HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Were the Repubs successfu...

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 05:42 PM

Were the Repubs successful in re-writing the history of Ronald Reagan?

In my opinion, they were. Most people born after 1980 have a very positive image of Ronald Reagan and consider him one of our greatest presidents. Factually and historically, he was one of our worst.

Is it any wonder that they are attempting to re-write the history of the Iraq War also? Will they be as successful with it as they were with the re-write of the Reagan history?

That is why I am very pleased that Rachel Maddow is doing her show tonight. There was no glory in the invasion of Iraq and there was no victory.

9 replies, 659 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 9 replies Author Time Post
Reply Were the Repubs successful in re-writing the history of Ronald Reagan? (Original post)
kentuck Feb 2013 OP
Angry Dragon Feb 2013 #1
uponit7771 Feb 2013 #2
quinnox Feb 2013 #3
BlueJazz Feb 2013 #4
LeftInTX Feb 2013 #5
Ikonoklast Feb 2013 #6
blm Feb 2013 #7
David Zephyr Feb 2013 #8
irisblue Feb 2013 #9

Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 05:50 PM

1. Raygun was better than bush junior

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 05:51 PM

2. Don't know, RayGuns dislike of black people make it kinda hard IMHO. Only dems would allow RayGun to

...be lionized unfettered

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 05:53 PM

3. Reagan is looked at as an American icon

 

and I think history has been kind to his legacy.

I don't think they will be successful in rewriting history about Iraq, in fact, I think the opposite will happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 06:00 PM

4. To myself and others, Reagan was more of a Con than an Icon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 06:07 PM

5. Reagan's nasty legacy was felt mostly after he left office

Harder for the media & public to connect the dots.

Whereas the Iraq War was kinda "in your face".

ETA: The financial meltdown occurred under Bush's watch, at the end of the 2nd term, leaving a nasty stain. Although there were problems under Reagan, he was for some reason reelected and then his VP was elected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 06:31 PM

6. No. Give it time.

Rotten crap starts to stink the longer it lies there.


Thhe passage of time will give a better perspective on just how bad a president Reagan truly was.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 07:28 PM

7. Thank Bill Clinton for that. Remember this: Hey Democrats, Truth Matters

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0511-29.htm

Published on Thursday, May 11, 2006 by Consortium News
Hey Democrats, Truth Matters!
by Robert Parry


My book, Secrecy & Privilege, opens with a scene in spring 1994 when a guest at a White House social event asks Bill Clinton why his administration didn’t pursue unresolved scandals from the Reagan-Bush era, such as the Iraqgate secret support for Saddam Hussein’s government and clandestine arms shipments to Iran.

Clinton responds to the questions from the guest, documentary filmmaker Stuart Sender, by saying, in effect, that those historical questions had to take a back seat to Clinton’s domestic agenda and his desire for greater bipartisanship with the Republicans.

. . .

Clinton’s relatively low regard for the value of truth and accountability is relevant again today because other centrist Democrats are urging their party to give George W. Bush’s administration a similar pass if the Democrats win one or both houses of Congress.

. . .

Yet, before Democrats endorse the DLC’s don’t-look-back advice, they might want to examine the consequences of Clinton’s decision in 1993-94 to help the Republicans sweep the Reagan-Bush scandals under the rug. Most of what Clinton hoped for – bipartisanship and support for his domestic policies – never materialized.

. . .

Clinton’s generosity to George H.W. Bush and the Republicans, of course, didn’t turn out as he had hoped. Instead of bipartisanship and reciprocity, he was confronted with eight years of unrelenting GOP hostility, attacks on both his programs and his personal reputation.

Later, as tensions grew in the Middle East, the American people and even U.S. policymakers were flying partially blind, denied anything close to the full truth about the history of clandestine relationships between the Reagan-Bush team and hostile nations in the Middle East.

Clinton’s failure to expose that real history also led indirectly to the restoration of Bush Family control of the White House in 2001. Despite George W. Bush’s inexperience as a national leader, he drew support from many Americans who remembered his father’s presidency fondly.

If the full story of George H.W. Bush’s role in secret deals with Iraq and Iran had ever been made public, the Bush Family’s reputation would have been damaged to such a degree that George W. Bush’s candidacy would not have been conceivable.

Not only did Clinton inadvertently clear the way for the Bush restoration, but the Right’s political ascendancy wiped away much of the Clinton legacy, including a balanced federal budget and progress on income inequality. A poorly informed American public also was easily misled on what to do about U.S. relations with Iraq and Iran.

In retrospect, Clinton’s tolerance of Reagan-Bush cover-ups was a lose-lose-lose – the public was denied information it needed to understand dangerous complexities in the Middle East, George W. Bush built his presidential ambitions on the nation’s fuzzy memories of his dad, and Republicans got to enact a conservative agenda.

Clinton’s approach also reflected a lack of appreciation for the importance of truth in a democratic Republic. If the American people are expected to do their part in making sure democracy works, they need to be given at least a chance of being an informed electorate.
. . .

(Parry allows DU unlimited use of his articles.)
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/051006.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 07:43 PM

8. Yes. Sadly, they were successful at it during his administration, too.

Re-writing American history to gloss over facts and fix blame on other now requires a 24/7 "news" channel. It's a full-time business.

But there's so much to re-write, isn't there?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Original post)

Mon Feb 18, 2013, 07:49 PM

9. he wasn't called teflon ronnie for nothing

His administration was/is an bad mark in our history

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread