Palin is to Reagan as Liberace is to Rachmaninoff

Nauseating, ain’t it? Whether you liked Reagan or not (and I did) comparing him to Palin is like comparing Rachmaninoff or Vladimir Horowitz to Liberace.  No, on second thought that’s not fair. Liberace, although just as tacky, cheesy and exploitative as Palin,  could still play the piano very well.  Anyway, someone who was pretty close to the Gipper summed up the differences pretty well:

” Sarah Palin is a soap opera, basically. She’s doing mostly what she does to make money and keep her name in the news. She is not a serious candidate for president and never has been.”

“Sarah Palin has nothing in common with my father, a two-term governor of the largest state in the union, a man who had been in public life for decades, someone who had written, thought and spoke for decades about foreign-policy issues, domestic policy issues, and on and on and on.”

(I’ll bet he’s not the only Reagan that might be annoyed with Sarah.)

 

Advertisements

, , , ,

  1. #1 by logiopsychopath on February 9, 2011 - 8:18 pm

    As far as FDR, if Steinbeck is telling the truth in the Grapes of Wrath. Roosevelt’s farm policies were a link in the chain of cause that led to hunger during the depression–farmers destroying food in order to keep the price higher, small farmers driven off their land–rather than getting relief.

  2. #3 by Jack on February 10, 2011 - 9:07 am

    Yeah, but Reagan brought the end of the Cold War and created a business climate in which the middle class was able to achieve huge growth. There may be a down side to Reagan but overall he was awesome.

    • #4 by Christian Beyer on February 10, 2011 - 9:42 am

      I agree with you about his achievement (shared with Thatcher) bringing the Soviet Union to bankruptcy. And there was a time when I would agree with you concerning Reagonomics. But not anymore.

      His administration legitimized wholesale deficit spending (which may have been crucial in the cold war). And his wholesale deregulation of corporate enterprise, though it did fuel tremendous economic expansion, actually ended up hurting the real middle class. Just drive through our small towns and see what has happened to them as American businesses continue to move their operations over seas And much of the huge gains in industry at that time were a result of Pentagon policies.

      The trickle down was a ‘trickle’ after all, and those who really benefited were the minority who were able to move dramatically up the ladder economically and socially, and millions did do just that, but in the process the remainder – many,many more millions of Americans – lost economic footing. Not just the middle class but also many of the disenfranchised that Bruce mentioned.

      The only real private job expansion took place in the service sector (where I spent 30 years), which produced primarily low wage positions. Much of the rest of the economic growth was due to the coming Dot Com explosion, which Reagan had nothing to do with (remember that was because of Al Gore 😉 )

      I think Reagan was a VERY effective president, an exceptional communicator, and an excellent manager. I think he was right on the money when it came to the communist threat (liberals are dead wrong about that). And he was absolutely right that government was too big (even as he grew it dramatically). But his economic and social ideals were not as well grounded in truth or practicality as he and other conservatives (me included) so firmly believed.

      And, unfortunately, he was the one, as Bruce stated, who brought the neo-Evangelicals so heavily into Right Wing politics, to the detriment of our country as well as Christianity. That’s only my opinion, but it is certainly correct.

  3. #5 by Jack on February 10, 2011 - 2:13 pm

    Perhaps some of what you say is true in regard to small towns and manufacturing towns. However, how many of these problems can be attributed to labor unions and bad economies of other countries. It seems that much of the outsourcing of jobs has ocurred due to the cheap labor that can be found in other places of the world.

    • #6 by Christian Beyer on February 10, 2011 - 2:39 pm

      IMHO, not that much. Look at how the foreign automakers have been able to set up shop in the US and create quality products with significant profits while paying their typically non-union employees good wages with benefits. Initially they did this to avoid the automotive tariffs put in place to protect the American players in that industry but soon found out that it made good economic sense otherwise. Even Hyundai has plants here now.

      I think we went over seas for one reason only and that’s Wall Street. It’s all about high dividends and big bonuses. Look, how much profit does a company need to make? Did Disney need to make all it’s useless geegaws in China or Mexico just so Eisner could earn $250 million dollars in stock options? How much less would he (and other stock holders) have realized if their crap was domestically produced? How cheap does a Little Mermaid figurine have to be?

  4. #7 by Jack on February 10, 2011 - 3:49 pm

    Perhaps

    • #8 by Christian Beyer on February 10, 2011 - 4:03 pm

      Oh,no. Most definitely, thou idealistic, hero worshiping, young man.

  5. #9 by logiopath on February 10, 2011 - 7:32 pm

    You are right Chris, about the loss of manufacturing–which HIT HARD in places like Gastonia, Kannapolis, and Salisbury, North Carolina. It hit hard in Danville, VA, Detroit, Chicago–the whole rust bucket. Companies also were not willing to Cow-Tow to environmentalists.

    On the other hand, like Chris says, Reaganomics expanded government spending and increased deficits–and I believe unemployment spiked (according to a website I just checked) during the Reagan years–and I remember people in the college town we lived in earning 5.00-8.00 bucks and hour in fast food and light manufacturing jobs.

    The bottom line for me is that Reagan may have been popular, but many of his ideas caused real pain to poor people–although as Stockman wrote, Politics Triumphed, and even R. W. R’s close advisor said the Reagan Revolution failed.

    I didn’t buy it then, and I ain’t a buyin’ it now. I simply never went over to Reagan.

    Many Christian friends did, however, and campaigned for Old Dutch. I thought I could not because if I didn’t go door to door for Jesus, how could I for Reagan?

  6. #10 by Kojacque Tenfour on July 1, 2011 - 1:44 pm

    GOParty of Jabba The Hutt agenda

    R….ob Peter to pay Paul.
    E….xpert at bait & switch flim-flam scams
    P….lausible deniability dumbs down smart asses
    U….se lots of spin-happy bullshit
    B….ully like a Mack pimp
    L….ie like a crazy lawyer.
    I…..f caught red handed, cry & say : “I am not a crook”
    C….overups get your freak on
    A….ct dumber than Ronald MacDonald.
    N….ever, NEVER, choose integrity over money.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: