One part of political debate I like is using images to make a point. Whether it is a chart or a quote image, these graphics hold on to the adage that a picture is worth a thousand words. They are also easy to share in social media. However one still needs to be careful one isn’t sharing inaccurate information. Don’t post or share any graphic unless you can confirm the accuracy of the information.
Read Full Post
A friend of mine posted a story of the “A Lost Thanksgiving Lesson” told by FOX “news” talking head John Stossel. He claims that because the colony tried to operate as a commune there was a famine and so to save the colony the Pilgrims ditched socialism. Like most Libertarian fantasies, Stossel’s story is 99.9999999% made up.
Every year around this time, schoolchildren are taught about that wonderful day when Pilgrims and Native Americans shared the fruits of the harvest. But the first Thanksgiving in 1623 almost didn’t happen.
Long before the failure of modern socialism, the earliest European settlers gave us a dramatic demonstration of the fatal flaws of collectivism. Unfortunately, few Americans today know it.
The Pilgrims at Plymouth Colony organized their farm economy along communal lines. The goal was to share the work and produce equally.
That’s why they nearly all starved.
When people can get the same return with less effort, most people make less effort. Plymouth settlers faked illness rather than working the common property. Some even stole, despite their Puritan convictions. Total production was too meager to support the population, and famine resulted. This went on for two years.
The real history tells a different tale:
Historians say that the settlers in Plymouth, and their supporters in England, did indeed agree to hold their property in common — William Bradford, the governor, referred to it in his writings as the “common course.” But the plan was in the interest of realizing a profit sooner, and was only intended for the short term; historians say the Pilgrims were more like shareholders in an early corporation than subjects of socialism.
“It was directed ultimately to private profit,” said Richard Pickering, a historian of early America and the deputy director of Plimoth Plantation, a museum devoted to keeping the Pilgrims’ story alive.
The arrangement did not produce famine. If it had, Bradford would not have declared the three days of sport and feasting in 1621 that became known as the first Thanksgiving. “The celebration would never have happened if the harvest was going to be less than enough to get them by,” Mr. Pickering said. “They would have saved it and rationed it to get by.”
The first Thanksgiving or harvest feast was held in 1621 not 1623. The Native Americans were invited because they helped support the colony with food and teaching them how to grow their crops in New England during their first year when half the colonists died.
So socialism did save the colony and the Libertarians/Tea Party/Conservatives are full of stuffing – and not the good kind.
Jon Husted is running for Ohio’s Secretary of State office. In the first TV commercial I’ve seen, he hits the usual conservative talking points even if he has to use strawmen to do it.
Husted is currently a State Senator for the 6th District.
Jon Husted campaign commercial
First of all Husted didn’t “stand up to liberal ACORN to prevent election fraud” since there was no proof or charges of fraud perpetrated by ACORN in Ohio in any election.
Rights are not given to us by God. They are written into the US Constitution.
I am still not sure what “immoral government debt” I need to be worried about or it will hurt my children.
It is obvious that Husted is not a fan of the separation of church and state – see the example about the prayer in the state house – but he also supported exemption for priests involved in pedophilia back in 2007 under Senate Bill 17.
This is just the beginning and it already seems Husted is wrong for the job.
I‘ve made no secret that I support a return of the old FCC rule called the “Fairness Doctrine” that was removed in 1987. I feel that the obscene conservative bias in talk radio is hurting the country more than the Fairness Doctrine would “hurt” people like Rush Limbaugh. Steve Almond had a good op-ed about it today in the Boston Globe.
Predictably, the abolishment of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 spurred a talk radio revolution. Why? Because talk radio’s business model is predicated on silencing all opposing viewpoints. If Rush Limbaugh and his ilk were forced to engage in a reasonable debate, rather than ad hominems, they would forfeit the moral surety – and the seductive rage – that is the central appeal of all demagogues.
Would talk radio’s bullies freak out? Absolutely. They know the Fairness Doctrine would spell the end to their ongoing cultural flim-flam. Besides, there’s nothing so intoxicating to a fraudulent moralist as the perfume of fraudulent martyrdom.
The real shock is that journalists haven’t supported the Fairness Doctrine. Then again, consider the state of “mainstream media” outlets. Increasingly, they dine on the same fears and ginned-up wrath as talk radio. Rather than wondering, “Does this story serve the public good?” they ask, “Will it get ratings?”
I agree. Real journalism should be asking “Does this story serve the public good?” and we might see that if talk radio were forced to have other voices on their shows as well.
