Ronald Reagan - Conservative

I had forgotten the Cuba line until recently listening to the speech in its entirety.  The concept that the Cubans were the lucky ones because they had somewhere to run to - while we, if we screw it up here, have noplace to run is powerful.  

Because of my interest in the 2010 campaign of Florida Senator Marco Rubio, I became sensitive to Cuban and immigration issues.  He had a powerful story to tell of his family's departure from Cuba, Marco's birth in this country, and his working class family's struggle to provide his older brother, two sisters and himself with a better life.  

Mr Obama is a clever politician and a captivating speaker - as was President Clinton.  But the content of their character and their ideology and core beliefs are totally different from Mr Reagan.  When I listen to this speech, I am amazed how current his advice is and how we are still fighting the same battles almost fifty years later.  

I am not in the deification business, Mr Hess - try MSNBC.  I try to deal in facts. If you are looking to pick a fight, if you have read my posts - I try not to do that either.

On the occasion of Reagan's 100th birthday, I presented a televised speech from citizen Reagan in 1964 because it is a vintage Reagan performance - but more than that because it touches on many conservative themes - which seem to be very contemporary and the problems that concerned him then seem to be the same problems that concern us today.  But I somehow doubt that you listened to the speech.

As to your points, although none of them were the subject of my post, I think the economy at the time of Reagan's election was in many ways comparable to what Obama's administration was greeted with upon arrival.  I caution you that all appropriations bills under both Presidents must originate in the House of Representatives so blame for debt is a bit more complicated.  I believe that the Reagan economic policies have worked better than Mr Obama's, but, while I disagree with Mr Obama's agenda, I want to wait until 2012 before I judge his economic performance.  My recollection on the tax question is that Reagan overall reduced taxes.  I do not forget about Iran/Contra.  I criticized President Bush when I thought he was wrong.  I criticize President Obama when I think he is wrong.  And I criticized President Reagan when I thought he was wrong.  In Iran/Contra, it appeared to me that elements of the government forgot to follow the rules and that we are a nation of laws.  I do not condone those actions.  Whether the details originated with the President is less clear to me - but it is not our finest hour.  

When I examine the last hundred years, I find that all Presidential administrations of both parties and the Congress have exceeded the Constitutional or legal limits from time to time. Sometimes exigent circumstances have required a extraordinary response.  In other cases, administrations have forgotten who they work for.  In any case and, again, without reference to party loyalties, more transparency (what we in Florida call government in the sunshine) is a good thing.  

Thanks for stopping by. 

Guilty, guilty, guilty !  I stand by my statement (which is why the Republicans have had problems of late and why we have President Obama in the White House).  But your response makes more sense to me now.  Thanks, Karl, for the deserved sharp poke to the eye.

Reagan gets the headlines for the significant reduction of tax rates, but, you are correct that later elimination of shelters and "broadening" the tax base effectively raised taxes for many, eliminating some of the benefit of the rate reductions.  Trickle down economics never satisfied many at the "trickle" end of the pipe.  Reagan received and deserved high marks for the clarity of his core beliefs and his accomplishments in restoring pride in America, strengthening the military and opposing the actions of the Soviet Union.  But I agree he may have been fuzzier about some of the other details.  His greatest strength seemed to lie in his understanding of the medium of television and his remarkable ability to communicate his vision directly to the people, going around Congress when necessary.

You are not alone in your admiration of Barry Goldwater but that is an opportunity lost years ago.  I support many of the ideas of the TEA party, but cringe at the inflexibility of some of their views.  I am also inflexible on questions of the Constitution, illegal immigration and the Debt.  Spending cuts must come hard and fast and no additional spending plans can be accepted without first making significant cuts.  I admire Paul Ryan (R-WI) but even his plan may not cut deep enough.  I oppose a balanced budget amendment because it will, in my view, force increased taxes rather than forcing spending cuts.  The political risk is that the people who claim to favor spending cuts may not like cuts that impact "their" programs and they may return to the liberals who promise to take care of everything,  We face a tough election cycle in 2012.  And we will need to find a "great communicator" to be the candidate.

While I do not deal in deification, I found myself to be nostalgic for candidate Reagan last weekend.  As a constant Conservative and sometimes Republican I must look for my heroes where I can find them. 

I look forward to your views during the 2012 election cycle.

Thank you for kind words, Karl