public, instead I think they dislike him because of the things he has done with the current administration. Yes Reagan looked, acted, and spoke like a president. However, his politics were equally on par with his public perception. I'm no rebulican by any means, but I will say that I think Reagan was a good president for more than his acting ability.