The one thing about current political debate or any kind of debate is the need for “talking points”. These are buzzwords or short phrases that quickly make a point and say more than the number of words used. Usually the person or group who come up with the quickest talking points can frame the debate. It is kind of like a gun fight – the quickest draw wins. Some of my conservative friends have told me during the current health care reform debate that “Obamcare is socialized medicine” or “Medicare is clogged with waste and fraud”. I needed some place to go to rebut some of the classic “government is bad” arguments from the right and I think I found it.
Some years ago on an e-mail list I use to be on, a guy came on spouting Libertarian arguments hard and fast. Many times I didn’t have a quick way of refuting the classic arguments even though I knew he was wrong. Then I found the A Non-Libertarian FAQ which allowed me in some cases to cut and paste answers to his arguments like “Social Contract? I never signed no steenking social contract. ” etc….
With the right media bias currently, the political arguments today get framed by conservative talking heads with little to no counter arguments from people on the left side of the spectrum. Most times the host – like David Gregory of Meet the Press – just lets the conservative spew their talking points like it was a press conference rather than a political show.
I needed a place that had some good rebuttals I could use when I had my own debates with friends who like to parrot talk radio.
Government is Good is recent addition to my bookmarks as it offers a quick way to answer the arguments from the right about how bad government is. For example:
When the Republicans took over Congress in the mid-1990s, one of their first priorities was to “reform welfare” along these lines. In a landmark 1996 bill, welfare was declared to be no longer an entitlement, and strict time limits and work requirements were imposed on recipients – all designed to discourage people from staying on welfare and forcing them onto the job market. This legislation has come to be celebrated by conservatives as one of the most successful policies coming out of that period. They point out that between 1996 and 2003, the number of people on the welfare rolls dropped by over 60%.
This is pretty impressive. But unfortunately, the effect of this reduction of the welfare rolls on the poverty level was not what Republicans had predicted. If welfare was actually a major cause of persistent poverty, then we should have also seen a dramatic decrease in poverty as millions of people were forced off welfare and onto the job market. But this is precisely what did not happen. The poverty rate did not fall by 60% or 50%. Not even by 40% or 30%. Not by 20%, nor even by 10%. It fell by a measly 8% — from 13.7% to 12.5% from 1996 to 2003.
How can this be explained? It is simple. Conservatives were wrong about poverty being largely caused by government welfare programs. First, they ignored the fact that most poor people aren’t even on welfare – and that many of them work already. Second, as many scholars of poverty have pointed out, the major causes of poverty in this country are mostly in the economic system. Most people are poor for two reasons: (1) there is a chronic lack of jobs, and (2) many low-level jobs pay wages below the poverty level.
So if you are looking for some backup in your own debates with people who claim government is bad for us then check out the website.
Congress is in recess until September. At these times many go back to their districts and have town hall meetings with constituents to find out their views on issues the Congress member has been dealing with. It is one way to take the temperature of the electorate. During this recess and with health care reform on the table, conservative groups have been organizing so-called “grassroots” protests at the town hall meetings. They and their major insurance plan backers want to make it look like the “public” is opposed to reform and if the Congress person doesn’t agree then they shout them down and disrupt the meeting. These thug tactics by conservatives are un-American and give a false perception of major opposition to reform.
David Neiwert at Crooks and Liars wrote:
No one has a problem with right-wingers marching in protest of the health-care plans. That’s certainly their right. And no one minds that they choose to participate in these forums. But town halls were never designed to be vehicles for protest. They have always been about enabling real democratic discourse in a civil setting.
When someone’s entire purpose in coming out to a town-hall forum is to chant and shout and protest and disrupt, they aren’t just expressing their opinions — they are actively shutting down democracy.
And that, folks, is a classically fascist thing to do.
Are Republicans and their thugs killing off the Town Hall as a democratic forum?
But before you say “well liberals have done it before….”, Paul Krugman had this to say:
Some commentators have tried to play down the mob aspect of these scenes, likening the campaign against health reform to the campaign against Social Security privatization back in 2005. But there’s no comparison. I’ve gone through many news reports from 2005, and while anti-privatization activists were sometimes raucous and rude, I can’t find any examples of congressmen shouted down, congressmen hanged in effigy, congressmen surrounded and followed by taunting crowds.
And I can’t find any counterpart to the death threats at least one congressman has received.
The fact is that polls show majority support for Obama’s ideas on health care reform (starts with question 37) and the people who show up and disrupt the town hall meetings are the same people who can’t stand a Democrat is President, who has been encouraged by conservative groups and pundit douchebags, and many who are horrified that an African-American is President.
