Well put Michael. The man was far from the demigod some make him out to be, but he achieved some phenomenal things. His ability to clearly communicate the idea of America was no small part of that. I'm no fan of those who are calling for putting his name on something in every county in the country, but I can't help but feel a twinge of sorrow at his passing.

Reagan's life serves as an example of the virtues of deep conviction. Some people are driven by history, some people change history.

I don't care about Rushmore. His monument is a Wall that no longer stands.

Mark, that is absolutely correct. Sometimes we forget that the mark of a man is not what he leaves behind, but what he has ensured isn't there when he finally goes.

Mark Poling, FH: Well said, both of you.

I'm only going to add that it's rather gratifying that a man whose life enclipsed the banal (Bedtime for Bonzo), the sublime (His announcement that he had Alzheimer's Disease) to the electrifying (Mr. Gorbachev; Tear down this wall!") has been kindly remembered by so many folk.

A last note, he was always the first to support freedom of speech and would probably only tut-tut what they are currently saying on Daily Kos and Democrat Underground.

Rest in Peace Gipper, Rest in Peace.

Yep, yep, and yep.

I've never so much really cared for his politics, but you have to admit there was a real greatness in the man. I wrote a paper about this a year ago: That great men make "Great" Presidents. It was one of the best things I've ever written. I took alot of crap for it because I included Reagan's name among the likes of Washington, Lincoln, FDR, and Kennedy. But I knew I was right. Regardless of the ideology, his name belongs on that list.

Some men (and women) simply have an innate gravitas (vision and natural charisma) about them and they make the best Presidents. Truman did a whole hell of alot of great things, politically, and probably doesn't get half the credit he deserves. He had the vision but not the charisma. Clinton, on the other hand, was maybe the most charismatic President the nation has ever had. He had the natural charisma but not the vision. If you go out and ask the average man on the street who the "great" Presidents are, you'll rarely ever hear about Clinton or Truman because neither of them were really ever great men. They each had half the equation, but not the whole thing.

Reagan WAS a great man. He had a clear vision for America and the natural charisma to take the country in a whole new direction. I don't so much like the direction he took it, but I have to give him that. He was a great man and, thereby, a "Great" President: In essence, to conservatism what FDR is to liberalism.

Maybe his picture does belong on Michael's money. I would say it probably does, though I don't want FDR removed from ANYTHING. Isn't Eisenhower on something? No, wait, freaking Ulysses S. Grant is on the $50! Grant was a horrible President! Give Reagan the 50 dollar bill!!!

No other American in my lifetime (1963-present) approaches the collection of good things Ronald Reagan did. A great great man.

We were lucky to have him.

History will put Reagan in the same column as Washington, Lincoln, Jefforson, and both Roosevelts.

Being great has little to do with being everybody's buddy. It has everything to do with having the vision of what could be, and the discipline to make it happen.

I believe the Left hated Reagan for his singular excellence as a communicator above and before any policy differences. When the "emperor has no clothes" argument is used by somebody like Ronald Reagan, people listen. He broke the covenant that conservatives are to be seen and ridiculed, not heard, common to media of the late seventies and early eighties.

There are no bears in the forest and my daughters cannot comprehend what a Cold War is. If not for Ronald Reagan they'd still be wondering if tomorrow would come, just like I did, for the early part of my adult life.

I sometimes grouse about all the things that Americans take for granted: freedom, prosperity, opportunity to excel...none of those are accidents or "just happened". If a majority of people wake up in the morning with the feeling that today might just be a shade better than yesterday, they can probably thank the optomism and vision of Ronald Wilson Reagan.

I do believe in the shining city on the hill. I believe it is incumbent on we, the citizens, to make it happen. I hope that we continue to find leaders that seek to lead and not rule often enough to keep us free and strong.

I don't need Reagan on my greenbacks...just make sure his name stays on the baddest ship on the ocean.

I was in elementary school during the eighties, so I was not really politically aware during his presidency. I mostly remember the War on Drugs, since that was championed in the schools. I think that war is a failed an wrong-headed policy.

