Jay Bookman

By TW

January 6, 2009 7:49 AM | Link to this

Reagan also planted the seeds for both the anti-government sentiment and the ‘thou shalt speak evil of fellow repub’ that came to fruition over the last years at the expense of our country.

Thanks alot, Ronnie.

By AJC/DNC Management

January 6, 2009 8:00 AM | Link to this

Folks, Reagan is dead. He was first elected president almost 30 years ago, and the world in which he governed is long gone and ancient history.

Lincoln has been dead considerably longer than Reagan has but don’t look now, cause the love of your life has resurrected that corpse and is parading it around, a bit prematurely if you ask me.

But that’s no problem is it?

Reagen defeated the Soviet Union and brought back American exceptionalism from the pit of despair that was Dhimmi Carter and his “malaise.”

Makes ya angry still, don’t it?

And now Palin, Reagan with a skirt, will have her chance to do the same things in 4 years.

And nothing could be more fitting than to remember the Great One.

By Shawny

January 6, 2009 8:07 AM | Link to this

Stupid post today, Bookman.

By BDAtlanta

January 6, 2009 8:09 AM | Link to this

“Reagan defeated the Soviet Union”…? What an oversimplification by a simpleton.

If he could beat the Soviet Union then surely he could beat Cuba…(or Cuber as your current idiot in charge likes to say)…or maybe not.

By Mrs. Godzilla

January 6, 2009 8:12 AM | Link to this

R.I.P Reaganomics 1981-2008

About damned time!

By Curious Observer

January 6, 2009 8:17 AM | Link to this

The GOP still doesn’t get it. Ronald Reagan and supply-side economics have both been discredited in the eyes of a majority of voters. We tried it. It didn’t work. The simple fact is that businesses can’t be profitable if consumers don’t have the money to buy goods and services.

Ditto for the GOP’s foreign policy approach. Speaking loudly and carrying a small stick results in alienation of other free world nations and isolationist sentiment.

And the moderate American center simply won’t accept the GOP extremist positions on social issues. The hard right can dream about a reversal of Roe v. Wade and a nation in which religionists dictate social policy, but it won’t happen.

So go ahead, GOP, nominate Sarah Palin and Bobby Jindal. They will win only the ignorant Southern states. Your time has come and gone. It will take the creation of a third party for you to come anywhere close to a restoration of power. The American people have rejected you utterly, and no amount of scheming at the natonal party level will return you to their favor.

By Wyld Byll Hyltnyr

January 6, 2009 8:18 AM | Link to this

Jay here’s a hint for you, Reagan articled and represented values that most American’s hold dear. Those values are as meaningful today as they were during the days of the shinig city on the hill.

I know PEOTUS won the last election, but were one to view it objectively, its a little early to dance on the GOP grave. PEOTUS won 53% to 46%, but when one considers the massive spending advantage he had along with negative current events and the unbridled (and unsavory) support of Old Media (which cost billions of dollars to replicate on the open market) a reasonable man might conclude that PEOTUS should have wan by a 60% to 40% margin given his huge messaging advantage. I know if Pepsi out spent Cocola by a similar amount, sales would be 70% to 30%.

The Reagan Revolution is not done.

By AJC/DNC Management

January 6, 2009 8:20 AM | Link to this

By BDAtlanta January 6, 2009 8:09 AM “Reagan defeated the Soviet Union”…? What an oversimplification by a simpleton.

BDA- Maybe you could point out where the Soviet Union is for the rest of us, no?

If he could beat the Soviet Union then surely he could beat Cuba…(or Cuber as your current idiot in charge likes to say)…or maybe not.

JFK made an agreement that has been honored by every president since then, are you truly saying that we should have invaded Cuba in 1981?

Keep nattering on about your nemesis, it warms my heart to see the raging RDS live on in infamy, he was the Man-

The real Reagan signed three major tax increases into law.

Anybody want to bet that Reagan still cut overall taxes, despite this^^ irrelevant claim?

By Ray

January 6, 2009 8:22 AM | Link to this

The Great Communicator won his last election by taking 49 of 50 states, what you might call a mandate for want of a better word. Buckwheat wants to emulate FDR so badly that when he fixes all of the bridges and road projects, you might as well call it WPA II. Truman’s legacy is one of greatness and good decision making, guiding a war torn world into another era.
What’s wrong with wanting another person like some of the above? Reagan’s funeral and lying in state brought more people to the Capital than anyone in the history of our country. And Bookman wants to write him off like some some B grade movie actor with a gift for gab. He represents a little more to the American people than that, Bookman, despite your rhetoric. At this point, I would take another Reagan or Truman anytime over what 52% of the electorate shoved down our collective throats. Bookman, you wouldn’t recognize true greatness if it hit you over the head.

By ByteMe

January 6, 2009 8:33 AM | Link to this

Jay, you said: “They’re Huey Lewis and the News without Huey Lewis, and they’re still telling themselves that all their troubles would be over if they could just find themselves another Huey.”

Bad analogy, since Huey is still alive and could re-join the band if he ever left them.

Better would have been The Grateful Dead without Jerry Garcia… who are still touring to people hopeful they’ll be able to find a presence to replace JG… other than his ghost.

Also, you just posted this to bring out the ire of the 20%-ers, right? I do love how they’ve fallen for the myths repeated over and over at their political gatherings while totally ignoring reality. Obama would say they were bitter at their economic misfortune and clinging to their guns and Reagan…..

By DB, Gwinnettian

January 6, 2009 8:38 AM | Link to this

“They’re Huey Lewis and the News without Huey Lewis”

hee hee. Solid gold!