Rush Limbaugh got it wrong when he claimed the President and Democrats were using Nazi tactics in the reform debate, it seems the conservatives are doing the Nazi tactics. Back in the 1920′s Brownshirts would invade and disrupt meetings of other political parties in Germany. Even the Nazis learned that thuggery wouldn’t win them the election so they ended up reducing the influence of the Brownshirts and stopping the meeting disruptions.
When are conservatives going to learn the same lesson?
You would think that when a political debate involved adults, that there would be a civil debate about issues. If either side resorts to name calling then they have lost the debate. Conservatives know they have lost the debate on many current issues like the upcoming health care reform, so they resort to name calling and basic racist banter. Then when you call them on it they cry about “freedom of speech”. I agree they should be allowed to say what they want – even when it shows how much of an ass they really are.
A good example was a recent e-mail that was sent out with a picture of President Obama with a bone in his nose:
And then this morning someone forwarded me this email, which as far as I know is unrelated to the Malkin contest BUT follows a similar vein AND has been “making the rounds,” as the kids say, under the subject line Obamacare Healthcare is coming soon!
That’s right, folks! Barack Obama will tax your health benefits and then flee with the money to Africa, where he will convert all the tribespeople to Socialism and become their king after developing inhumanly muscular calves.
The Health Care Debate is Unleashing Creativity from Every Crevice of America
Then there was this:
“A typical street whore.” “A bunch of ghetto thugs.” “Ghetto street trash.” “Wonder when she will get her first abortion.”
These are a small selection of some of the racially-charged comments posted to the conservative ‘Free Republic’ blog Thursday, aimed at U.S. President Barack Obama’s 11-year-old daughter Malia after she was photographed wearing a T-shirt with a peace sign on the front.
The thread was accompanied by a photo of Michelle Obama speaking to Malia that featured the caption, “To entertain her daughter, Michelle Obama loves to make monkey sounds.”
Conservative Free Republic blog in free speech flap after racial slurs directed at Obama children
And that happened after Conservatives basically accused comedian David Letterman of being a pedophile for telling a bad joke about Sarah Palin’s daughter – never mind that the joke was about the 18 year old daughter and not the 14 year old daughter the Conservatives tried to pin it on.
But like I said when you have no real answers to the policy debate it is easier just to call people names. I mean it worked in school – right?
After hearing about another right winger loon killing people in the name of “Amerirka”, I decided to put together an all star list of right wing pundits who don’t care what they say, don’t take responsibility for their words, and just hate America and what it stands for. Feel free to print out my poster and post around your community to warn them of these chowder heads because they help victimize everyone.
I really wish these people would be victims of the economic melt down.
I have always had a beef with the conservative pundit class, the talking heads on the various cable channels and talk radio. The main one is they like to lie to their audience and play into any bias the audience member already has like hating women, foreigners, and liberals. They never seem to get that some people do get influenced by them and their rhetoric. They accuse the left of doing the same thing when they complain about liberal bias but feign outrage when told their toxic views can do the same to others. Words have meaning or else why say them? I don’t support domestic terrorism and I don’t think conservative talking heads should either.
On the June 1st edition of Countdown with Keith Olbermann, he pointed to the constant verbal attacks on Dr George Tiller, the doctor murdered on Sunday, by Fox News talking head Bill O’Reilly and how Mr. O’Reilly refuses to accept some of the blame for the egging on the person who pulled the trigger with his inflammatory speech.
Here is the segment:
Don’t get me wrong. I support free speech including views I disagree with but there is a line not to be crossed at least by reasonable people.
Not once during the 8 year nightmare that was the Bush administration did I hear any left side pundits suggest that Bush be taken out in some way other than through legal means like impeachment.
As exasperating as it was being led down the stupid road by the lead ignorant cuss that was our President at the time, no one wished ill will toward him beyond making fun of his speeches, mannerisms, etc….
What O’Reilly fails to do is acknowledge that Tiller’s murder was something illegal and stupid.
O’Reilly tried to blame the left and Randall Terry, of Operation Rescue, almost gleefully gloated about the murder:
Terry: The point that must be emphasized over, and over, and over again: pro-life leaders and the pro-life movement are not responsible for George Tiller’s death. George Tiller was a mass-murder and, horrifically, he reaped what he sowed.
Q: So who is responsible …
Terry: The man who shot him is responsible …
Q: … because that makes it sound like you were saying that he [Tiller] is responsible.
Terry: The man who shot him is responsible.
