I was going to let this sit in the comments section, but it really is illustrative of the Left's under-informed positions on great people. Most conservatives will acknowledge that FDR was a great leader, even though his presidency laid the ground for much of what is wrong with America today. These guys can't even handle the greatest President of the 20th century not being one of their own.

On my tribute to Reagan thread earlier in the week, good ol' Don (who calls my work "poorly written" ... talk about misinformed) came back with this:

Reagan ran up a massive deficit, staunchly supported South African apartheid, gave money and weapons to Hussein and bin Laden, tried to get the Khmer Rouge recognized by the UN, sold arms to terrorist nations, traded arms for hostages, retreated from terrorists in Beirut, lied to Congress, financed an illegal war in Nicaragua, helped trigger the savings and loans debacle, put astrologers on the White House payroll, and laid flowers on the grave of SS officers at Bitburg.

Ronald Reagan used the full power of the federal government to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

He removed facts and compassion from our national debate, and replaced them with ideology and nepotism."Greatest president of the 20th Century?" Only to those who do not remember history.

Of course, this is nothing more than an attempt to demonize one of the greatest Americans in the history of this great nation...

Reagan ran up a massive deficit

WRONG WRONG WRONG.

Fact is, Don, that if President Reagan's budgets hadn't been Dead On Arrival in the Donk congress, the deficit would have been eliminated by the end of his presidency. Yeah, ok. Reagan ran up deficits ... NOT.

staunchly supported South African apartheid

Hmm ... How does imposing sanctions equate with "supporting" apartheid? I'm just not sure what you mean.

gave money and weapons to Hussein and bin Laden

At the time, this was the right thing to do, just like allying with the Soviets in the Second World War. Hussein was at war with Iran, who, in case you didn't know, was a major enemy of the United States due to President Carter's incompetent handling of the crisis with the Shah. The Afghans (with bin Laden's support) were at war with the Soviets. Am I to believe that you would prefer that we just send our own troops into harm's way when we have people already fighting our enemies for us? Get a life.

In all of the situations you referred to, the US was choosing the lesser of two evils. Would you have preferred that President Reagan have taken the risks involved in simply ignoring these situations? Look what happened when President Carter did just that with the Iranians.

It would have made no sense at all. Of course, history shows that good and successful leaders do take sides wherever they feel necessary in support of their nation's best interests. Winston Churchill is a prime example. Had Churchill bowed to the naysayers, the UK would be part of Germany today, and it is quite possible that the NAZI philosophy would be running that country. Would that have been a good thing? I think not. I have my differences with PM Blair on a lot of things (he's quite the socialist, actually), but one thing he has done is work very hard to allow his people the opportunity to choose their own destiny, and not have some terrorist regime force an unwanted destiny upon them.

laid flowers on the grave of SS officers at Bitburg.

Of the 11,000 soldiers buried at Bitburg, 49 of them worked for the SS. To call these guys "officers" seems to be a little presumptuous, as most of them were between the ages of 17 and 20. But what of the other 10,951 soldiers buried there who were most likely forced into service by the NAZI regime (as was Pope Benedict)? Don't they deserve a little tribute for their suffering at the hands of Hitler? Kohl himself was subjected to watching people close to his own age tortured, embarrassed, and/or executed for simply refusing to serve. What would you have done?

Furthermore, why not have a little demonstration of the mended relationship between the US and Germany? After all, the two world wars caused some really bad blood between the countries. As a German-American, I am proud of what President Reagan did for relations between the US and Germany, and especially what he did in his efforts not only to reunite the East and West, but to reunite them as free people. Reagan's success in the Cold War trumps any mistake he may have made in any other international affairs, in my opinion.

Ronald Reagan used the full power of the federal government to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

How do you say? During the Reagan years, 65% of the poorest quintile of taxpayers had moved up at least two quintiles, and 87.5% had moved up at least one quintile. Upward mobility was the order of the day. You simply canot argue that the rich got richer and the poor got poorer. This was a direct result of his tax cuts.


The Real Reagan Record:
Gross National Product: UP (good)
Poverty: DOWN (good)
Personal Disposable Income (per capita): UP (good)
Unemployment: DOWN (good)
Crime: DOWN (slightly)
Inflation: HALVED! (excellent)

He removed facts and compassion from our national debate, and replaced them with ideology and nepotism.

I lived through the Reagan years, too. You should know what the facts are before you hurl accusations, Don. And President Reagan put REAL compassion into play in the US by removing the shackles that interfered with people’s success. Get the government out of the way, and the people succeed. The Reagan Years were the proof.

The Greatest President of the 20th Century Reagan was. Lie about him if you want, but you are doing yourself, your credibility, and your country a major disservice when you do.

RWR

Update 6/25: CJ at AngryYoungConservatives posts a tribute to President Reagan.