It's a little late to put this in and I had reservations about it as it is anecdotal. One of my best friends went to Hollywood Hi. He's jewish and his father and uncle (Wiess Brothers) where in the film business in N.Y. before following the trend of many of the N.Y. film people and moved to L.A.
His father Adrian Wiess, like many other film people during WW11 was drafted into the film production unit in Hollywood. He states this to be absolutely the truth. That is during a card game with Ronald Reagan, William Holden, himself and some others present, that RR was caught cheating and just about decked by William Holden. This was only abated by RR giving back his ill begotten winnings.
My friend says this did not discourage his father (years later) from voting for RR. Why? Because he owned several old RR films and new they would sell well if he became president. Thus he aped the same short term mentality of RR and the Republicans and the idea that money and profits trumps every other consideration no matter how noble or moral.

I would go one further than badminton. Since Reagan dummed-down America, the great American masses of asses elected George W. Bush to office twice. If Georgie boy was allowed to run again, those same masses of asses would do it all over. Some mental incompetents just never get enough.

TGrinnalds,
I agree,
I would add Solidarity

guymacher: "History will show that Ronald Reagan was the greatest president of the 20th century and you liberals will be on the wrong side of things again, I mean, still."

This statement will be made correct only if Repubs finish the job of erasing the history 20th Century from the minds of the American public: "FDR? Think I've seen the sequel..." "JFK? Is it like KFC? I'll have fries with that..."

As for the USSR: the average Russian remembers it's existance as the halcyon days compared to the following oligarch imposed hell enabled by western corporate intrests.

I am more than a little tired of hearing how Ronald Reagan brought down the Soviet Union by bankrupting them with Starwars. The whole idea is laughable. The collapse of the Soviet Union was a culmination of decades of Soviet economic disaster through unworkable government policies, combined with greater and greater public unrest at the comparison of their poverty and restricted lives compared with the riches and freedoms of the west. Reagan just happened to be in power when it all fell apart. That is the extent of his contribution. No more, no less.

It wasn't Reagan that started missile defence research...that started way back in 1944 and continued through until the mid 1970s.

'Star Wars' just rehashed old debates.

I am always stunned when people have no clue about this!

ps. you're right by the way, it doesn't work and never will...

When Reagan was re-elected in 1984 my mother gave up on American politics. She said if the people were stupid enough to vote for Reagan twice there was no hope. I will never forget Reagan calling old folks on medicare, "a faceless mass waiting for handouts". I will always despise Reagan because he did all he could to worsen the lives of the poor, who were helpless to protect themselves.

Under W and Reagan welfare for the wealthy increased... Rich folk welfare... that's a great concept...

It's so wrong to have government programs that help out poor and disabled people.

It's so wrong to help the mentally ill... It's so wrong to help eliminate poverty...

But welfare for rich folk... That's okay to do.

The right wingers got here late, but early or late their mindless invective is always the same. The most risible of their many conceits is the idea that Reagan was responsible for the break-up of the Soviet Union. (Oh, I forgot, one of them thinks that Reagan began it!) I guess all those failed seven year plans, when I was a boy were really successes, until Ronnie turned things around. But then, if these folks knew history, they wouldn't be conservatives, would they?
As for Reagan, he was clinically demented during his entire second term; but Alzheimers is a slowly progressive disease. Reagan was mentally impaired before he took office and morally bankrupt for even longer.
A second term for Carter? Lets's see: no huge Reagan instituted national debt, sane energy policy, healthy unions and middle class, ... Gosh, what a tragedy that would have been!

"So the "me" generations is a false concept unless you are a wealthy elite under W's or Reagan's presidency."

???????????????????????????????? Really?

"How about adding these names: James Chaney, a 21-year-old black man from Mississippi, Andrew Goodman, a 20-year-old Jewish student from New York and Michael Schwerner, a 24-year-old Jewish social worker also from New York. These three civil rights activists were murdered in 1964 "

?????????????????????????????? Yes, but ???????????????

I really like when people write that they used to be a democrat until they got "smart" then they became a Republican. Getting "smart" basically means getting more selfish. Does getting "smart" also mean that you actually stop thinking and let the Republicans think for you?

Enough of the "me" generation talk. Whenever people start to organize and work together for progressive change the "right" always starts to label that era as the "me" generation. They do this to discredit the groups of people that organized and worked for change. So the "me" generations is a false concept unless you are a wealthy elite under W's or Reagan's presidency.

A lot of name calling going on. How about adding these names: James Chaney, a 21-year-old black man from Mississippi, Andrew Goodman, a 20-year-old Jewish student from New York and Michael Schwerner, a 24-year-old Jewish social worker also from New York. These three civil rights activists were murdered in 1964 in Philadelphia, Mississippi, the same location for Ronald Reagan's first major campaign speech in 1980, where he underscored the importance of "states' rights." Reagan set a standard for exploiting white anger, as evidenced by some of the writings here.

Oh yes, and President George H.W. Bush initially referred to supply side economics as being "voodoo" economics. Too bad the American electorate didn't read his lips on that one. Without question Bush I is the best Republican to hold office since Eisenhower, who warned us about the military-industrial complex we've got today.

"The "me" generation is about consumerism. The Hippies had a social conscience."
ouising,

There are various forms of social conscience.
-To talk about the poor with a voice distorted by sincerity
"the poor" and drop to some "the poor" one's dirty underwear (to feel good, and to safe time/money on laundry) is a traditional form of American social conscience

-To believe that all humans have rights to health care, food, shelter, work etc. is not very American.

It's my understanding that many hippies remained conveniently traditional in this area.

Dear republicans,

I had a simple question to you. Is it really that hard to outline all the benefits that you receive from the years of republican government? As you said; you are winning all the time ... so it shoulnt be a big deal to tell us how much your life improved because of years and years of 'conservative' ruling.

Or is it that you are not able to ... if you really think about it?

Guy Maker -
In Guatemala ther are huge murals of blood and gore with Reagan presiding as the monster that he was. They don't just theorize, they KNOW. Aw, go worship your idol.

The "me" generation is about consumerism. The Hippies had a social conscience.

It's almost optimistic to think that in 100 years we'll be remembering these Republican prez's as dismantling the Republic. By then, will there even be one? What will history remember? What in God's name will be left?

I didn't read every opinion printed here but it seems you liberals really have a homogeneous opinion of President Reagan.