Q: What did you mean by “he reaped what he sowed”?
Terry: He was a mass-murder. He sowed death. And then he reaped death in a horrifying way.
The event came to an utterly bizarre ending when Terry said that Tiller’s murder “can be a teaching moment for what child-killing is really all about” … and then seemed to ask those in attendance if they’d be willing to buy him lunch – he likes Guinness and chicken wings
Terry Declares That Tiller “Reaped What He Sowed,” Then Asks If Someone Will Buy Him Lunch
Conservatives like that almost never accept responsibility for their words or actions even when they demand others do the same.
That’s why I refuse to listen or watch their shows at all and ask my friends to do the same. I don’t support domestic terrorism and I don’t think conservative talking heads should either.
There is this “movement” going around by rich white guys who hate change and drawing on their peons of bigots, religious zealots, and freaky militia types to protest “high taxes” and “run away” spending by the current administration of President Obama. They will be holding tea parties across the country and asking people to “tea bag” Congress – by sending them a tea bag – to harken back to the Boston Tea Party during the American Revolution. Besides being a silly protest, not to mention the funny of using “tea bagging”, it shows how inept the conservatives are and how they can’t even come up with any new ideas.
Fox News – you know the guys who are looking out for the common man – is hyping the tax protests to take place on April 15th.
Today, in our time, we need to make a similar point in the face of arrogant power. And you can, too, on April 15, when millions of Americans will gather in peaceful protest across the country, protesting against the evils of over-taxation and its wicked handmaidens, over-spending and over-regulation.
If you visit the Web site of Tax Day Tea Party, you will find plenty of information on how and where to get connected to a tea party–or how to start your own tea party.
Plenty of big names will be involved, ranging across the country. Glenn Beck will be in Texas and Newt Gingrich will be in New York City. Sean Hannity will be in Atlanta. Neal Cavuto will be in Sacramento. And many, many more–FOX News and FOX Nation folks will be providing full coverage.
Tea Parties: A Great Part of American History–And America’s Future
Of course it is a silly protest.
It is protesting the rise in taxes of those who make more than $250,000 a year. Under Obama’s plan, that segment is the only one who will see their taxes go up. But don’t let the facts get in the way of the thick heads at Fox and their peon fans.
They still think it is cool to claim that there are high taxes or run away spending but I wonder where they were when Bush demolished a budget surplus he got in 2001 and ran up a huge deficit.
Also the people at Fox and their fans still haven’t offered any evidence that “we” pay too much in taxes or that spending is running away. They just don’t like Obama and his plan. It is a simple protest against a Democrat.
What does this say about conservatives when they lose at the ballot box and they talk about “revolution”, “tea parties”, “taking the country back”, “gun ban”, and on and on and on – instead of figuring out why their message failed to gain them votes in 2008. It is a bit childish to me.
No one has proven that taxes are too high, have never offered any comparison, or why anyone should care.
I also like how people’s brains turn off when they think “tax cuts” will solve the economic crisis we are in when they didn’t help in the first place and may have actually led to the crisis in the first place.
They need to grow up and take some ownership of the problem and work on REAL solutions and stop crying in their pillows.
These “protesters” also have a problem with talking about tea bags:
There is a new documentary by Alexandra Pelosi that is to be shown on HBO starting Monday 2/16 about the conservative reaction the 2008 US elections.(check your time and channel in your area).
Here is the blurb from HBO:
On the day Barack Obama was elected the 44th President, more than 58 million voters cast their ballots for John McCain. In the months leading up to this historic election, filmmaker Alexandra Pelosi (HBO’s Emmy®-winning “Journeys with George”) took a road trip to meet some of the conservative Americans who waited in line for hours to support the GOP ticket, and saw their hopes and dreams evaporate in the wake of that Democratic victory. These voters share their feelings about the changing America in which they live. Premieres Monday, February 16 at 8pm (ET/PT) on HBO2.
I did a post about on my Secular Left blog that includes an interview the filmmaker did on the Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC on Friday night.
Alexandra Pelosi holds mirror up to US conservatives in new film
Friday night I was surfing the web and I checked out the site of WFIN 1330 AM located in my hometown of Findlay. I was checking out any new news since The Courier had published that day.
Along the right side of the screen was a large graphic with a link to a Courier editorial about “Talk Radio”.
Of course I clicked it.
