Sunday, February 6, 2011


See here.

[PS: And thanks to my old friend Slater for the link to this relevant article as well.]

[PPS: Another take worth checking out.]


Tim said...

Amen. So my question to you, Lally, is doesn't this contradict much of what you've said about Reagan? If he wasn't the hardline conservative that right-wingers claim he was, then he wasn't the hardline conservative that left-wingers claim he was either, right? It is the same deal with Obama. The conservatives have painted him as this far-left-wing idealist - and I think many "liberals" would love to claim him as their own. But the facts don't support the myth.

And while "political activists" run around in circles attacking these straw men, the corporations continue to have their way with us.

Lally said...

Tim, I must not be making myself clear enough for you, and we obviously read the article I linked to differently.
It is true that Reagan did not live up to some of the "conservative" ideals he supported or created, e.g. espousing "smaller government" then expanding government. (As the article points out, and I have many times as well, the Democrat, Clinton, shrunk the federal government to below what it was when Reagan came in, and all he got for it from the right was a non-stop effort to discredit and then impeach him on whatever they could uncover or create, no matter how trivial or irrelevant to governing.)
But Reagan still stood for rightwing ideas in most areas that count for most citizens. And to think that those of us who have a more left leaning perspective are equivalent to those on the right because we're all just "political activists" running "around in circles attacking straw men" is to ignore pretty much everything I've ever written about politics, especially since I began this blog (it was part of the reason I did) which was to disabuse younger people of the idea that the left and right are somehow represent the some sort of intolerance and get in the way of the moderate center prevailing, when in fact their philosophies and subsequent policies support two very different world views, one which leads to things like rightwing Supreme Court appointees who overturn tons of precedents and basic Constitutional law and principles to impose their unConstitutional activist idea that corporations are people and can spend their billions on influencing elections without having to reveal doing so, etc. and one which leads to Supreme Court justices who oppose any idea that corporations and individual citizens are the same thing.
And as I have also endlessly pointed out, it is a rightwing strategy and has been since Nixon, but Reagan's people perfected it, to convince ordinary citizens that "there isn't a dime's worth of difference" in the parties because the more people that vote the less chance the rightwing minority has of prevailing, but it they can convince most moderates it isn't worth bothering for, then their continuously riled up base can come out and swing elections (ala the last one) in their favor. And that can mean, in the case of Nixon and Bush/Cheney, for example, the difference between hundreds of thousands of people living or dying. Not an insignificant thing, and not "political acitivists" running around "attacking straw men."

JIm said...

Lally, It would be nice to throw in an example of tons of precedents overturned by right wing justices.

"like rightwing Supreme Court appointees who overturn tons of precedents and basic..."

Shem The Penman said...

Readers of this blog might also want to read "Ronald Reagan, Enabler of Atrocities," by Robert Parry, a posting for 2-06-2011 at This article is another reality-check against the ongoing efforts to beatify Ronny The Popular and ultimately canonize him as Saint Ronald.
Pax Vobiscum,
Shem The Penman

JIm said...

Shem's blogger criticises without specifics, which is normal for a liberal.

from shem's blogger
"Yet, even as the United States celebrates Reagan’s centennial birthday and lavishes praise on his supposed accomplishments, very little time has been spent reflecting on the unnecessary bloodbaths that Reagan enabled in many parts of the world."

JIm said...

The Nation's article was informative. It did not need the Fox slam. I watched a rather long segment on Fox about the Green Bay ownership earlier in the day. I just watched O'Reilly's Obama interview with follow up interview. Obama said words to the effect that Fox News was fair in their news coverage but have a point of view as does MSNBC in their comment shows. Obama said it would be good if comment shows gave all the facts that support and oppose ideologic positions. That seems like a fair comment.