Mr Reagan was a Democrat for years before he got smart. So, there's hope for some of you, though it's hard to see any intelligence in your rants. He fought the unionists (read gangsters)in Hollywood even after receiving death threats. He was a brave man. Mr Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, and Pope John-Paul II were responsible for the destruction of the USSR. I know that many of you lament the death of that communist haven, but I notice not many of you tried to sneak into the USSR, except Lee Harvey Oswald. Of course, you can go to Cuba, or Venezuela, or China, or straight to Hell(and avoid the middle men)if you must have some dictatorship in your lives. But, come on, even you dumbed-down, me,me,me Democrats must agree, the world's a nicer place without the USSR.

And about the no class comment about John Lennon; it is entirely likely that Mr Reagan did not hear the question. As kinder, gentler liberals, I am sure you didn't intend to mock a hearing-challenged person. Just say you're sorry and we'll forget you jumped to an unreasonable conclusion, again.

History will show that Ronald Reagan was the greatest president of the 20th century and you liberals will be on the wrong side of things again, I mean, still.

Rancid Ronald Reagan Could (And Should) Have Been Impeached

Cherie Miner is absolutely correct. All these Republican Wannabees should be careful what they wish for: Ronald Reagan almost got impeached for his High Crimes against the Constitution and his constant lying, cheating and conniving.

It is important to remember that Ronald Reagan secretly and illegally cut dirty deals with terrorists in the Middle East, in violation of the will of Congress, and then went on TV to lie to the American People about it.

Reagan also sponsored right-wing Death Squads and nun-rapers in El Salvador, then, in what has to rank as one of the most outrageous statements ever made by a U.S. President, compared these murderers, rapists and terrorists to America's Founding Fathers.

Reagan constantly enjoyed dining with dictators, like Ferdinand Marcos, from the Phillipines, as human blood dripped from their fingers, while hypocritically preaching the wonders of democracy. (And Reagan made sure to provide a safe haven in Hawaii for the tyrant and his wife after their overthrow, to protect them from the law and the Phillipino People.)

Reagan waged a non-stop class war against working- and middle-class Americans, while coddling the rich, and showering them with tax breaks and welfare, simultaneously demonizing the urban poor, single women and other politically weak groups. These are the acts of a true coward, and an extremely cold-hearted man.

Reagan also wrecked our economy with his ridiculous Herbert Hoover-era economic policies that caused America to go from the top creditor nation in the world, to the world's number one debtor nation, all within his eight year Reign Of Error.

As if all that weren't enough, Reagan destroyed countless consumer protection laws, environmental protections, labor safety provisions, and other plans designed to help the American People--and did so at the behest of his right-wing, Big Business sponsors.

Of course, this isn't surprising, coming from Ronald Reagan, a man who got his start in politics as a red-baiting rat in Hollywood, testifying before anti-Communist witch hunter committees about Reds in the movies.

That the Corporate Press printed nothing but glowing accounts of Reagan's crime-ridden Presidency, while a spineless Democratic Congress did nothing to stop his death and destruction, is irrelevent.

The facts speak for themselves. And if Republicans want to run on that record, then let them. All Democrats have to do is remind voters of the Real Reagan, and they will quickly realize that voting a Republican into the White House would be the political equivalent of another Hurricane Katrina.

Some how I got sidetracked by the minor discussion of the hippy movement. My actual intent was to state a much simpler point about a similarity between Reagan and Bush and that is that they both started their presidencies with a modest following (enough to get them elected or near elected) but with considerable detractors. There popularity spiked early on with the sudden tragic events that unfolded: In Reagan's case it was his wounding in the assassination attempt and of course for Bush it was 911. These incidence burned their way into the American psyche and provided them with a strong foundation to sell their dysfunctional ideological world views on.

Hey pattikat, I was in California when he was governor starting on his career of trashing the local economies and social programs. He said plenty of thoughtless things as governor, but when he became president, I realized something was wrong with him (didn't guess it was alzheimer's though). When he finally got hauled up before the house committee investigating the Iran-contra scandal, I actually felt sorry for him. He clearly didn't understand what was going on and was confused about why he was even there. I can't say being president was stressful for him because he obviously treated it as another part to play. He slept through cabinet meetings, was unfazed that his cabinet members constantly played musical chairs (even joked about it), authorized illegal operations without a clue of what he was signing, smiled for the camera while reading horrific news off the teleprompter, and told Americans what they wanted to hear while his administration picked their pockets. What is it with these Americans? They'd rather believe their ears than their eyes.

I've lived through 11 different presidents but somehow hung around my college campus long enough to be involved in the late 60's hippie movement. It was a wonderful ride with every new day being and experiment in becoming. Naturally I did the psychedelic drug thing; I was mature, could handle it and learned from it. I/we got into nature, natural health and vegetarianism, yoga, eastern spiritual discovery, environmental concerns and humane politics, etc. Most of these things are still with me today.
Why were (and still are) so many people so upset with the "hippies?" Well that was the whole point .... to challenge the establishment, to stand it on it's head, to get society to look in the mirror - a first step in self realization. I guess it was the sex, drugs, dress, and rock & roll thing. Many critics never looked deeper, which was a superficial assessment of a much deeper and profound movement. I would liken this to the fact that some religious fundamentalists can never get beyond the sex thing. There so obsessed with it that they never evolve to the next level. Their constantly cleaning the cup, so much so that the cup never gets filled. I fact they don't even know what the cup is for.
The neocons and other radical right types (think young republicans karl Rove types) never could let go of their repugnance to the hippy movement. The hippies became their scapegoat for most of the ills of society, with everything from the loss of the Viet Nam war to welfare queens.
The important thing to remember that this was a world wide generational phenomenon. The chinese cultural revolution was simultaneously happening with it's own attack on the 'establishment' (often in a more radical and severe manor then the U.S. version) and it had nothing to do with sex, drugs, or rock and roll.

"Just wish someone could explain how a presidency that was a sham, built on lies and deceit could now be remembered as the perfect man and time. I just don't get it."

This is easy. Propaganda.

I remember the Reagan era, I was working in social services at the time and saw the damage it did to the individuals up close and personal. I was living in Oregon at the time and was proud of the help I was able to give to the people I worked with and saw the destruction left behind for families, disabled children, mentally crippled people kicked into the streets, literately , just wandering around with no place to go, no ability to get a job, nothing.
At the time I felt so angry, hurt and hopeless for these people, it was horrible what happen to them, but somewhere around that time he started becoming confused, spacey, and a couple of years later announced he had Alzheimer's. It was at this time I realized just what "puppets" our presidents really are.
Now, years later it comes back again when I hear all this talk about wanting to be just like Reagan, what a wonderful time it was, what a great president he was and how great the times where.
My Mother has Alzheimer's now, and I know how confused and dazed she's been for years leading up to her needing to be in the nursing home. How she would agree with any thing anyone said to make it sound like she knew what was being talked about and claimed she couldn't hear when she couldn't follow at all. She can't even remember who she's seen or is talking to on the phone as she's talking, but can still make you think she does.
This is where I have to wonder who was really in control during Reagan's " wonderful years". I believe his experience in acting kept him appearing and talking, but who was really controlling the nation and administration. I use to watch this man on a show when I was little, he's stand and introduce Borax I believe and it was the same thing watching him those last few years of his presidency. Who's script what he reading?
Maybe living where I did at the time, seeing the social programs cut, rehabs closed, people who'd lived in mental hospitals all their life's being sent to the streets without the ability to even write their own names, disabled children sent home because there was no money for schools and transportation, on and on, maybe this is why I don't see Reagan as a role model, but then again I was one of the poor people so didn't matter.
Just wish someone could explain how a presidency that was a sham, built on lies and deceit could now be remembered as the perfect man and time. I just don't get it.

Stop your whining, you liberal jerks....

Yeah, like republicans don't complain about Clinton, FDR, Hilary, Gore, Kennedy, Murtha.....

Hypocrite, thy name is Republican.

Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny-------children's fantasies, taught to them by the adults. So who taught the adults the "Great" Reagan Legacy fantasy.

Comanche

That A-hole did remove the solar panels as soon as he moved into the Whitehouse. Set back the industry big time. Imagine where whe could have been by now. Discusting, but I don't bleme Reagan, he is what he is, I blame the fools who elected him.

Odd, I always find it odd when envy is used to demean someone. Odd, I always find it odd that revisionist history is used to demean someone.

I am not a republican nor a democrat. I try to be an informed voter. I voted for our states democrat governor.
Now back to Reagan.

Cut taxes , resulting in record revenue to fed.
congress spendt $1.25 for each additional $1.00 recieved. Remember Tip O'neil.
Started down fall of communism.

The writer of this article is not doubt a democrat who puts party before country and who believes the sale of U.S technology to China that catapulted their nuclear program forward by decades was a good thing. She most likey believes the republican congress during the fiscally prudent years had nothing to do with the deficit reduction.
All in all I would write this editorial should have been kept in a safe place . ( a gargage can)

Liberals always talk about being open to new ideas that is as long as they agree.

A Rathskeller is a student cafeteria (mensa). Often in a basement. Hardly eating out!
Where does Ms. Miner mention that she had a car as a student?

I was struck that Cherie Miner was able to afford eating breakfast out every day while at college even though she was born into the lower middle class. I must have been poor when I was in school since I couldn't afford that luxury. Then again I didn't take out any student loans because I managed to pay without them - maybe because I didn't have a car or eat out daily.

Presidents and presidential contenders who think "wordly"
lack the essential ingredients to be competent at the job. Every Republican contender, with the exception of Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo, showed a war mongering mentaility or was sympathetic to it. Shallow in understanding the position of president.

Ron Paul for president. He is a statesman dedicated to governing America.

Good to hear from some Republican lackeys so we can see what motivates these fools. The macho SUV-driving Idol-watching American voter is too stupid to see that Republican policies are killing him and his children, and destroying his country. They can't tell style from substance or intellect from idiocy. This is why we all get the government THEY deserve.

Reagan republicans are those spoiled brats that can't fight for themselves so they "act" tough. They're not tough. They never worked a hard day in their lives. They just exploit others.

Reagan was a lackey and he was the one that armed Iraq. But that makes sense if you are a war profiteer. Arm a country and then 10-20 years later engage that country in a war. What a business plan!

I skimmed over all the comments and thoroughly enjoyed what I read, though I did not seem to find one which expressed thoughts similar to mine regarding the Reagan era (possibly I just missed it).

I always thought Reagan was advised by corporatists who were looking forward to a post-Soviet world economy. I had a good friend whose brother worked for the CIA in 1980 and she informed me that her brother said everyone at the agency knew the Soviet Union would not last the decade. And the Reagan team, certainly aware of such prognostications, thought they could reward their friends in the arms industry without limit and then justify it all by claiming that their budget-busting spending had succeeded in breaking the Soviet Union.

And another aspect was that they could prepare for the day of a world economy where the workers and consumers for the products of US corporations would be all over the world. And they knew this meant that the US middle class was no longer indispensable. Earlier conservatives had recognized the importance of the middle class, but the Reagan team felt that it was expendable and they did not need to maintain a safety net or the educational or other infrastructure necessary to maintain the middle class.

And so Bush really is Reagan's heir, as he seeks to finish the job that Reagan started -- the defunding of the US middle class.

The Authoritarian Personality types glorify Reagan because his handlers portray him as "strong". These people worship the strong and have contempt for the weak. Unfortunately, the kind of strength that they admire is brute strength rather than intellectual strength and the strength of moral courage, qualities which Reagan lacked completely....

Clarification -
First post re Reagan
Second post re Clevland (I think)
Unless Clevland retreated from Lebanon?
I'm confused.

You mean Grover Cleveland?

You mean the steely resolve that made him retreat from Lebaon right after the marine barracks were blown up? BTW - That WAS round one of islamic terrorism against US forces, and Reagan lost it, flat out.

But mjolnir, you're a day late and a dollar short. Next time catch the topic when it's fresh.

You'all should get yourself a copy of "The Triumph of Politics", tis a good read.

Might open your eyes to the fact much of your frothing hatred of Ronnie is mis-directed and should be aimed at the political structure in the first place. Ronnie was more of a puppet than Mr Evil.

Was he evil? Of course, he was an American president, the only one you've ever had with any decency was that Groveland bloke or whatever his name was, that you've never heard of.

Now me I'm all for free markets, pure capitalism etc. And even I can see Bush Jr (Bushbaby?) is the worse you've ever had. Government and corporations in cahoots is not capitalism, it's fascism.

S.

I have got a simple question to the RepWinners and rightwing nutjobs hanging around: the Republican party is basically running the US for years now. So it should be really easy for you to list all the things that have improved during this period.

You see, YOU ARE IN CONTROL.

So pls let us know how much better the US do nowadays.
Like, you personally, yourself:

How much did your real income go up recently?
What did happen in your community/state to improve the infrastructure eveyone depends on (streets, schools, etc)?
Tell us how the Republican party managed to find reasonable solutions to the growing poverty and violence in the US.

Ok, thats more than one question.
But still easy to answer for you WINNERs, eh?

hint: dont start the "at least we are safer" thing. You arent.

Anyone was better than Carter. Just like anyone is better than Gore... Clinton... and so on and so on...