Oh, and Ray @ 8.22—if you’re going to compare apples:apples, try comparing Reagan’s 1980 election to a first term, to Obama’s 2008 victory. The margin of popular-vote edge wasn’t all that different, actually (8.3% for Reagan, 7.25 for Obama); and when you complain bitterly about “what 52% of the electorate shoved down our collective throats”, I will remind you that

a) it’s actually 52.92%—most sane people would tend to round that number UP to 53, not DOWN to 52; and

b) Reagan’s princely 1980 mandate was “what 50.7% of the electorate shoved down our collective throats”, to use your delightful phraseology.

By norman ravitch

January 6, 2009 8:38 AM | Link to this

The hypnotic effect this mediocre, semi-senile Reagan has had on Republicans says something about their intellectual capabilities …. zero.

By Eric1

January 6, 2009 8:41 AM | Link to this

Ronald Reagan was personable and likable. He connected with people and many felt that he was “one of us”. But the absolute truth is that he was a lousy president. He did not defeat the Soviet Union, they defeated themselves. He made a mess of the economy and he was directly responsible for the murder of 260 marines in Beirut. He refused to even acknoledge the existance of AIDS until his friend Rock Hudson succombed. He was as much a figure head as anything else. During his two terms he probably spent more time sleeping and writing love notes to Nancy than he did attending to the office of president. His greatest accomplishment: acting like a great president, he fooled millions into believing it was no act.

By Joey

January 6, 2009 8:45 AM | Link to this

Jay; Your list of dead presidents is very short. What could we conclude from that?

Perhaps that you know that the death of Reagan did not mean the death of Reagan’s values. No where is that more clear than the conservative invigoration caused by the selection of Governor Palin as the VP candidate.

Your guy, that is your Republican guy, McCain and Republicans like him are the real threat to conservatives and the Republican Party. Jay, I know that you know this to be true. Hence your repeated attacks on Reagan and his ideals and Palin.

Rock music examples, both more successful the Huey’s band, of this would be: Journey, three different frontmen, and Van Halen. I think Van Halen had four different lead singers, plus reunions.

By DB, Gwinnettian

January 6, 2009 8:49 AM | Link to this

“The hypnotic effect this mediocre, semi-senile Reagan has had on Republicans says something about their intellectual capabilities …. zero.”

Sadly agree with the “mediocre, semi-senile” assessment. Disagree with the “zero.”

In fact, I sometimes find myself awe-struck by the astonishingly creative ways that Republicans have managed to polish that turd. For example, they’ve taken a poorly-attended Berlin speech that was mostly ignored by actual Germans and turned it into some kind of crowning achievement. (It’s usually expressed as “he brought down the Soviet Union without firing a shot!” or suchlike.)

Such creativity is surely the result of intellectual capacity, however tragically mis-applied and irrational.

By Chad Harris

January 6, 2009 8:56 AM | Link to this

Raegan was hardly Lincoln. Raegan also wasn’t responsible for the demise of the Former Soviety Union. Economics independent of Raegan was. Raegan probably tragically had significant clinical progression of Alzheimer’s through the second half of his term.

Bush has been similar to Raegan in all the most destructive ways. We had a budget surplus of a trillion dollars when Clinton left. Now we have a deficitanywhere from 5-600 billion inexcess of a trillion or possibly two. It’s hard to tell, because this government’s finances are far from transparent.

As a result interest rates soared and they have stayed high.

Reagan nearly tripled the gap between the amount of money the federal government took in and the amount it spent. He cut taxes by 25% and rapidly increased defense spending much like Bush. When Raegan took office in 1981 and lambasted deficits out of control, the deficit was $80 billion. He increased that to $200 billion in 6 years.

Raegan took a shredder to social services. He all but abolished low cost housing, ignored homelessness, and when finally pinned down said all homeless people were homeless by choice. Many homeless people don’t choose the diseases that make them homeless any more than Raegan chose to have Alzheimer’s.

Raegan’s response to HIV was egregiously reprehensible. It was an intentional anti-gay offensive, because his administration stupidly believed it was a gay only disease.

Raegan started Republicans on the path of ecoomic de-regulation or no regulation that have us into the hybrid of recession and depression we are spiralled into now.

By DB, Gwinnettian

January 6, 2009 8:57 AM | Link to this

“I know if Pepsi out spent Cocola by a similar amount, sales would be 70% to 30%.”

Wyld, why doesn’t the “marketplace of ideas” apply to campaign fundraising?

Put another way—why can’t conservatives accept that, perhaps, McCain didn’t raise as much money because people simply didn’t have as much faith in his ability to win as people did with Obama?

By AJC/DNC Management

January 6, 2009 9:00 AM | Link to this

By Chad Harris January 6, 2009 8:56 AM Bush has been similar to Raegan in all the most destructive ways. We had a budget surplus of a trillion dollars when Clinton left. Now we have a deficitanywhere from 5-600 billion inexcess of a trillion or possibly two. It’s hard to tell, because this government’s finances are far from transparent.

Pssst, Chad, keep this a secret, but Oblahmi is going to toss a Trillion on top of that.

By ByteMe

January 6, 2009 9:01 AM | Link to this

Joey: Reagan values? You mean the part where he got divorced from his first wife and didn’t pay much attention to his kids while still espousing “family values”? Or the part where he believed in a strong military, but turned and ran at the first sign of trouble in Lebanon? Or maybe the part where he said he wanted to lower taxes (and he did, to his credit) but then raised them significantly three times later, but all any of the Reagon-accolites can remember is the cutting taxes part?

Those values?

By Road Scholar

January 6, 2009 9:04 AM | Link to this

AJC MGMT: “And now Palin, Reagan with a skirt, will have her chance to do the same things in 4 years.” You are even more dilusional today than most days. Reagan could at least speak in intelligent sentences; Palin can’t, ya know! I’m not saying she is not intelligent, but Reagan, as well as Obama, can communicate with the whole electorate. If you would only listen! Reagan is history, just like FDR, Kenedy, etc. Let us learn from our successes and failures. Both parties could learn something!Bring solutions, not criticism!

By Taxpayer

January 6, 2009 9:15 AM | Link to this

Reagan learned how to handle his Republican party members back during his years of handling a chimp on the big screen. Give it a banana in a jar and it was occupied with visions of happiness for hours as it continued to struggle to acquire that which was so near yet so far away, to Reagan’s amusement….

By ByteMe

January 6, 2009 9:25 AM | Link to this

Taxpayer: that’s not it. Think about who the Republican myth machine has loved lately: Reagan, Bush II, Palin… What’s the common thread?

By Joey

January 6, 2009 9:27 AM | Link to this

Byte: I don’t pay much attention to a President’s family values. Evidence is that most people do not. Examples: Ike, Kennedy, Clinton. In fact I believe that the Obama’s, like the Bush’s, are excellent parents; however, I suspect (while hoping I am wrong) that the Obama’s will fall short of expectations in many other areas.

Pulling out of Lebanon was wise. My view, it was a disaster ready to happen. Similar to what the much talked about expansion of activity into Afganistan today would be.

Taxes? Frankly this is an area where my knowledge and understanding are weak. However, I clearly recall writing the check in 1993 for Clinton’s retroactive income tax for 1992.

By getalife

January 6, 2009 9:29 AM | Link to this

They are out of ideas and minds to think of new ideas.

With so called dem Senators like Reid, Feinstein, Rockefeller and others, they can still block every new idea and will.

By The Corporal

January 6, 2009 9:29 AM | Link to this

JAY

Reagan may be gone but the principles live on.

What I remember most, is that the hostages were freed just mminutes before he became President. The terrorists were scared to death of him and they somewhat fear Bush.

I think they will have little to fear from Aytch.

Side Bar: I made that trip with Former President Carter to Germany the day after the Inauguration so he could greet the hostages. I was amazed at how many refused to meet with him. It was very tense.

P.S.

If my AJC newspaper gets any lighter, it won’t stay in my yard when the wind blows.

By Midori

January 6, 2009 9:40 AM | Link to this

I’ve got a great idea.

Why not dig up his rotting, stinking corpse and run him alongside Palin in 2012?

Makes as much sense as the other dumb ideas Republicans have.

By jasper

January 6, 2009 9:42 AM | Link to this

I couldn’t agree more Jay. Conservativism needs a makeover. Something in tune with the new American work ethic. How about this….I believe the best social program is Free Ice Cream, vote for me.

Miracle watch - 14 days.

By Mrs. Godzilla

January 6, 2009 9:48 AM | Link to this

coporal

what do you make of the reports of Reagan’s pre election behind the scenes manipulation of the Iran hostage crisis? I read his team paid cash money to delay the release?

Wonder how the hostages would feel if they knew the truth?

By Midori

January 6, 2009 9:52 AM | Link to this

Mrs. G,

Reagan’s machinations with the hostages is common knowledge - among thinking people.

Corporal lives in his own world and picks his facts and “truth” accordingly. Much like his sucky nicknames.

By Davo

January 6, 2009 9:52 AM | Link to this

Ronald Reagan = Huey Lewis? How do I apply for your job? Political differances aside; this is probably the stupidest article I’ve seen from you yet. You set out to insult the intelligence of your readers only to draw attention to your own ignorance…and poor journalistic ability.

I have some thoughts about Ronald Reagan. I have some thoughts about Bobby Kennedy. But the premise here is so pathetic I think I’ll wait for a better opportunity.

By Cindy

January 6, 2009 9:57 AM | Link to this

Jay, Don’t yall know that the Republicans are all about the past? The shine and reflect in past perceived glories, never looking to the future. The hate progression and anyone who represents it.

By Bud Wiser

January 6, 2009 9:57 AM | Link to this

If what you say is true, Jay, then why is Obama hearkening back to days of yore with all of the Clinton appointees?

To summarize the Chosen One’s appointments to date, I give you your own written words, with my substitutions in italics.

Read and tell me the difference.

Anyone.

Anyone…

But the Democratic Party can’t bring itself to accept that. The Democratic Party is like an ancient rock band, still reprising its golden oldie hits from the ’90s long after its famous lead singer left the band. They’re Huey Lewis and the News without Huey Lewis, and they’re still telling themselves that all their troubles would be over if they could just find themselves another Huey.

Anyone?

Anyone?

By Midori

January 6, 2009 9:57 AM | Link to this

Davo,

It’s hip to be square….

By Midori

January 6, 2009 10:09 AM | Link to this

yes Bud - he is the chosen one.

He was chosen by the American electorate.

By ByteMe

January 6, 2009 10:11 AM | Link to this

Bud: you’re being lame.

If you look for people to run a company, you look for people with experience running a company. Last Democratic experience with running a country was under… who?? And prior to that, was whom? And most of those folks are dead or dying off.

By getalife

January 6, 2009 10:12 AM | Link to this

bud ,

Because the Clinton team has experience, competence and can fix the broken government your party broke. They have to return to the policies that worked combined with new ideas to save the economy again.

Duh.

By Midori

January 6, 2009 10:13 AM | Link to this

a gift for Bud Wiser

By Chad Harris

January 6, 2009 10:34 AM | Link to this

Obama has been left with a depression by the moronic Bush and the imbecilic deregulation that started with Raegan.

It would be interesting to see ole Andy suggest how he’d manage the current clustef*ck Buah left Obama, instead of to childishly criticize what he thinks and has no idea Obama can get through Congress.

Obama can spend very little via executive order. He has to get it through Congress, and McConnell will try to be as obstructive with his 41 votes in the Senate as possible.

By Mrs. Godzilla

January 6, 2009 10:36 AM | Link to this

Perhaps he is haunting the GOP wearing the chains he forged in his own life, warning them that they to are forging chains of their own.

Next they will be visited by 3 spirits.

The ghosts of GOP presidents past - Lincoln,Teddy R and Ike.