My impression now of Reagan is that his chief political aims were massive tax cuts, reduction in government programs, and defeat of communism around the world.

All those things seem like good things to me.

TmjUtah: There are no bears in the forest and my daughters cannot comprehend what a Cold War is.

I'm barely old enough. My friends who are a little bit younger than me don't remember the fear. I do. I was pretty sure I would not live long enough to finish high school.

There may no longer be bears in the forest, but now there is something much more distressing lurking in the wings.

I spent several years in Europe sitting nuc alert in the 70's and never felt that my safety was at risk. The chances of an all out nuclear war were so remote with MAD.

Now I fear that my kids missed a relatively safe time for the U.S. and are faced with the liklihood of more devastating attacks from Jihadis. I long for the good old days.

You remember "the fear" MJT?

WHAT you remember is the hype.

What you remember is the hysteria, fear mongering the anxiety pimping by the Left, abetted by lamestream media.

The same as today.

Think about it.

The country, the world was lucky that Reagan served when he did.

Michael,

Ditto.

"What I didn't understand, because I was just a kid, was that most people who lived in the Soviet Union agreed with him."

It's funny; I've had a reverse experience. I grew up under communism when Reagan was President. What I didn't understand (nor did anyone else I knew), because I was naive in the ways of the world, was that so many intelligent and often well-meaning people who lived in the West didn't agree with him. It never occured to me until I came over to live in the West, that anyone in the "free world" could actually support communism or (perhaps more commonly) sneer at those, like Reagan, who so strongly opposed it.

He was a great man, and history will eventually remember his as such. I agree with one of the previous comments - it's got nothing to do with popularity, or even necesarily "goodness" - but all to do with one's legacy.

Eric Blair: What you remember is the hysteria, fear mongering the anxiety pimping by the Left, abetted by lamestream media.

Actually, no. I got it from church, school, and my parents (only one of whom was liberal).

Greatest president of my lifetime by a wide margin. JFK and he were the great optimists, the great tax cutters, the great believers in America. After 17 years of Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Carter, we finally had a leader who believed in us and in himself. His sunny smile, his ready wit, his almost exquisite manners (remember, this was the guy who wouldn't walk into the Oval Office without his suitcoat).

Michael, it's great to see that you and Matt have learned. It's disheartening to see how many see Bush describe terrorists and Ba'athists as "evil" and scoff... Apparently Ted Kennedy today admitted Reagan won the Cold War. I have no doubt that 20+ years from now we will see some of those who opposed this president's war making similar statements.

Brainster...

You said that Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter didn't believe in themselves or in us. I would probably exempt LBJ from that category. If anyone believed in himself, it was Lyndon Johnson. And I think he probably believed in the American people, too.

The thing that sets apart Reagan in my mind is not the fact that he believed in himself and that he believed in other people. Lots of Presidents do that. It's that he made the rest of the country believe in him and believe in other people, as well. And, most importantly, he made people believe in America again (for the first time since probably the early-to-mid 60s).

He kind of lifted the entire spirit of the country onto his shoulders, Forrest-Gump-style, and carried us out of the jungles of Vietnam. In Presidential terms, it takes an FDR-level of greatness to pull that one off. I abhor the vast majority of his politics. But I guess in the same way Newt Gingrich of all people idolizes FDR for pulling us through tough times, I have to conceed that Reagan was one hell of a President.

PS...

Okay, so I take back part of that. I think Reagan metaphorically only carried about 2/3 of us out of the jungles of Vietnam. The remaining third on the old-school-partisan-left refused to go. Today's Democrats, most of them at least, seemed to of missed out on the whole "morning in America" thing. It's why no one really loves to vote Democrat, anymore.

If you don't believe me, stop and ask yourself why a guy like John Kerry got the nomination. If there was ever a poster-child for the type of liberal still replaying those days out in his head, it's John Kerry.