I feel sorry for you poor pathetic children. Stop whining about the past and get over yourselves. There never was any conspiracy (nor is there one today). Most people just don't agree with you or your politics/policies. Try leaving the coastal states and the cities and see what the rest of America is like. There is more to life than complaining about politics! Get over it!

Haynes Johnson titled his account of the Reagan years "Sleepwalking through History," a title that applies as much to the electorate as it does to Reagan. Reagan was indifferent when he was not oblivious. Of the person who briefed the president, David Broder memorably wrote: "The most thankless task in all of Washington must be that of the person who is charged, on a daily basis, with watering that arid desert between his ears."

TGrinnalds, may I direct your attention to "October Surprise" by Gary Sick. This brilliantly researched and written book proves your theory to be true. The collusion of Henry Kissinger in the deal makes him a candidate for the firing squad, and is a replica of his scheme to extend the Viet Nam war seven more years just to get Nixon elected. It is an astonishing read

Reagan the TRAITOR, I very much enjoyed reading all the posts from folks who see through this criminal person's misguided time in office. BEFORE he took office, he was treating with the enemy, Iran, through his vice president George HW Bush. Bush used his contacts from his time as director of the CIA to meet with operatives of IRAN and arrange the Arms for Hostages deal in advance of the Carter/Reagan election...thus avoiding the October Suprise....pre election release of the hostages, which would have likely resulted in the reelection of Jimmy Carter. This clearly is Treason.

One other personal story about Reagan......I didn't think it was possible to change history while the people who lived through it were still alive......but I remember so well the first time I heard Ronald Reagan blame the failure of the Vietnam War on the "protesters"....and I thought to myself...."Oh BULLSHIT! He can't get away with that....EVERYBODY knows that's not true"

.....but you know what? That's what most people today believe......and it is so NOT TRUE!!!! The protesters were not against the people sent to Vietnam.....they were against the people who SENT THEM THERE. The ones sent there were our brothers and friends and boyfriends and cousins and fathers and uncles.....so FU Ronny and Nancy. Oh yeah....right about the time I heard Ronny say that, was when Nancy started her "Just Say NO" war on drugs.....(makes me want to puke).....that's about the time drug tests in the workplace began.....

I didn't mean that Reagan was the SOLE cause of our health care crises.....but I do believe that he and his policies caused it to go in the direction that it did. Like every other post on this subject says.....he was the beginning of the insanity that our "leadership" has turned into.....and "W" is the natural culmination.....

My strongest hope is that one day we will be thankful to "W", for being soooooo bad, he forced us to WAKE UP!!!........

R.R. taught the Republican fascist party how to lie and get away with it. He brought government dishonesty to new lows. His "tax cut" was the first whopper.
I was making $3.50 an hour, without benefits, with a wife and two kids to support...mine was the only family income at the time. My taxes WENT UP $900!!!
I went into serious debt and just as I would get last years taxes paid, the next round was due and for even
more. Ron showed the rich how to play one sector of society against another and how to fleece those with the least ability to do something about it...kind of like a creep who mugs old people.
Interestingly, Boy George served us another "tax cut" and my taxes again went up $900!?!?!? Is this a coincidence? 100 years from now Ronald Reagan will be recognized in the history books as a modern day Sulla who began the dismantling of the Republic.

I remain convinced that Reagan got elected because of a secret deal with Iran to keep the hostages until after his inauguration. The timing of their continued incarceration and their eventual release was entirely too convenient for Reagan's election. Bush Sr. had the contacts through the CIA to make such a deal, and it explains why Reagan would later get emboriled in Iran-Conta to sell F-!6 parts to a regime that hated us - that was the agreed payoff. I have seldom heard this theory even being considered, and if it did occcur it will probably never be proved. But let's expand a little on it. If this were true, it would constitute perhaps the greatest treason ever committed against the U.S. What a tremendous opportunity for blackmail it would be by Iranians who know the truth! Can this card have have been played? Well, let's see. Iran's greatest enemy was Iraq and Sadam Hussein. Succeeding Republican adminsitrations, headed by George Bush, Sr., who is the most likely candidate for the person setting up the original hostage-holding deal, and then his son, Jr., have waged two wars on Hussein and Iraq, destroying the country and its secular government and removing it as an effective opponent to Iran and its militant Islamic fundamentalism. Hmmm.

While Ronnie slept, Ex-CIA chief and operative, Papa Bush, as throne keeper co-pilot, conspired many covert deeds, resulting in later 'Blowback'.

Yes, Ronnie is a myth, but he really did eat jelly-beans.

Maat, Best Wishes and Hope
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tk1vEuhBuEU

So if you're a Republican presidential contender and you're looking for voters to identify you with a perceived great president of the last 30 years or so, what options do you have? There's Nixon, Reagan, Bush Sr., and Bush Jr. For obvious reasons, Nixon's out. Bush Sr. is seen by Republicans today as too moderate (horrors!). They're all trying to distance themselves from the incompetent Bush Jr. That leaves Reagan. That's why during the recent Repub debate, they all harkened back to Reagan. And the media has helped them by portraying Reagan and his policies as sound and well-loved.

I only hope that this tactic will backfire on each and every one of them. But for it to really work, the Dems need to push forward a real leader, with a real vision of what this country could be. Kucinich, maybe?

williamscarol5
one of the most heinous of all the Reagan legacies…..deregulating the health care and insurance industries….turning them into "for profit" corporations. That's the root cause of the current health care

Sorry, guys, it's not Reagan, or not Reagan only
There was plenty of time to introduce universal health care
before Reagan.
Deregulated or not, if not affordable (and it wasn't before Reagan), health care is a disaster.
It's all those who "I have a good health care plan, so we don't need universal." I just hope that all these ... have lost their plans, their care and their health. Yeah.

I am still nodding my head agreeing to all the comments and the article itself. As someone wise said about Reagan "he did to the country what he could not do to Nancy". He was largely responsible for making "style over substance" the mantra for the politicians. The other things that irks me to no end is hearing the politicos quoting ad nauseum "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall", as though his words alone caused the Soviet bloc to break.

I have read all these posts, and no one mentioned one of the most heinous of all the Reagan legacies.....deregulating the health care and insurance industries....turning them into "for profit" corporations. That's the root cause of the current health care crisis.

"when will the Republicans be held accountable?"

Jamais?

I did. See above.
:)

"Reagan hated hippies, too."
Stalin hated Hitler too, it doesn't mean that everyone who hates Hitler is like him.
Social changes are nice and sex is good (or bad), but all industrialized countries had already universal health care,
most people in the world were already familiar with such concepts as exploitation, labor law, workers' rights as human rights, and a number of countries had firm institutions in place.