The ghosts of GOP presidents present - Bush and Bush

The ghosts of GOP presidents future…. defeated Palin and Jindahl.

In the end will the learn the lesson of their election carol?

God Bless us everyone!

By DB, Gwinnettian

January 6, 2009 10:37 AM | Link to this

“Wonder how the hostages would feel if they knew the truth?”

I suspect the truth is, as [this contemporary account[(http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,954603,00.html) would have it, was that the last-minute wrangling was over pedestrian issues like frozen funds and such, and the real reason the hostages were released at the last moment was because the Iranians didn’t want to have to re-start the negotiating process.

The idea that the terrorists were—what was Corporal’s hilarious phrase?—“scared to death” of Reagan is a hoot, given that Iran-backed terrorists weren’t afraid to hit an American military target in 1983.

By DB, Gwinnettian

January 6, 2009 10:42 AM | Link to this

Evil brackets! This link to that Time magazine article oughta work.

By mm

January 6, 2009 10:48 AM | Link to this

Good column, Jay. Did you count how many times during the presidential debates the GOP candidates mentioned Reagan? LMAO.

Wow, the wingnut dream machine is at full throttle today.

Management thinks Reagan defeated the USSR. Sorry dude, they collapsed financially due to communism and socialism. And Palin? Please make her the GOP candidate in 2012. McCain probably would have won had he picked anyone else.

We have Wyld Byll still trying to make a big deal about the election victory percentage. Here’s a news flash: THE GOP LOST.

We have Joey saying Lebanon was a disaster waiting to happen so he supports Reagan’s withdrawal. Yet he is against the withdrawal from the cluster f*ck that is Iraq.

And Corporal credits Reagan for getting the hostages out of Iran. Sorry, but the Iranians held the hostages until Reagan took office to embarrass Carter. And there are rumors that arms were traded to release the hostages.

Sad to say, my most vivid image of Reagan was at some of his last news conferences when he would forget what he was talking about. Clearly Alzheimers was taking it’s toll.

Funny how wingnuts believe what their politicians claim they accomplished without actually looking at the true results.

By NJ

January 6, 2009 10:58 AM | Link to this

Reagan once said that the scariest words in the English Language are:

“Hello, I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”

I have a new candidate to replace this quote. The NEW scariest words in the English Language are:

“This is just a market correction”

By Bosch

January 6, 2009 11:01 AM | Link to this

I was a teenager and early 20s when Reagan was president, so I had other priorities -

Who cares about the Reagan? I just remember that irritating Nancy Reagan reminding us to “just say no.”

Yeah, right.

Midori,

I need a new drug. Snicker, snicker.

By Wyld Byll Hyltnyr

January 6, 2009 11:04 AM | Link to this

DB, Gwinnettian 8:57

You wrote, “Wyld, why doesn’t the “marketplace of ideas” apply to campaign fundraising?”

It would in general, but in the example given one would hardly suppose that the extreme liberal media bias should be counted as arms length support from the “marketplace of ideas” - just look at how many news agencies rushed to overturn every stone in Wasilla and how few truly investigated Tony Rezko.

By Taxpayer

January 6, 2009 11:04 AM | Link to this

Bonzo had Reagan fooled from the start. He let Reagan believe that he was the smart one but you can see who is serving food to whom while coddling him. The chimp won hands down. And THIS is what the Republican party looks up to. It explains a lot.

By Suixantet huitard

January 6, 2009 11:08 AM | Link to this

In fact, when some presidents take office, it marks a new political era; for others, their election marks an era’s culmination

It is kind of interesting. One’s almost tempted to say it was the swan song for that generation, the generation of the war (the so-called ‘greatest’ generation), despite the fact that Bush I was an even truer embodiment of that generation. Nonetheless, there was something symbolic about Reagan’s exit. To continue to invoke his ghost now is way past ridiculous.

By Bosch

January 6, 2009 11:12 AM | Link to this

Wild Byl,

“Extreme liberal media bias”

Can’t you guys come up with a new retarded wingnut phrase? That ones old.

By Mrs. Godzilla

January 6, 2009 11:19 AM | Link to this

wild bill

Accept it.

By RealityKing

January 6, 2009 11:26 AM | Link to this

Soory but it’s Obama’s 700 billion yearly pork barrel spending that’s haunting me at night. Effectively doubling our national debt, or a whopping 8 trillion dollar increase since 2006, the year democrats took over Congress. Proving once again that the only government worse than one controled by conseravtive republicans is one controlled by liberal democrats. And hang onto your wallet kids, the ride has just started…

By ByteMe

January 6, 2009 11:30 AM | Link to this

Mrs. G: He can’t accept it. That would mean he would have to accept that his philosophy on who should govern has been repudiated by a majority of the voting population. It couldn’t have been that we wanted to vote for Obama on our own, we had to be brainwashed away from his candidate by the media.

It makes for better copy than “I’m now part of the fringe minority.”

By Chad Harris

January 6, 2009 11:34 AM | Link to this

Obama raised significantly more money than McCain because significantly more people gave small contributions because they continue to reject the deadly foreign policy and poverty laden domestic policy of the Republicans.

On an encouraging note, after years of litigation, yesterday Chief Judge Vaugn Walker in district court in California allowed the suits against the Telecoms for illegal wiretaping to proceed.

In doing so he lambasted the Bush Justice Department.

Upholding the pre-emption doctrine, a very familiar one in federal litigation, the court ruled that FISA law pre-empts the lame “state secrets” claim by the Bush administration. The Bush administration has tried to use the state secrets argument to foreclose on an endless number of Constitutional rights.

In order to allow litigation to proceed while keeping the secrets under wraps, the Court ordered the government to arrange security clearances for Al-Haramain’s attorneys. The Court also ordered the government to allow Judge Walker to review the Sealed Document in his chambers by January 19th. Finally, the Court required the government to review the classified submissions in the case, and declassify as much as possible. The Court will schedule a hearing later this month to plan next steps.

What this has always been about is not immunity for the phone companies and internet service providers (sometimes the same company) but covering the badfatass of Bush and Cheney.

Walker wrote in his order:

*Defendants simply continue to insist that § 1806(f) discovery may not be used to litigate the issue of standing; rather, they argue, plaintiffs have failed to establish their “Article III standing” and their case must now be dismissed. But defendants’ contention that plaintiffs must prove more than they have in order to avail themselves of section 1806(f) conflicts with the express primary purpose of in camera review under § 1806(f): “to determine whether the surveillance of the aggrieved person was lawfully authorized and conducted.” § 1806(f).

It appears from defendants’ response to plaintiffs’ motion that defendants believe they can prevent the court from taking any action under 1806(f) by simply declining to act.

But the statute is more logically susceptible to another, plainer reading: the occurrence of the action by the Attorney General described in the clause beginning with “if” makes mandatory on the district court (as signaled by the verb “shall”) the in camera/ex parte review provided for in the rest of the sentence. The non-occurrence of the Attorney General’s action does not necessarily stop the process in its tracks as defendants seem to contend.*

Shorter version—the Bush lawyers royally p** off Judge Walker and the immunity passed by Congress is about to get overturned. The Bushies are ordered to release the document to the judge a day before the scum is locked out of the White House. There won’t be any running to the 9th Circuit for an injunction since the 9th Circuit already remanded this case to Judge Walker for argument and his decision.

By Midori

January 6, 2009 11:36 AM | Link to this

Bosch,

you’re on a roll today :)

I didn’t care much for Reagan the actor, but if you can get your hands on this movie, I think you’ll like it pretty good.

Reagan plays a syndicate boss, and Angie Dickinson is his moll.

Great flick!!!

By Soixante huitard

January 6, 2009 11:42 AM | Link to this

See Dionne today (http://tinyurl.com/7b8uow):

Whoever takes the helm of the GOP will have to persuade a very conservative following that we are not living in Ronald Reagan’s America anymore.

By DB, Gwinnettian

January 6, 2009 11:42 AM | Link to this

Bosch @ 11.12, actually I thought Wyld’s reply was fairly thoughtful, although I certainly disagree with his depiction of corporate media as “liberal”—extreme or otherwise.

BTW, how can a mainstream school of thought—liberalism or conservatism—be said to be “extreme”? But I digress.

Wyld, I think conservatives tend to forget how much play some of Obama’s mis-steps and problems received in the press. Was anyone unaware of his “Bitter” remarks? Did anyone not know about Rev. Wright?

Also, McCain had a pretty chummy relationship with reporters; however, it probably soured a bit after the GOP convention when speaker after speaker complained about the big, bad, evil “media” (as if it were monolithic). And his own erratic campaign probably didn’t help.

Can we at least agree that Obama’s campaign was very well-run, and that by comparison, McCain’s wasn’t? I mean, what was McCain doing between the time he clinched in early spring, and the time the Democrats had finally settled their primary wars? Anyone remember?

By Taxpayer

January 6, 2009 11:44 AM | Link to this

Fortunately, Jay, there’s a new sheriff in town come Jan. 20th and them no good Republican varmints can run but they can’t hide. The Dems are taking control of that preemption thing and they’re gonna be huntin’ down those Republican outlaws before they can do any more harm.

By NJ

January 6, 2009 11:46 AM | Link to this

Reagan received the ONLY negative accessment from the Comptroller General of the United States when he left office. And the Comptroller was a Reagan appointee, and a fiscal conservative.

It was the only time in the agencies 67 year history that it ever gave a president a scathingly negative report.

Historically since 1913, EVERY Republican admininstration has resulted in either an economic recession or a crash, because they change the nature of wealth creation from one that focuses on earning wealth through means of he hard work of setting up a business and running it well, to one of speculation in markets, which always ends up heating up sectors of the market, resulting in stock being over valued beyond any assets that can back up those stock prices.

When profit taking becomes cheap, business owners start taking money OUT of well run and profitable businesses, and start shoveling those profits into hot sectors of the market, heating them up even more, creating economic bubbles, which very rapidly burst.

This is the flaw of the Republican Party, which now rests on only two pillars. One is the “one size fits all tax cut” the other is social conservatism.

Any intelligent economist will tell you that tax cuts are only one economic tool and not a be all and end all. Even the conservative Jude Wanneski, one of the leaders of supply side economics, stated that there are times when tax INCREASES are totally appropriate.

By AJC/DNC Management

January 6, 2009 11:49 AM | Link to this

By mm January 6, 2009 10:48 AM Management thinks Reagan defeated the USSR. Sorry dude, they collapsed financially due to communism and socialism.

Works for me, mmoron, but you may want to check with the Politburo over at AJC/DNC, I believe you’ve committed blasphemy.

~~~~~

An attorney for Burris, Timothy W. Wright III, said that “our credentials were rejected by the secretary of the Senate. We were not allowed to be placed in the record books. We were not allowed to proceed to the floor for purposes of taking oath. All of which we think was improperly done and is against the law of this land. We will consider our options and we will certainly let you know what our decisions will be soon thereafter.”-Yahoo

Yeah, it’s almost as though the democrats care about laws, why can’t we stick with the “lynching” scenario?

I mean really, let’s not get boring all of a sudden.

By AJC/DNC Management

January 6, 2009 11:54 AM | Link to this

“She’s been working her entire career to be at this point — a speaker with a big enough majority that she can actually do something,” said Pelosi biographer Mark Sandalow, who tracked the California Democrat’s career for two decades as a columnist for the San Francisco Chronicle.-Politico

Blinky’s got a biographer?

This will be a rather thin book, no?

Or will it be filled with whining and blame about all her non accomplishments?

By Chad Harris

January 6, 2009 12:09 PM | Link to this

Interesting that the gutless dems in the Senate (and I’m plenty liberal) like Harry Reid could hustle up the Sgt. at Arms to block 71 year old Burris but when Harriet Miers and Carl Rove defied the subpoena served on them neither branch of Congress had the guts to invoke Inherent contempt against Bolten, Miers, or Rove and send the Sgt. at Arms to arrest them as clearly provided as an option by the law.

Reid lacked the guts for eight years to do anything about the flaunting of endless laws by the Bush administration as well.

Reid will blink or he will really make a fool of himself and the Obama transition team is now telling Reid to wrap this up.

By WayToGo

January 6, 2009 12:11 PM | Link to this

Spot on Curious Observer. The right is brain dead just waiting for the life support to be pulled.

By AmVet

January 6, 2009 12:28 PM | Link to this

I LOVE Ronnie!

If not for him and his repulsive proteges Eddie Meese, Donnie Scumsfeld and Dickiehead Cheney, the GOP would still be a relevant political party.

The Godfather of Fraud Conservatism and his BIG government confirmed what most people already knew — NEVER trust a Republican when their lips are moving…

By Midori

January 6, 2009 12:29 PM | Link to this

LOL - Now I have a twin?

Do you wingnuts ever tire of using the namejack card?

Christ - it’s 2009!!! When are you morons going to update your silly bag of tricks?

By Class of '98

January 6, 2009 12:30 PM | Link to this

How many times did the MSM compare Obama to JFK or FDR?

Sheesh, you liberals amaze me with your inability to acknowledge the speck in your own eye.

By Swami Dave

January 6, 2009 12:36 PM | Link to this

MM:

Management thinks Reagan defeated the USSR. Sorry dude, they collapsed financially due to communism and socialism.

Assuming your premise to be valid, why is it that so many seem excited to be running full-speed down the collectivist rathole to ruin by implementing more confiscatory schemes to increase taxation on our producers? It would seem from the historical evidence that the marxist philosophy of a nationalized / socialized economy is a fallacy that should have long since been relegated to the ash heap of history.

Jay’s contention about Republican attempts on the “wanna-go-back” machine is really laughable when one realizes that the soon-to-be inaugrated President appears to be attempting to reinstitute the Roosevelt/Johnson/Carter economic policies supporting out-of-control social spending and effective nationalization of industries. In Carter’s case, the consequences of liberal economic bafoonery drove us to the worst economic recession (before or after it) since the Great Depression.

What America needs is leadership that will actually reign and control the expansion of government (if not actually decrease it). The soon-to-be administration promising a return to tax-and-spend are going to be as bad for our nation as the unfortunate tendencies of the most recent one trying to operate via borrow-and-spend.

The solution is to quit spending and re-enact a national mentality based on opportunity, freedom, and responsiblity. The sooner entire groups of Americans quit waiting on government to confiscate what they want (but won’t earn for themselves) in exchange for their votes and start taking the initiative and responsiblity for their own lives and those of their families, the better off this nation will be.

This nation’s problems are not the locomotives who are driving our economy; they are the cars who expect to be pulled by someone else.

-Swami Dave

By Jake

January 6, 2009 12:48 PM | Link to this

Lots of Reagan the magnificent myths out there. All the soviets and most historians now agree the Soviet Union was collapsing from within, infighting, failed five year plans and droughts and crop failures, etc. Reagan helped push them over the brink a little faster with the weapons race, but he certainly didn’t single-handedly destroy the USSR, they were already doomed. The net effect of the tax changes he got through raised the effective rate on the bottom 40% of earners, mostly due to SS increases, but he gave huge tax breaks to the richest people while running record deficits (just like Bush). He destroyed Carter’s one good deed, the energy department, turning it into ‘Star Wars’ research. We still don’t have that laser satellite defense system, which almost everyone agreed wouldn’t work, but we certainly miss the progress that might have been made in energy. Huge deficits, S&L crisis and the market crash of ‘87 are partly due to his supply side economic policies. But worst of all to my knowledge he was the only POTUS that was a traitor. People bash Cindy Sheehan for wanting to bring the troops home but Reagan approved supplying arms to our stated enemy Iran and then lied about it under oath, and later was forced to change his story. He used the ‘can’t recall’ defense during the Iran Contra hearings and he was so popular that everyone just let it go and let him get away with treason.

By dilligaff

January 6, 2009 12:50 PM | Link to this

Swami Dave.. very well said.. thank you

By Reagan was Right

January 6, 2009 12:50 PM | Link to this

None of you could hold Reagan’s jock strap.

By Reagan was Right

January 6, 2009 12:51 PM | Link to this

None of you could hold Reagan’s jock strap.

By GOP is gone

January 6, 2009 12:52 PM | Link to this

An exorcism is definitely in order and is way past due. One would think that if a dead guy, who was archaic 20 years ago, is the best your party can do you might want to rethink the party line. I was never a fan of Reagan, the actor or the President. I thought the first Bush was better than Reagan, although that can not be said about the second Bush.

I am quite a fan of jelly beans though.