I normally ignore Courier editorials because it is simply the paper’s view of some issue and I usually don’t care what their view is. This time I was compelled to respond. The editorial, published on 6/29, started:
For years it’s been driving the political left crazy that talk radio is dominated almost completely by conservatives.Now, with the 2008 election cycle already under way, Congressional Democrats are doing some talking of their own. Armed with a report released June 20 by the Center for American Progress (CAP), a liberal think tank run by former Clinton chief of staff John Podesta, they want to bring back the Fairness Doctrine.
This the 2nd Courier editorial where the use of certain buzz words concerned me. Mainly because The Courier has never tried to echo the Talk Radio shows its parent Findlay Publishing broadcasts on stations like WFIN.
It then continues:
Liberals have been trying for years to break into the talk show market, but most of their attempts have failed while conservative shows continue to thrive. Now, thanks to the CAP report, we know the reason: “Our conclusion is that the gap between conservative and progressive talk radio is the result of multiple structural problems in the U.S. regulatory system …” It then lists the requirements of the Fairness Doctrine.
In other words, the free market has nothing to do with it. The problem is that the government no longer forces radio stations to give equal time to “progressive” views.
The CAP report referred to in the editorial doesn’t support the use of the Fairness Doctrine and the report also offers evidence that an argument from “the free market” is also suspect.
The CAP report is quite clear why there is a lack of Progressive voices on Talk Radio:
Our view is that the imbalance in talk radio programming today is the result of multiple structural problems in the U.S.
regulatory system, particularly the complete breakdown of the public trustee concept of broadcast regulation resulting
from pro-forma licensing policies, longer license terms (to eight years from three years previously), the elimination of clear public interest requirements such as local public affairs programming, and the relaxation of ownership rules, including the requirement of local participation in management.The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio June 22, 2007 Center for American Progress
The report makes the point that the Fairness Doctrine still is on the books at the FCC, it is just not enforced and that by itself, is not an effective means of restoring balance on the public airwaves.
Simply reinstating the Fairness Doctrine will do little to address the gap between conservative and progressive talk unless the underlying elements of the public trustee doctrine are enforced, in particular, the requirements of local accountability and the reasonable airing of important matters. The key principle here is not shutting down one perspective or another—it is making sure that communities are informed about a range of local and national public affairs.
And as to the argument about letting the free market decide, CAP offers a couple of examples that put the lie to that view:
More importantly, even in markets where progressive talk is considered a success by the industry standards of ratings and revenue, licensees will often broadcast conservative talk on three or four stations compared to one station for progressive talk. For example, in Portland, OR, where progressive talk on KPOJ AM 620 competes effectively with conservative talk on KEX AM 1190, station owners also broadcast conservative talk on KXL AM 750 and KPAM AM 860. Although there is a clear demand and proven success of progressive talk in this market, station owners still elect to stack the airwaves with one-sided broadcasting… In Ohio, for example, there are 10 radio markets. In eight of those markets, there is not a single hour of progressive talk. In the two markets that do broadcast a total of six hours of progressive talk (Al Sharpton on two urban talk stations), those hours compete against 52 hours of conservative talk. Clear Channel Communications, the ownership group that has committed the largest number of stations to the progressive format, recently canceled the only three progressive talk stations in the state of Ohio.
When 91 percent of the talk radio programming broadcast each weekday is solely conservative—despite a diversity of opinions among radio audiences and the proven success of progressive shows—the market solution has clearly failed to meet audience demand. Even greater deregulation and consolidation of radio station ownership is therefore not likely to meet audience desires or serve the public interest in any meaningful way.
The point was proven in one of the markets that had a progressive radio station. Here in Columbus, Clear Channel changed a station from Air America to all conservative. The company claimed ratings made them change, however the first ratings book after the change showed the station dead last out of 27 stations measured.
The main point in the CAP report and why I support a return to the enforcement of the Fairness Doctrine is to return to the public trustee concept of broadcast regulation. There needs to be a renewal of the idea that the air waves these stations use are “owned” by the people and so they need to serve the local interest and they need to offer all sides to a debate.
The trademark of our democracy is that we believe government should protect the minority from the whims of the majority and again since the frequencies a radio station uses is owned by the public (ie. the government) then it ought to reflect that idea. For a vibrant democracy to flourish there needs to be a collection of views available.
For every Rush Limbaugh a station broadcasts, there should be a show hosted by a local person allowing for local responses (like a call in line) and if that isn’t available then the station should offer a host like Randi Rhodes or both.
This post hasn’t really concerned itself with content too much. I do believe that all points of view should be available – even if I don’t like some of them but the truth needs to be told.
I highly doubt a majority of the public likes what passes for Talk Radio today. Most people listen like how most people slow down to view a traffic accident.
Talk Radio isn’t journalism. It’s just one long editorial and in a majority of cases rebuttals are not even considered and if they are the person presenting the “other side” is either a watered down version of it or they are simply shouted down. The so-called host can say whatever they want, no matter how wrong in fact they are, and no matter who they insult or hurt.
It just happens that most conservative hosts, including the Top 5, do this on a daily basis. It can be entertaining in a sick sort of way but it contributes nothing to democracy or to the public fabric.
I discovered that this site was mentioned on the listener forum for conservative radio host Glenn Beck. So I checked it out.
To answer some of the questions posed by the readers there:
1. No, I don’t listen to Glenn Beck. I like thinking for myself and I don’t need to hear people parrot my views back to me. In fact I don’t listen to talk radio in general. I find 99% of it unbalanced in views and topics presented. I did once use to watch Rush Limbaugh on TV during his brief stint on TV (before the drugs). But mostly such people just make me angry and there is more to life than being angry all the time. Since I know shows like Beck’s will make me angry – and I will never be able to respond – I choose to not listen to them. Mainstream media does a great job of reporting what those hosts say so I know when Glenn is mad and what he is mad about – at least I don’t have to hear him talk about it.
2. I am not a “flaming” liberal. I do move left on social issues – like privacy and church and State separation – but you’d be surprised that I support capitalism as it is intended. I don’t support what passes for business ethics today but I want to see people be able to make money off their own labor – both business owners and workers. I also supported the Welfare Reform Act in 1996 even though it didn’t provide job training. A change was needed and that might shock some since a couple of times growing up our family was on welfare.
3. I didn’t finish college. That is true. I also think I am intelligent. Having a college degree doesn’t make one intelligent. I also have common sense and I use Carl Sagan’s Baloney Detector quite often. I left Ohio State with Senior status and 54 credits short of degree. I left for a couple of reasons – Ronald Reagan’s need to force me to take out massive student loans instead of increasing Pell Grants. I was also just tired and bored having entered college right from high school.
4. As for being an ass or looking down on those who don’t vote “liberal”, how one votes is up to them. What bothers me is some ignore the facts and only vote for superficial reasons like knowing the name of the person or just because they are from one particular party. Uninformed voters bother me. I am sorry if some think I come off as an ass. I have things to say and I want to be as truthful as possible – sometimes people don’t want to hear the truth. That isn’t my problem.
If you have any more questions feel free to ask and thanks for visiting.
President Ronald Reagan died on June 5th at the age 93. It is never a good thing when someone dies.
The worst thing about being human is we have a life cycle. We are born, we live, then we die. The second worst thing about being human is we don’t know how our lives will turn out or how or when we will die. That lack of knowledge and control strikes fear in all of us. Although we know we have a finite life cycle we really don’t want it to come to an end. Even most Christians who claim their actions are so they will get to heaven in an “afterlife” aren’t all that anxious to get there.
Reagan found out he had Alzheimer’s disease about 10 years ago. The end of his life came in a fog to him where he didn’t remember his loved ones or the events of his life. It was if he was a lost person wondering around. Not much of a life to live for him or his loved ones who were shut out.
All of the media and political leaders have been saying many kind things about Reagan. It is traditional to say kind words about someone who has just died even if they are enemies.
As President, Reagan was a dyed blue conservative. When he was elected in 1980, he got the conservative movement on to the “A” list and that begat the lack of compassion and the “we’ve got ours so screw you” form of politics that we have had to put up with for 24 years. Talk radio, the loss of Union influence, NAFTA, and the continued efforts to mix religion and politics all started with Reagan.
In all the gushing words heard this weekend, some facts about Reagan were not expressed. In the early 1950′s as President of the Screen Actors Guild, he was an informant to the House Un-American Committee, naming names of suspected Communists in Hollywood; as Governor of California, sent the National Guard to UC Berkeley to quell student riots and said “If they want a blood bath I’ll give them a blood bath”; traded weapons for Hostages; began the fantasy StarWars defense system; made ketchup a vegetable for school lunch programs; got very cozy with the Moral Majority and started the so-called “culture war”; and wrongly took credit for having “won” the Cold War.
Biographer Lou Cannon also said that by the time Reagan ascended to the presidency, “his mind was filled with movie scenes more vivid to him than many actual events.” Reagan judged stories to be told “by their impact rather than their accuracy.”
At best he was a cheerleader and host rather than a leader.
By the end of the 2nd term you could tell he was not all there.