I was a teenager in the 70's and became an adult in the 80's. I was lived with the fear and (self) loathing of the 70's and with the hope and optimism of the 80's. Reagan was responsible for that change. Forget the quibbles and arguments about policy - he gave us all a reason to hope, a reason to be optimists again, and a reason to believe we could do anything we set our minds to.

For that alone I say 'thanks'.

Ronald Reagan, RIP.

"I've said plenty of things about him that I don't regret, but I would choose not to say them in front of his family or in public on the day that he died."

That's big of you, Michael, but I don't buy it. If, as you say, now is the wrong time to dump on Reagan -- then don't bring up your dump-on-Reagan opinions. It's vain ("gotta make sure they know I'm not in the 'fan club'!"), pretentious (yeah, I'm sure the Reagans read your blog), and hypocritical (your pious "restraint" is noted).

But I have to admit, it's fun watching you twist yourself into a pretzel as you try to pay your respects.

MJT: He was right and I was wrong. Thing is, I knew he was right when he said it.

It takes a brave man to admit that.

I was living in Germany (West and free, thanks to NATO) and attending the university in Tuebingen during the 1980 election. Mein Gott, one would have that Lucifer had won by the reaction of the students! The Euro-hysteria over the "cowboy" at the helm then echos in my ear today.

I was not an admirer of his either, but no one should have to suffer through Alzheimer's Disease or another wasting, debilitating neurological disease like ALS or Parkinson's. I wouldn't wish any of them on Pinochet. Few things rob one of one's dignity than death; these diseases compund this robbery.

I hope Nancy continues to devote her efforts to supporting stem cell research.

I'm barely old enough to remember Reagan as president, I was just a kid when he left office. But I am living through his legacy and I know that he will be greatly missed, not just in the US but around the world.

I remember that some Republicans wanted to put Reagan on the dime. I think that he should be on the twenty dollar bill, replacing Andrew Jackson. Anybody else got any ideas on appropriate memorials?

Sam,

I think that's a terrible idea to replace Andrew Jackson. No one is replacing anyone on any coin. Reagan deserves a stamp and to have buildings and airports named for him. He does not deserve a coin or bill unless a new one is made. The one thing I have to say looking back, as someone who fiercely opposed Reagan at the time is that he restored the American ethos to much of the country, that is in the words of Ted Kennedy's eulegy of RFK, he saw things as they could be and said "WHy Not?" Clinton appeared to bring that back to the Democrats but it was fleeting obviously. Reagan himself would say he did nothing but remind the AMerican people why their country was the greatest best hope of man on earth. This was plenty.

Doug,
Okay, how about a statue or something in Washington? Maybe with the "Tear down this wall" speech carved into the pedestal.

He liberated hundreds of millions from tyranny. He was hated by the left because the left has always made accommodations with tyrannies that hate capitalism and hate America. They continue to do so today with the tyrants of the Middle East. To be hated by these people is a tribute to one's character.

God welcomes him Home with the celebrations and gratitude of millions of souls, I am sure.

He changed my politics from liberal to conservative. I loved him.

Doug, Okay, how about a statue or something in Washington? Maybe with the "Tear down this wall" speech carved into the pedestal.

Shouldn't that momument be in Berlin? :-/

The plus side of Reagan's legacy is at least half of America needed his optimistic "morning in America" peptalks after Watergate and Vietnam. He saw that need, delivered them and succeeded.
The Soviet Union collapsed mostly from the weight of it's own failed system as Colin Powell said this morning on Meet the Press. That at best is a wash for Reagan. 40 years of containment by presidents of both parties succeeded in this goal and the wall fell under Bush 1. Reagan's darker legacy will be the nat'l. debt he tripled while in office and the ruinous borrow and spend path he put the Republican Party on that will one day come back to haunt all of us. If we're living like Russians were in the 1990s in 20 years think back on that and remember where it started, with Ronald Reagan.

Go back to January 1, 1980, and take a look at a map showing Soviet spheres of influence.