By Midori

January 6, 2009 12:54 PM | Link to this

I don’t know why I said that earlier statement describing myself. Must have been my other personality. I’m really a sweet, compassionate, never-namecalling, and compromising individual. Just read all the kind words in my blogs and judge for yourself.

By DB, Gwinnettian

January 6, 2009 12:54 PM | Link to this

“How many times did the MSM compare Obama to JFK or FDR?”

Dunno. How many times did they call McCain a “Maverick?”

By Chad Harris

January 6, 2009 12:57 PM | Link to this

One thing for sure all of the list below have an equal chance of winning federal office in your lifetimes.

Raegan Jindall Palin Romney The dead looking white men who couldn’t even beat McCain including Rudy 911 Jebbie the Bushie Bush (none of whose family even got close to serving in Iraq) but he did have an adict in his family who would have made a great customer for Palin’s possible mother-in-law no wedding yet headed to prison—the Oxy Contin queen. The bust was held up for the election of course.

By Midori

January 6, 2009 1:05 PM | Link to this

It appears my evil twin refuses to give up the ghost.

Maybe because he/she/it won’t let go of Reagan’s jock strap.

Ya think?

By mm

January 6, 2009 1:06 PM | Link to this

Swami,

You are still spouting the same old tired BS about socialism in America due to Dems. Bush has been the biggest socialist in the history of the POTUS. He’s been doling out our tax dollars to Iraq and defense contractors, and now to our banks and auto manufacturers. To the tune of several trillion dollars.

Reality King,

You are no where close to reality. The moronic Ann Coulter sells BS better than you.

By @@

January 6, 2009 1:28 PM | Link to this

And to this day, jay……….Reagan’s ghost still haunts organized labor.

Reagan was the perpetual optimist — a man who harbored an abiding faith in his country and her citizens. He fought to defend that faith as all presidents should.

When I saw the photos of Obama, with his hands folded in front during the national anthem, I was reminded of something I had read upon Reagan’s passing. At an anniversary dinner for The Heritage Foundation, a color guard presented the American Flag, he (Reagan) turned to someone and said:

“I was so moved by that it makes me want to clap. Too bad no one else is.” The someone suggested he take the initiative. He did — he stood and applauded his country’s flag and anthem. Within seconds 1,400 people were following his lead.

So what was Obama’s response when asked why he chose not to respond to the American Flag and our national anthem?

“Sometimes I wear a flag pin, sometimes I don’t,” Obama responded. “But I always have the flag in my heart and in my head, when I am running for president and when I am not running for president.”

Translation: He lacks the heart for an America that does not meet HIS expectations. But that same America has given him the opportunity to be where he is today.

Just a notable difference between a Reagan and an Obama.

By BobinBuford

January 6, 2009 1:49 PM | Link to this

@@:

In case you did not know, you don’t have to put your hand over your heart for the national anthem.

And as for the ididotic flag pin flap, how many times did John McCain appear in person without a flag lapel pin?? Or all the self-righteous GOP congressional members who made a big deal of it, but when asked why THEY were not wearing a pin, could not answer the question.

By Cindy

January 6, 2009 2:16 PM | Link to this

Raggan’s jock stap….ooh gross!

Why do the neocons say the Democratic Congress hasn’t accomplished anything? As soon as they were voted in, Rummy ran for the hills. As a result, “stay the course” warfare disappeared. I would say the Congress voted to office in 2006 has made great accomplishments including a change of course on the war in Iraq.

By Tom

January 6, 2009 2:18 PM | Link to this

Reagan was nothing ast all. Knew nothing, understood nothing. Had no concept of world or national events. He was a pleasant actor who could memorize scripts. He was truly the beginning of the END. he lowered the standards so badly that the doors were opened to the thoroughly inept, unintelligent Bushes. That is history.

By fed up

January 6, 2009 2:28 PM | Link to this

Sorry Jay but your article is worthless. This could describe the politicians/people on either side of the aisle.

By making

January 6, 2009 2:34 PM | Link to this

Reagan will always be know as the “greatest President in modern times” and the GOP need to get back to his views to rebuild the GOP party.

By Swami Dave

January 6, 2009 2:38 PM | Link to this

MM:

I would point out that -I- took issue with decisions and actions of the outgoing President in many of the same areas that I will take issue with the incoming one. Specifically, taxpayer dollars being transferred to companies and industries in much the same manner that they are funnelled down the economic drains that represent transfer payments to individuals.

Personally, I do not think that the government (read: taxpayers) should be confiscating and transfering my, your, or anyone else’s earnings and wealth providing transfer payments to individuals or entities who fail to take the the initiative, make the decisions, and achieve as I, you, or someone else does.

Mine is a consistent principle opposed to wasting our money financing the poor decisions and behaviors of others who presume some alleged right of ownership to what we earn; be their individual or organized interests.

Likewise, the actual point made (and still unanswered) was a question of why so many in America seem to support policies that further our economic journey toward collectivist philosophies (marxism, communism, socialism, etc.) that are historically proven as abject failures?

-Swami Dave

By bj

January 6, 2009 2:42 PM | Link to this

Damn Jay, I expected to read all about hour racist Harry Reid was for not allowing the black senator from Chi-town to be seated. Oh yeah, sorry, thats Cynthia’s beat. I guess she’ll get to it soon.

bj

By @@

January 6, 2009 2:43 PM | Link to this

B.B.:

The “flag pin” reference was in Obama’s quote. The wearing or lack thereof concerned me not. The American Flag and National Anthem represent sacrifice that should cause a person’s heart to swell with pride and gratitude.

The only thing that is swelled on Obama is his big head.

By fed up

January 6, 2009 2:50 PM | Link to this

The change of course in Iraq was coming regardless of the who was in congress, what else have they accomplished?????

By SaveOurRepublic

January 6, 2009 3:04 PM | Link to this

While he was a better POTUS than the Bushes, Carter, Nixon, Ford & “Slick Willie ClinTAX”, Reagan is overly lauded & lionized by the “mainline” (Neocon leaning) conservatives. Reagan’s true conservatism wavered into his Presidency.

Reagan had Neocon leanings (thanks to the influence of “NWO” Bush Sr.) and did indeed ink those big tax hikes & also signed off on mass amnesty for illegal invaders. IMHO, Pat Buchanan & Ron Paul are *much more (paleo)conservative than was Reagan as POTUS.