IT WAS CALVIN COOLIDGE WHO USED THE TRICKLE-DOWN THEORY FIRST, HE CAUSED THE DEPRESSION, THAT HOOVER GOT BLAMED FOR. IT WAS NO ACCIDENT THAT REAGAN RESURRECTED IT. WE DID NOT HAVE A DEPRESSION, BECAUSE OF HIS 3 TRILLION DOLLOR DEFICIT SPENDING. 40 MILLION PEOPLE WENT INTO THE PROVERTY
LEVEL. 5 MILLION PERSONAL BANRUPTCIES, THOUSANDS OF CORPORATE BANKRUPTCIES, NOT TO MENTION THE BANKS & SAVINGS & LOANS, AND THE MILLIONS OF HOME FORECLOSURES. REAGAN POLICIES WERE TO SPEND MONEY ON DEFENSE SO THERE IS NO MONEY LEFT FOR THE INTRASTRUCTURE,(WITH THE THREAT THAT THE RUSSIANS, CUBIANS, CHINESE ARE ALL COMING). THUS TEAR DOWN THOSE INSTITUTIONS (SOCIAL SECURITY, ETC) BECAUSE THERE IS NO MONEY LEFT TO FUND THEM.. HE LIKED TO PRIVATIZE THE GOVERNMENT, COSTING THE TAX PAYER EXTRA BILLIONS OF DOLLARS. HE SUSPENDED THE SHERMAN ANTI-TRUST ACT.THREW OUT THE FAIRNESS DOCTRIN (MEDIA HAS TO GIVE EQUAL TIME FOR THE TRUTH TO BE TOLD).HE DEREGULATED THE AIRLINES & THE BROKE UP THE TELEPHONE COMPANY. PUT THE TAX BURDEN ON THE MIDDLE CLASS & CUT THE TAXES OF THE UPPER 1 %. THE UPPER 1% CONTROLLED 90% OF THE WEALTH IN THIS COUNTRY AFTER REAGAN LEFT OFFICE, VS %70 AFTER CARTER. CARTERS DEFICIT WAS 50 BILLION DOLLARS. CLINTONS DEFFICIT WAS ZERO. I THOUGHT DEMOCRATS WERE BIG SPENDERS. REAGAN'S IDOL WAS COOLIDGE. JUST IN CASE NO ONE NOTICED THE NEW NEOCONS. THE WORD NEO MEANS NEW. CON MEANS CON ARTIST OR IT CAN STAND FOR CONVICT. THIS ADMINISTRATION IS ELLMULATING REAGAN & BEYOND.

Probably the only thing that raygun did was he was the only repug to have another repug follow him into office in 80 years. That alone is enough to give the repugs wet dreams for years. Take a look at the newtster on the tube, he should be in jail and not just for one thing. He cut and ran when the heat got too much for him, caught with his pants down literally and couldn't stand the pressure he resigned and fled. Now wants to come back as a presidential candidate? Please that is enough to completely disqualify the repugs as a viable alternative to dog catcher and nothing above that honorable position. Repugs are the orcs of modern politics.

Reagan hated hippies, too. There was a reason for that. They were a pain in his ass, because they challenged convention and the conservative "because-we've-always-done-it-that-way" mentality. That wasn't accomplished by navel gazing or selfishness. Social change was accomplished in the '60's, however much that change has since been reversed by recidivist policies notwithstanding. The Vietnam war was ended because people took to the streets--stoned though they may have been. The perception of the counterculture as self-obsessed and hedonistic to the point of insignificance has been fostered by right wing revisionist history and amplified by subsequent generations that can't get past their own selfishness. The movement was fatally flawed, to be sure, but young people in that generation faced a great deal of hostility and violence to organize and protest what they believed to be wrong. You didn't see many yuppies doing that (or much of anyone since, I might add). In fact, the money-grubbing narcissists of the '80's were Reagan's best friends and the forerunners of today's so-called conservatives, focused on short term gains and what's in it for them to the exclusion of all else.

No generation is all right or all wrong. The circumstances we are born into are incidental. We decide whether to accept them or try to change them. The movement for social change in the '60's caught fire, whatever the reasons. We could do with some of that spontaneous combustion now.

Good to hear from you all - I thought I was among a rare few who considered Reagan an unmitigated disaster for the country and the world.

An interesting bit of information: fmrnadervtr said "He should have been impeached for Grenada and, as a result, the equally impeachable offense of Iran Contra would have never happened." I was in Grenada about five years ago and they still adore the man - murals of him on the sides of buildings, almost every Grenadian I spoke with considered him a saviour. I didn't get it, but maybe they saw more in that Cuba airfield than I did.

klever notes: "Repugs are likely to nominate Fred Thompson-he has two things that Shrub lacks-gravitas and a functioning brain." AND the ability to perform for the camera, a most important part of the Reagan "legacy" that they must now realize W clearly lacks.

Well, apparently there is a problem with American values.
You just missed such small things as exploitation (participated in?), for example, and you probably share the view that there are humans (who deserve health care) and there are subhumans (who don't deserve to have health care).
Nice values.

I am 71 and remember both the 60's and the Reagan presidency. Reagan was famous for his phase "trickle-down theory". He also set the policy of cooperation between the FDA and the drug companies and corporations. Both had a disastrous effect on the country.

I am unhappy with some of the comments here that refer to the 60's as the "me" generation. There were many young people that believed in free love and took drugs. That is true. Many of us, however, were not involved in either. From our point of view, "American values" had been maintained through the civil rights movement, the end of the war in Vietnam, and the near impeachment of Nixon. In my mind, I can still hear Barbara Jordan's speeches that re-affirmed the strength of our democratic government.

Reagan put an end to this. We were told, at some point, that the center held. Too late, we realized that it wasn't the center that held but the power structure.

I could never think of Reagan as president. I always referred to him as "that actor fellow in the White House".

"If there is one evil wizard behind the curtain it's Milton Friedman and the Chicago School of neo-liberal economics."
It's probably correct.
I would like just to add a general comment.
Throughout history, there is a pattern of the educated class (scribes, monks, writers, scholars etc) serving the interest of the rich and powerful.
The rich either find something ready for them to use (probably in this case) or commission.
I basically have only one rule:
Don't allow the insane accumulation of wealth/power.
I criticized somewhere the hippie generation, and I express
my view again: when there are significant systemic problems, it's necessary to deal with these problems. Admiring one's
navel can be a secondary activity.