Nobody on that date thought the Soviet Union was a paper tiger, and they had reason every reason to believe otherwise. Our policy of appeasement was what gave the Sov's the ability to survive. Reagan put a stop to that.

He won the war...and anyone trying to make a case that his deficits were a bad thing all by themselves has no grasp of the concept of value in commerce. If you pay a fair price for the product or service you want - and that price is something you can afford, in spite of the numbers involved, then you have made a good deal.

If the deficit was such an awful thing all by itself, then why is Bill Clinton's number one legacy project the economy? He arrived on the stage at the beginning of the information revolution, the dawn of the march of capitalism across the eastbloc and Russia, and a time of relative peace.

If you want to talk about presidents who benefitted from coincidence, I think Clinton fits in a whole lot better than Ronald Reagan. Nobody born after 1970 can comprehend misery indexes, doublt digit unemployment and interest rates, and the pessimism that comes from being under the threat of MAD. Reagan led this country and the world to a higher plane. LED us. He had no cushion to exploit, no shoulders of better men to stand on.

I'm off to bust watermelons; the new glasses prescription appears to be orders of magnitude better than my last. Maybe I can use iron sights with confidence again. Y'all have a fine day.

Reagan's darker legacy will be the nat'l. debt he tripled while in office and the ruinous borrow and spend path he put the Republican Party on that will one day come back to haunt all of us.

Recalling civics class, it takes two to tango. The Democratically-controlled congress has a role in that story too, and they were hardly deficit hawks. To-be-sure, the GOP were not absolved by this, but they do not share exclusive blame.

He was reviled for standing up against an evil monolith, and bringing it craching down.

Please, please, please, give us more such leaders who are not afraid to be hated and reviled by the loud mouthed nothings of the world.

Robert Peel: it's fun watching you twist yourself into a pretzel as you try to pay your respects.

Well, you're welcome to react to what I wrote as you will. But I have mixed feelings about the man and I'm not going to lie about it. I also genuinely admire him in some ways, so what do you expect me to say?

Michael, I'm a little older than you, never really gave nukes a thought. Practical parents.

It's a choice of dying fast or slow and painful like by cancer. Or Alzheimer's.

Like how we watched our fellow citizens choose on 9/11.

So, Mark, we're going to be turning off the water to cities of 1m+++ inhabitants for 2 weeks to work on the pipes?

We're going to be shutting down certain highways for a week because a lightening strike hit an arms depot and tossed ammo everywhere?

We're going to be dragging out the oxen and I'm going to be washing my clothing in a river?

I'm going down to a motorcycle w/a sidecar?

Give them credit, tho, every house I passed had a TV antenna.

And we all could walk more, maybe even start paying for our grocery bags to conserve. Also something we could adopt from them.

Mark Garrity--

If we're living like Russians were in the 1990s in 20 years think back on that and remember where it started, with Ronald Reagan.

On the other hand, Mark, if we're living like we are now, that is to say, in the wealthiest, strongest nation in the world, 20 years hence...
Well, I don't suppose you'd give Reagan any credit for that would you?

As Ronnie would have said, "There you go again..."

See you in 20 years.

Grant, LBJ probably believed in himself less than any American president. Oh, sure, in his public persona he was very confident, even cocky. But if you listen to the tapes that were released recently, he is plainly a man consumed by self-doubt. In one tape, a month before the 1964 DNC, he calls a party official to tell him that he's decided not to run (the guy almost has a heart attack). When he lost the Wisconsin primary to McCarthy in 1968 he withdrew from the race.

I get both amused and indignant at the revisionism which casts the end of the Cold War as primarily, and inevitably, the result of "40 years of containment." Sure, Harry Truman deserves credit for the backbone he demonstrated, as do, to varying degrees, some of the subsequent presidents.

But anyone who remembers the late 70s and early 80s remembers that Reagan dragged America towards his vision while his opponents were kicking and screaming about him being an irresponsible cowboy. We had John Kenneth Galbraith writing in the The New Yorker in 1984 that "the Soviet system has made great material progress in recent years... Partly, the Russian system succeeds because, in contrast with the Western industrial economies, it makes full use of its manpower." (Emphasis added.) We had Nobel laureate Paul Samuelson writing in the 1985 version of his textbook, "... there can be no doubt that the Soviet planning system has been a powerful engine for economic growth..." We had Sovietologist Stephen Cohen of Princeton condemning Reagan's attempt to destroy the Soviet Union in 1983 in The Nation as a "pathological rather than a healthy response to the Soviet Union."

One could go on and on. (I must credit Dinesh D'Souza for collecting these quotes, and more, in his biography of Reagan). And the anecdote of the commenter,above, about the hysterical reaction of (Western) Europeans to Reagan's election is a perfectly typical illustration of the contemporary opinion toward Reagan.

So sure, Harry Truman and his successors deserve credit. But anyone who claims the demise of the Soviet Union was inevitable, or that the continuation of "containment" was inevitable -- or even very likely if the ideological ancestors of those who now make "inevitability" argument had had their way -- is simply whistling in the wind.

While we're talking about people who helped win the Cold War, let us also not limit ourselves to Americans. Margaret Thatcher and John Paul II are two contemporaries or Reagan that come to mind.

And Lech Walensa. The Big Four of the end of Cold War. Reagan, Thatcher, the Holy Father and Lech.

spc67 beat me to it...

Back from the boonies. I am a Rifleman again.

BIG smile

BTW, in my posts above I in no way intended to denigrate or belittle the efforts of those who came before Reagan. Our leaders are always the product of our national will, and by the time Mr. Reagan arrived at the starting line we were desperately ready for new policies. I remember commentators calling Reagan's "empire of evil" speech less believable than Kennedy's moon mission speech. History showed differently.

Representative government should never be allowed to become a zero-sum game, especially when the stakes are life and death. I believe that this November is going to demonstrate the will of the people in much the same way as November 1980. The struggle we find ourselves in should be bigger than parties. Elections serve as the governor of agendas. I guess we'll see.

Most dissident Slovaks are extremely thankful to Reagan; and very many worshiped in "Secret Churches", whose Catholic leaders were not chosen by commies.

The Soviet System was "doomed", as was Mao's -- but insofar as their prestige, in their own eyes, was because of their superpower status, clearly loosing the arms races was the brick, not straw, breaking the USSR's back.

I echo Nathan (first comment), and add appreciation for Michael JT's honesty (and obviously no need to repeat THAT defense against Robert P.).

It truly IS big of you, and any public person, to say: I was wrong, he was right.

[And the Left hates that Bush isn't saying that ... but it's not at all clear that Bush booting Saddam was wrong.]

The Left does seem to hate the idea of "evil" existing; and especially anybody naming it. Of course, it's related to the atheist inducing paradox of God: being good, and all powerful, yet allowing Evil. The Mystery of Free Will is beyond this blog post.

But we all have a choice. To do evil. To oppose evil. To oppose those who oppose evil [since the opposition is never without cost]. The US opposition to evil communism was, mostly, good. Opposing Viet commies was "good", but costly. Leaving Vietnam & SE Asia was cheaper in American lives, but extremely costly in Asian lives lost to the commies.

On D-day, it's worth asking: what if the USA had decided to wait one more year, finish Japan first? There was little threat Hitler would invade the UK, etc. It might well have saved 50 000 or more American lives. Or even more, if the allies allowed Russia, alone, to "liberate" all of Europe, so no invasion would ever have been necessary.

Opposing evil is costly. It's more costly when some refuse to name it: "that-which-must-not-be-named". Reagan bore, in good humor, many political costs of his honesty.

God Bless Nancy; Ronald Reagan was a true blessing for the USA, RIP.

When I get depressed by all the analysis flooding the channels, I take some comfort in remembering all the doom and gloom I read about Reagan before and during his administration. The parallels to the coverage of Bush's administraton are pretty remarkable. We're in a hot war now instead of a cold one, but we still hearing the same old storylines.