By Cindy

January 6, 2009 3:13 PM | Link to this

fed up, So you say (@2:50). I don’t believe it. I think the change in Secdef is a greater accomplishment by the Democratic Congress than the previous 6 years of congressional accomplishments.
Also, there have many other accomplishments. All of a sudden torture was not something America does, but before that, they not only engaged in it, they had an attorney general trying to legalize it. Odd, too, that the administration has established a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq. Basically, all asinine positions of the bush administration were reversed after the 2006 elelctions. Also, exposed were many of their lies, coverups and total disregard for the American public, thus the result of the 2008 elections.

I am sorry that these folks will never be held accountable for their criminal acts, but I am willing to let it go to heal the division they drove in this country.

Our PEotUS has a better chance to heal our country and reverse the bush damage than most others. I will support him in his attempts and move on. That is what “progression” is all about.

By Copyleft

January 6, 2009 3:18 PM | Link to this

You’re really reaching now, @@.

“Sometimes I wear a flag pin, sometimes I don’t,” Obama responded. “But I always have the flag in my heart and in my head, when I am running for president and when I am not running for president.”

ACTUAL translation for the conservative and other brain-impaired folks: “Patriotism is something you carry inside you, not something you wave around to impress people.”

By fed up

January 6, 2009 3:36 PM | Link to this

Sorry Cindy ….there are plenty of “lies, cover ups and total disregard for the American public” still going on in congress…they weren’t just in the bush administration. The ones in Congress won’t be held accountable either.

By gttim

January 6, 2009 3:52 PM | Link to this

“Reagen defeated the Soviet Union”

Sorry, all Reagan did was watch the caboose of that train as it roared off the tracks. The USSR spent themselves into oblivion, which is exactly what the GOP has the US doing. The USSR overspent on defense, as we are doing now. They ran up huge deficits, as we are doing now. The GOP has us following the exact same path the USSR followed.

I like the GOP living in the past. I hope they keep preaching their “God, guns, gays and racism.” The younger generations do not care about that crap. Church attendance has been falling for decades. Kids no longer grow up wanting a gun, now they want a game console. Most of the younger generation could care less about homosexuality or race. I have so much hope for our kids. The vast majority truly are growing up to be better people. The GOP’s base is dying out and not being replenished at anywhere near the same pace.

By CommunistAJC

January 6, 2009 4:00 PM | Link to this

Bookman, If Reagan is dead then why even bother to write a stupid hack article about him? Also, if Reagan is dead then why do people still speak so highly of him? Reagan is more of a man than Obama or you will ever be.

By All Hog Wash

January 6, 2009 4:10 PM | Link to this

At least the GOP had Reagan. The Donkey Party had what? — Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and other imbeciles of that ilk?

Add Abraham Lincoln to the GOP list and the donkeys can only bray loudly in protest.

Obama will never hold a candle to Reagan, or to any of his predecessors from the GOP.

Roosevelt? - The only good one was Teddy - A Republican

By Jake

January 6, 2009 4:18 PM | Link to this

Hog - Lincoln? Another horrible example of a terrible president that made a disastrous decision resulting in at least 600,000 casualties. Please show me where the Constitution states it is illegal for the states that voluntarily joined the US to secede? At least unlke Reagan and Bush, Lincoln got what he deserved.

By I Remember

January 6, 2009 4:47 PM | Link to this

I just read all of these posts and I can’t believe no one said anything about the illegal/immoral war that Reagan waged against Nicaragua, Oliver North, or the cocaine connections of his administration.

By Pogo

January 6, 2009 4:52 PM | Link to this

We all know that any conservative ideaology that is attractive to the masses, which Reagan’s was, is threatening to you libs’. So, attack away at the man and the people who agreed with him if it makes you feel better you dimestore “journalist”. Funny though, your boy Obama is adopting the same philosophy by inacting tax cuts to stimulate a dead economy. Why would he do that if Reagan was such a “loser”? Wait a couple of years, and we’ll see who was (and is) really “real” Jay. Also, could you do your minions (all 20 of them) a favor and give Chad Harris a job at the AJC? Seems he tries to write an entire article every time he posts and his long- winded dribble is somewhat suited for this dim fish wrapper. He has SO much to say with so few who want to hear it.

By Jake

January 6, 2009 5:05 PM | Link to this

I remember - The best part was the rat Gary Webb’s apparent suicide several years later by allegedly shooting himself in the head, TWICE! His blood was on Reagan’s and Bush I’s hands too.

By George

January 6, 2009 5:09 PM | Link to this

Ronald Reagan was the beginning of the end for the middle class and the American worker. A doddering old fool spewing cutsey newsbites when required. He has absolutely nothing to do w/ the “collapse” of the USSR. He just happened to be in office when the Ruskies went bankrupt; there was no plan to “outspend” them into bankruptcy. He represented the rich upper class whites of this country, no one else. His “trickle down” economics was nothing more than “we’re keeping it all for ourselves and if I drop any, the little people can fight over it” economic policy. Our current idiot in chief, George W, is only worse. Let the GOP continue to pine after the “good ‘ol days” of Alzheimer Ronny…their days are numbered, much like his were. After all, the white population in this country is getting smaller every year.

By fed up

January 6, 2009 5:51 PM | Link to this

Looks like George is joining Chad Harris in the dribble.

By sane jane

January 6, 2009 6:26 PM | Link to this

i have a crush on Copyleft.

By sane jane

January 6, 2009 6:53 PM | Link to this

Seems like Republicans prefer slogans (“Support our Troops!”), symbols (flag pins) and simple pretty faces who somehow “connect” with them.

Democrats are messy, conflicted and contradictory. They can be just as incompetent as the next guy. They definitely seem to be as susceptible to ethical failures as anybody else.

So would you rather lie to yourself, and have a clear understanding of purpose (even if it’s idiotic BS)? Or would you rather slog through the difficult questions & problems of the day, and die hopeless & cynical.

America, the choice is yours.

By Tex

January 6, 2009 8:11 PM | Link to this

I don’t know what Chad Harris was talking about, but George; he hit the nail squarely on the head.