One thing:
Ignore the issue of "legacy" -- a red herring. There is no such thing as a modern president concerned with "legacy". President's are bought and sold on what they can do for global corporations. "Legacy" has all the consequence of British Royalty: none. It's pomp and circumstance to humor historians and give the public assurances that there's a personal ego involved. There isn't. Bush will remain at "war" in Iraq as long as it serves corporate interests and not a day longer. It doesn't matter if he goes down as the worse president ever. Not at all.

If there is one evil wizard behind the curtain it's Milton Friedman and the Chicago School of neo-liberal economics. Reagan was the fist president to swing completely and utterly to the dark side of messianic free-trade faith. Not all, but many of the disastrous conservative follies of the last 27 years spring directly from the mind of Friedman. Reagan was just the "face" of the movement--as is Bush. Remember Reagan was just a mindless automaton of GE market advertising. He'd been bought decades before. Reagan was the first truly corporate-bought president, hence the first of the "fascist" presidents in the modern era. To get anything equivalent you would probably have to go back to the previous turn of the century and the industrial revolution. But even then the rules were different. A century ago a president had to be a man of substance, even if he was a buffoon. Today corporations want no more than faces: actors, front-people. They are mere facades; the country is ruled by interests so affluent they are hard to comprehend.

"An election cannot give a country a firm sense of direction if it has two or more national parties which merely have different names but are as alike in their principles and aims as two peas in the same pod"
~ FDR

If none of the announced candidates breaks out of the pack-the Repugs are likely to nominate Fred Thompson-he has two things that Shrub lacks-gravitas and a functioning brain.

Ronald Reagan had an 8 year run playing the Pretendent of the USA. During his years the current climate of corporofascism took hold, and the progressive gains of the sixties all but erased. The status quo learned what happens when you give the people information and education, and they've been limiting both ever since. Some say we have a shadow government? I say we have a puppet government in the hands of big business- especially the ammunition business.

I agree with the sentiment here that believes Reagan to have been our worst president ever, saved by that title only by the idiocy, greed and criminality that is George W. Bush.

Like it or not, Reagan was extremely popular when he was governor and president. You can google that and find out his approval ratings for yourself. The public was uninformed about who he was personally, he was a pr created personality, and he wasn't known as the Teflon president for nothing. He wasn't blamed for any of the disasters his policies created. Part of that was because, I think, not really understanding the problems he was creating, his sincerity in believing in what he was doing, and his limited understanding of the complexities of the problems the country faced allowed him to sincerely believe in what he was doing. People responded to his sincerity. And being an actor, he did know how to deliver a line. In fairness, he might not have been very bright, but he did have a sense of humor. In the older age groups, he's still very well liked (I can't stand to use the word "beloved" but it's probably more accurate), and I suspect among younger age groups, not very well understood. So I think people may want more progressive policies, but still are fond of Reagan personally.

A large percentage of the country supported the National Guard killings, which broke my heart, and was ready to swing in a more conservative direction. They were upset and overwhelmed by the revolution of the young. Well, they got more than they asked for and now are wanting to swing back. So here we are. And we have more conservative young people than we have ever had, and fewer idealists than ever. If any, by now.

I think it will be very interesting to see where all this is going. And regardless of what we're all doing, ultimately it will be up to the young people.

Isn't it time for some Democrat to frame his/her campaign atound the complete failure of conservatism.It has been the ascendant philosophy since Reagan (even during the Clinton years) and we are in one hell of mess. Bush the Second is not an aberration. He is the logical end product of Reaganism. Bushism is simply Reaganism without Reagan and Bush lacks Reagan's ability to deliver lines. But like Reagan he is a vacuous nincompoop and needs handlers.
Everything is there: crony capitalism, enriching the rich,foreign adventurism, anti-intellectualism, religious quackery, deficits, bloated military budgets, etc.
If I were a Democratic candidate I'd take them all on: Reagan, Bush I & II, Gingrich, all the reptilian "Christian" preachers, Limbaugh and the other right-wing gasbags, Fox News, and on and on. They are all symtons of the same disease...modern American Conservatism.

I really wish the younger generation would understand one thing: the present Bush did not spring from nowhere. EVERYTHING he does, and the current sad state of the country, had its roots in Reagan.

I was 25 in 1980, and remember well the election of Reagan. It seemed like instantly the whole country and culture became meaner, in a BIG way. Suddenly the powers-that-be, the corporations and money holders knew they had free-rein to do what they wanted without compunction. Reagan and the Republicans denounced evolution, but his worshippers embraced an economic version of survival of the fittest with a vengence!

And like some previous posters had mentioned--please spare me the falsehood that he "caused the downfall of the Soviet Union". The USSR was already on a path to dissolution and it would have happened whether Reagan was president or not.

Reagan didn't do a single thing for the US or the world that was good, rather the opposite. For his murderous, sociopathic policies, he was despised by the majority of people in the US at the time and by virtually the entire world outside the US. Bush II's policies are merely a continuation of Reagan's. I remember people during the 80s saying that if Reagan's destructive institutional changes weren't undone, we'd have an even worse president in the future, and we've got one now. I believe it was Phil Gramm who said that he wanted the Republicans to "finish the Reagan Revolution" and that's what Bush II is now doing.

As a previous post mentioned, one of Reagan's most harmful legacies results in part from his rescinding of the Fairness Doctrine in media and the subsequent rightward brainwashing of the entire population, one result of which is that most USers, particularly the young, now believe that Reagan was an unparalleled demigod, surpassing Lincoln in greatness according to a 2006 Discovery/AOL poll. I've even had several otherwise admirable, young, liberal, activist acquaintances defend Reagan to me, repeating things about him that are entirely untrue but which they've been taught in school and via the US media.

Some of the most common I've heard include that Reagan reduced the US nuclear arsenal and tried to get the USSR to do the same (exactly the opposite of the truth; Reagan was obsessed with mass slaughter and increased the US nuclear arsenal to an unprecedented size);

that "Reagan didn't court fundamentalist Christians the way Bush II does" (Reagan was the first to do so; part of his buildup of nuclear weapons was because of his belief in and desire to help bring about biblical Armageddon);

that "Reagan brought about the downfall of the Soviet Union" (he had nothing to do with it; the USSR was unilaterally dismantled by decree of Boris Yeltsin, an act opposed by most of the Soviet population, who proceeded to suffer what is euphemistically referred to as a "demographic collapse" - meaning millions of people died - when US "advisors" shoved Reagan-style capitalism down their throats);

that "Reagan made America optimistic again" (Reagan made Americans gloomy and miserable. Among other gloom-producing acts, he intiated two phenomena which are now considered normal in these Reaganized United States: mass homelessness and mass, racially-biased incarceration. That's in addition to being the first president to be opposed to the environment, the first president to systematically destroy social services, the first president to triple the debt, on and on);

"At least Reagan never lied to us." (Again, so opposite from the truth that one doesn't know where to begin. This charge stems in part from the post-Reagan, liberal-vs-conservative belief that "liberals" are so afraid of offending people that they won't call a crime a crime, while "conservatives" speak their mind and don't care what anyone thinks. Those are straw-man reputations only, with no bearing on the truth of real situations. Reagan could hardly get through a speech without lying - about the Soviets, the Sandinistas, the homeless people he created, the "welfare queens" that didn't exist - and this was lying on an unprecedented scale. Now, it seems as normal for "conservative" politicians to lie constantly as it does for there to be masses of homeless people, for 2 million people to be in jail, and for police to seize all of someone's property because of suspected marijuana possession, all horrors which do not precede Reagan and are in fact directly attributable to that monster.

One effect of such lying, and of Reagan's unresponsiveness to mass popular opinions (the largest protests in US history occured during the 1980s against his policies), was an increasing distrust of and cynicism toward government during the 1980s. Polls from the time show those attitudes increasing steadily as Reagan's policies and actions took hold, a contrast to the 1960s and 70s, when optimism really was rife in the nation. Another effect of this was declining numbers of voters, which contributed in part to Reagan's electoral victories. Now, as evinced in some of the comments here, a lot of people just shrug and say "it's always been this way," "I'm not surprised," "it's not like this is new," etc. That defeatist attitude, too, is part of Reagan's legacy.

These sociopathically destructive, protofascist changes were given the advertising label "conservative" during the 80s, and when people hear that word, they think something valuable from the past is being preserved, hence today's youth believing it's always been this way.

It would be useful to research the PR campaign that resulted in this outrageous reputation, find out how it started. It didn't arise naturally from popular sentiment. Some polls in the early 90s showed Reagan to be the most hated president in history.

On the "me generation" question, that phrase was first used in the 70s by lifestyle writers to describe what they saw as a difference from the 60s: a tendency to work on personal, inner growth through meditation, yoga, individual health consciousness, healthy diet, etc. Some hedonism was implied, but it wasn't the conspicuous consumption, status-consciousness of the "greed is good", "me-first-and-only" 80s. The 70s personal growth self-absorption was contrasted to the mass, communal movements that characterized the 60s, including hippies, movements that strove to benefit the entire society and world. I know people have been made to believe that hippies were just into hedonistic "sex, drugs, and rock'n'roll," but they and many others in society at the time were more interested in transforming society for the better and worked on it through a variety of means.

When I hear people talk about Ronnie like he was the second coming of Christ, I always wonder just what he did that was so great. He did what Republicans are great at, made rich people richer and poor people poorer, plus he added to the latter group. He supported terrorist in South America and then couldn't remember the arms deals our government made.Saddam and Osama were our "friends" so he supplied them with chemical weapons to use againt Iran. Maybe once you're dead, people forget the bad things you did. It sure seems like that in his case.

I think in this eurobelle is right, that the 60s generation thought it should come easy, having been raised by parents who had it very hard (having themselves grown up during the depression and wanting better for their children). Although of that generation, I wasn't actually a hippie, I was a "good" liberal Democrat until the Vietnam War. And it's true that when I saw that the public wouldn't turn against the war until people felt the pinch in their wallets, that the Kent State murders simply brought the public response of "serves them right" I did feel like I was wasting my time trying to change anything and quit. Now I feel differently about it. I see that we have to keep trying and not give up. If we don't set an example, who will? That's really all we can do in this world, is set the example with our own behavior. Others will do what they do, but they do need examples.

But I think we've gone from the 40s generaton thinking they have to work hard for what they want, to the 60s generation thinking it should come easy to the 80s generation which thought it should be given to them, and now? What of the current generation? My grandkids (current generation) are pretty worried about the state of the world, and feel like they've been unfairly handed a mess to clean up (they have). But I think they'll take it on.

It's been pretty slick of the Bush crowd to insulate the public from the ramifications of their occupation. No pain, no outrage. This public is so sedated, it's scary. I talk to all kinds of people, no one's paying attention, or cares. They don't care about the occupation, except to either vaguely dislike it or to go with the FOX line, and pay no attention to politics, and think it's a waste of time to vote.

I know as activists we're a minority, but I have hope that our young people will decide it's up to them make the changes we need. Certainly more of them are voting than ever before. That's encouraging.

Reagan created, trained, armed and funded the Mujahideen in Afghanistan during the 1980s. The strengthened Mujahideen later became, were responsible for, the Taliban and Al Quaeda.

No one seems to mention this anymore. 9/11 is Reagan's legacy to the American People.

when will the Republicans be held accountable?

hybri,
"Everything began to go downhill once Reagan was elected"
You're missing the point - there has been a systemic problem.

I can't get over how the mainstream media makes him out to be such a beloved president. I grew up in the 80's. Maybe it was just in the area in which I lived, but almost everyone seemed to hate the man. I used to get teased because my birthday was the same as his. I actually remember my parents getting excited when he was shot. My father still gets angry everytime something comes up on tv about him and says his Alzheimer's disease was karma.

"I agree with Amos that the hippies were an "us" generation (and that's my generation), but after Kent State, lost all interest in defying the establishment and things changed right there."
Well, I see several problems here, including such a fast
and easy discouragement. I am familiar with some other countries where persecutions and murders provoked more organizing, and more protests.
From my perspective, the hippies were a "me" and conformist generation. Nothing is more conformist that the desire to please one's peers. I hear from old hippies "Oh, EVERYONE smoke," etc. The border between "me" and "us", and group and individual selfishness is fluid.
There were just a couple of steps to make to turn this country into a much better place, and it was up this generation when young, idealistic, and energetic to make these steps. They chose a different (in my opinion wrong) path.

Well done!

Ronald Reagan supported terrorism. His funding of a terrorist force, the Nicaraguan contras, a creature of the CIA, was criminal.

He should have been impeached for Grenada and, as a result, the equally impeachable offense of Iran Contra would have never happened.

I am tired of mainstream media lying because they never reported the facts at the time that you could read in The Nation, In These Times, Mother Jones and elsewhere.

If he had only had a movie director behind the camera instead of political handlers, he could have fooled more people.

By the way, I consider the American public just about as much out to lunch as Reagan was. How many people noticed that when all those Marines were killed in Lebanon, in Reagans's first press conference about it, he was SMILING for the camera as he read his script. Someone behind camera caught on and the next time he looked properly sad. I realized that he really didn't understand what was going on, he was just reading his part.

justin,
Thanks but that wasn't my intention [laugh] but I like your description.

Trickle-down economics? Yeah, like a leaky backed-up commode from the floor above, we know what's coming our way. And posthumous thanks, Ronnie, setting into motion economic policies that precipitated the Crash of '87.

Reagan: the Great Communicator? His debate with Carter set the stage and the tone of Republicanism for the next 27 years: antagonistic insults ("There you go again") followed by unsubstantiated anti-Communist rhetoric and patriotic chest thumping.

And he showed absolutely no class or humanity whatsoever when asked by the press what he thought about John Lennon's murder. His reply: "Who?" while he smiled as if he had said something clever.

Reagan was the first true neo-conservative for the great unthinking masses. Nowadays, the neo-cons have substituted Communism with anything of an Arab or Islamic nature under the umbrella term 'terrorists'. And the insults and chest thumping have become more bullying. Although I have to admit, at least Reagan wasn't stupid enough to say something truly idiotic like "'They' hate our freedom."

It's time for an opposing candidate/party that will step up to the bullies, call them on their insults and lies, and show them for what they are: sheep in wolves' clothing. Democrats? Maybe but I'm not holding my breath.

Regardless of who it might be, a widespread tearing down of the myth of St. Reagan the Conservative by exposing the myth for what it is/was would be a nice start.

Having grown up in Berkeley, California, I've known Reagan since day one. There is a book, "The Last Days of the Late, Great State of California" which chronicles his career starting with a gang of wealthy Southern Caifornia businessmen approaching him to run for governer. Good reading.

While governor, the San Francisco Chronicle ruthlessly repeated every one of his ignorant, narrow minded, and mean spirited remarks, of which there were many, because he didn't know how to keep his mouth shut. Unfortunately, the rest of the state's newspapers were more charitable. Who he really was and what the public was shown were almost polar opposites. As governor, he trashed California's local economies and school districts, refusing matching Federal grant money for social and educational programs, and strangling state funds to local governments. When property taxes rose to cover the shortfall, a taxpayers rebellion occurred and there went the ball game. When he got reelected, I thought, Holy S**t, he could get elected president! Well, he did, and used the same technique to fiscally strangle the states, and here we are.

At first as President the reporters had a field day with his off the cuff remarks, but his handlers caught on, and learned to keep him away from reporters (I will never forget Ed Meese dragging him into the limo saying loudly over and over "Thank you Mr. President" while Reagan went on eagerly delighting reporters with his ignorance), a lesson that hasn't been lost on today's politicians. John Kennedy was the last politician who really liked to talk freely with politicians, except for Dennis Kucinich, who never speaks "off the record". He has nothing to hide or hold back.

Yes, beefygtr, I think his worst legacy was eliminating the "fairness doctrine", the beginning of corporate control of OUR airwaves. That, "corporate personhood". and media consolidation.

I can't quite agree with you, graeme, his foreign policy is nothing new, although perhaps bigger and better. We've always stolen other's resources for our use, starting with the Native Americans right here.

clyde, I thought it was Nixon who started borrowing from Social Security to improve the appearance of the budget.

eurobelle, I agree with Amos that the hippies were an "us" generation (and that's my generation), but after Kent State, lost all interest in defying the establishment and things changed right there. That was 1970. Three assassinations and the murder of students made me drop out of politics and activism for 20 years. All I did was show up for elections to write in my candidates and go home.

WJM, the one thing I can't accuse Reagan of was lying. In fact, he was - to the dismay of his handlers - eager to say what he thought. He never really knew what was going on. He agreed with the conservative philosophy as he understood it, but never knew what he was talking about in his speeches. And never in his life did he exhibit the qualities of a deep thinker. When reporters started asking him questions, his ignorance floored them. One said, "He has a limited grasp of complex issues". Also, Alzheimers is not a rapid onset disease. He was truly out to lunch. When young, he was poor, and a liberal. Then he became a rich movie star and started hating taxes. Familiar story.

The Iran hostage story? Reagan's handlers had George H W Bush go arrange that if they held back releasing the hostages until after the election, the US would arrange gun sales to the Iranians in their war with Iraq (at the same time, the US was giving Iraq satellite info about the Iranians to the Iraqis and selling them the gas they used against the Iranians and Kurds). We wanted it both ways and got it. George's reward? The Presidency 8 years later. He sailed in on Ronnie's coattails, but it wasn't enough to keep him there. And the citizenry had no idea of what was really going on, as usual.

I realize that the following features of the Reagan era blanche in comparison to the atrocities listed above, but, as long as this list is developing, I'd like to make my contribution. First, as to Reagan's changes in the student-loan/college aid programs: In the early 80's, when I was to start my university courses, I was informed that I would not be eligible for financial aid because my parents income had to be listed with my own in determining "need". As a 19 year old who left home at 17, not supported by or having contact with my parents, there was no way to establish "emancipation" without some legal procedure. (I worked, studying part-time, until I was old enough to qualify -24yrs.) Second, since the right-wing so often argues "states-rights", it is worth pointing out that Reagan was the one who came up with the scheme to withhold federal highway funds in order to force states to comply with the "21-years as minimum drinking age" standard. These rules are not, as far as I know, federally mandated, but enforced by this threat.

aquietman says: "The hostages were released on inauguration day 1980 because President Carter had worked nearly round the clock for 3 months to bring them home."

And LBJ, never blameless, gave up running for re-election to spend his time figuring out a way to end the war in VietNam. What might be accomplished if the current occupant dedicated more of his time to ending his war, instead of working out, going to bed at 10, and clearing brush on his "ranch"? That is most galling about Republicans - they refuse to see what a do-nothing petulant little crybaby, a serial failure, their neo-Reagan actually is. I guess having canonized a B-movie actor, they don't have far to slip to be Bushlicks.

I also agree with daveg955.
To quote daveg".................".
Flabbergasted and speechless;a condition many feel in the politics of America.

1980 was my first election, and I was swayed by my parents and voted for Reagan. I've regretted it ever since, and have repented for my stupidity. Carter was a vastly superior president to Reagan. One wonders what our history would have been had he been re-elected, and the economic upswing (which goes in cycles) had then occurred under his 2nd term.

The hostages were released on inauguration day 1980 because President Carter had worked nearly round the clock for 3 months to bring them home.

Jimmy Carter had the White House fitted with solar panels with a subsequent saving of roughly 15% of power usage.Reagan had them removed upon his election as President.A mental giant I think not and it would have been done as a sop to the energy industry who had and have most pollies in their pockets.