>>>"I take some comfort in remembering all the doom and gloom I read about Reagan before and during his administration."

Yes. The vitriol and hysteria directed at Bush today by the Left is almost a carbon copy of that directed at Reagan, down to the accusations about inferior intellect, being a cowboy, war monger, etc. They're feverish paroxysms should be a joke to us all by now.

Great Great man, sad sad day.

Greatest president of my lifetime.

MJT, Im the same age as you. I also remember the fear. "Red Dawn".

Yes. The vitriol and hysteria directed at Bush today by the Left is almost a carbon copy of that directed at Reagan, down to the accusations about inferior intellect, being a cowboy, war monger, etc. They're feverish paroxysms should be a joke to us all by now.

Yeah, it can seem like a Wesley Willis or Hootie album, but a little more upsetting due the elapsed time of anti-reganism and the fact that we're "now" in a hot war (for those people who didn't think the "war on terror" didnt; start in (or before) the 70's).

Reagan was a great man, who accomlished great things. He was also a flawed man, who made mistakes; and a man of hard times, who made hard choices. While the occurrence of his death is (by custom) a better time to remember the good things about Reagan, in the long run it is the entirety of the man that we should remember.

How could I forget Lech? Maybe I have a subconscious bias against Polish people?

I wonder what might have happened to Europe if France and Germany had at the very last moment turned their backs against President Reagan and his doctrine for ending tyranny in Eastern Europe like France and Germany turned their backs at the very last moment against President Bush and his doctrine for ending tyranny in the Middle East.

Slate has a three interesting anti-Reagan articles, one by Hitch, another by William Saletin that does a pretty good job challenging the idea that "government is the enemy of liberty."

Righties who don't mind having their thinking challenged ought to check it out.

Nothing new in those articles Markus and the first one was really cheap. The guy who wrote it would get a good slap if I could see him now.

When Clinton eventually clocks out, maybe you'll want to talk about his days as a rapist?

"Yes, I can say the same and I should have. He was right and I was wrong. Thing is, I knew he was right when he said it. Of course I knew the Soviet Union was an evil thing. I never went through a communist or socialist phase, I was just afraid he was egging them on. "

Thank you for saying this Michael.

I have to wonder how similar the sentiment will be from a newly converted centrist when he blogs about the effects of the Bush Presidency twenty years from now.

I am old enough to recognize the same insults and arguments currently being used against George W. Bush because I grew up hearing them about Reagan.

What I find most telling is hearing the same people who used these arguments twenty years ago about Reagan talk him up now. I can only assume they will do the same in twenty years for Bush.

There is nothing like being on the wrong side of history....

I'm not really sure I understand why Slate decided to run two hatchet jobs on Reagan as their banner pieces. Saletan's piece at least had the grace to refute the man's policies instead of relying on character assassination.

Hitchen's piece reads like pure DU propoganda until the end where he writes:

These friends had all deeply wanted either Jimmy Carter or Walter Mondale to be, presumably successively, the president instead of Reagan. They would go on to put Michael Dukakis and Lloyd Bentsen bumper stickers on their vehicles. No doubt they wish that Mondale had been in the White House when the U.S.S.R. threw in the towel, just as they presumably yearn to have had Dukakis on watch when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. I have been wondering ever since not just about the stupidity of American politics, but about the need of so many American intellectuals to prove themselves clever by showing that they are smarter than the latest idiot in power, or the latest Republican at any rate.

This is the one time I can remember reading him that I have wondered if he isn't being too clever by half. But maybe that's his point.

Recursive politics. Bah.

Timothy Noah's got no excuse for his little potion. A purely partisan concoction, it's meant as an antidote to any secondary sympathy for Republicans. In effect, Noah's saying "I knew Ronald Reagan, and he was no Ronald Reagan!"

Don't think that talking point's going to go down very well with Middle America.

We are so evil. So morally weak, so rotten to the core. We are worthless nothings.

Now people on the Right -- those are truly people "in the Right." Great men and great women. Strong people, tough in the face of adversity, brave in the face of danger. With much backbone.

This is the story of history. We are so sorry to be on the wrong side, but what can we do. We are weak and pathetic. Like worthless little bugs. Oh if only we could muster the glory of being conservative. But of course we are nothing, and therefore we are only able to barely grasp just how miserable and useless we truly are.

"We are so sorry to be on the wrong side, but what can we do. We are weak and pathetic. Like worthless little bugs. Oh if only we could muster the glory of being conservative. But of course we are nothing, and therefore we are only able to barely grasp just how miserable and useless we truly are."

Actually I think the left served a vital function as the conscience of this nation for the better part of this entire century.

Then they traded in their compassion for vitrol and tossed their love for hate.

Since then, you are all worthless. Perhaps you will remember your values and that your country needs you - as you were.

Until then, you pretty much hit the nail right on the head.

What I didn't understand, because I was just a kid, was that most people who lived in the Soviet Union agreed with him. I'm sure I'm wrong about some things now and I'll be wrong again in the future. But I'm not making that mistake again.

Did you make the opposite mistake when you thought that the Iraqis would be dancing in the streets when the U.S. liberators arrived?

The majority of Iraqis were celebrating when we deposed their government. The guys we're fighting now are a small (and armed) minority - and not all of them are Iraqis.

I thought the Hitchens article was surprisingly petty, surperficial and meanspirited. The Saletin and Noah article were much more substantive.

Mark Garrity writes: "Reagan's darker legacy will be the nat'l. debt he tripled while in office and the ruinous borrow and spend path he put the Republican Party on that will one day come back to haunt all of us. If we're living like Russians were in the 1990s in 20 years think back on that and remember where it started, with Ronald Reagan"

Say what?!

I remember the Carter "malaise" years well, with 15% inflation, and 20% unemployment in Detroit. Back then, the bitter joke was, you needed connections to get a job at McDonald's. There was a keen sense of ever-shrinking economic possibilities for the average American, including me, an ordinary 18-year-old kid working and saving money to go to college. I hated Reagan's guts at the time, but in retrospect think he indeed was an important President, who achieved many of his stated goals, was a masterful politician, and changed the U.S. for the better.

Paul Volcker's willingness to break the back of inflation through an extremely restrictive monetary policy, and Reagan's political courage in backing the policy in the teeth of ferocious opposition, and at the expense of the worst recession since the 1930's, did indeed lay the groundwork for the low-inflation economic expansion of the 1980's and the 1990's. This is certainly something that all Democrats and Republicans can be greatful for. Anyone who lived through the 1970's who was more than 4 years old can remember how much they sucked.

The truth about Reagan is that he leaves a complex legacy, with the good commingled with the bad, but it is clear that he substantially shaped the country and the world that he lived in, and wrought changes that continue to this day.

Since then, you are all worthless.

You are a master of precision.

Mark Poling, I'm really happy to usually agree with you, but I have to disagree about Hitch. He accurately recalls a few specific, real incidents, that allow him to deny Reagan's essential greatness; like exaggerating the language issues.

The illegal, but not necessarily immoral, war in Nicaragua is certainly a black spot. (Funny, here in Slovakia kids get good "red" spots, and bad "black" spots for behavior in kindergarten.)

The stealing Carter's debate notes is specifically bad -- but Clinton's rabid attack dogs against Ken Starr show the Reps have no monopoly on dirty tricks. The Reagan (& Bush I) deal with the mullahs on the hostages is still unclear and terrible; but Carter's bungled rescue attempt is worse.

I think we need to accept that great presidents, in order to do actions, will make decisions that have some bad consequences. Any focus on the bad actions, only, will be unbalanced. Like Hitch is, on Reagan. But it's fine with me, on balance, to be reminded that the greatest president of the 20th century is NOT perfect, and even not that close.

Reagan's principles remain an inspiration. The government is the problem, not the solution.

>>>"We are so evil. So morally weak, so rotten to the core. We are worthless nothings."

You aren't evil, just laughable and dangerous.