How Liberals Created Ronald Reagan

[PoliticalChic]

1. “If liberals had supported Ronald Reagan the actor, they wouldn't have had to deal with Ronald Reagan the politician.

2. In 1954, my father Ronald Reagan began hosting a weekly TV series, "General Electric Theater." The show aired Sunday nights at 9 on CBS, and consistently ranked in the top 10. Dad hosted the show and appeared as an actor in a number of episodes. Nancy made sure we watched it every week.



3. …he toured the country by train and visited GE factories, local chambers of commerce and civic groups. The thousands of speeches he gave helped prepare him for bigger things to come.

4. But I haven't felt warm and fuzzy toward GE since that day in 1962 when Dad came home and told us he had just been fired by GE and his show, "General Electric Theater," was canceled.



5. Dad explained that CBS hadn't canceled the highly rated show. Instead, GE had pulled the plug. As the company was negotiating some government contracts, Bobby Kennedy, the attorney general of the United States, bluntly informed GE that if the company wished to do business with the U.S. government, it would get rid of "General Electric Theater" and fire the host.

6. Dad had criticized the Kennedy administration in some of his speeches, and the administration fought back through the president's brother. Within 48 hours of Bobby Kennedy's call, Ronald Reagan was out of a job.

7. So, in a backhanded way, Bobby Kennedy launched Ronald Reagan's political career. It was a classic case of liberals outsmarting themselves. If Bobby Kennedy had let Ronald Reagan continue hosting his successful TV show, would my father have run for governor? Doubtful. And if he had not been elected governor, he certainly would not have run for president of the United States.



8. Sometimes the Law of Unintended Consequences is a good thing!"
Ronald Reagan's Son Remembers The Day When GE Fired His Dad - Investors.com

 

[Friends]

If Ronald Reagan had kept his position on General Electric Theater he would have been better positioned to begin his political career.

Ronald Reagan was the most prominent leader of a Republican renaissance that owed its existence to factors that frightened or irritated the white majority from the left, and to the unwillingness of Democrats to deal with those irritants.

When Reagan ran against Pat Brown for governor of California in 1966 he claimed that Pat Brown had been insufficiently harsh with those who participated in the Watts riot of 1965, and with the Berkeley free speech demonstrators.

As the black ghetto riots continued every summer, and as the Berkeley free speech movement segued into the student movement in many universities, support for the Republicans increased.

Although the Tet Offensive of 1968 ended enthusiasm for the War in Vietnam anti war protesters alienated most white voters with the anti American and pro Communist expressions that seemed to characterize them.

White moderates felt that black behavior should have improved because of the civil rights legislation and the war on poverty. Instead there were five years of black ghetto riots from 1964 to 1968. The crime rate doubled from 1960 to 1970.

United States Crime Rates 1960 - 2010

These factors caused white moderates to move to the Republican Party.

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

Ronald Reagan was one of the top five BEST Presidents that this nation has ever had. I believe without a shadow of a doubt that history will look back on his Presidency and see that he took this country from the precipice of disaster to one of it's greatest periods. Unfortunately, what he built, what he believed in and what he envisioned has been slowly destroyed by the current and past several administrations ( and I include GWB in this as well).

Things happen for a reason. We may not know what the reason is, we may never know. But there is a reason. My mother told me that and I believe it with all my heart.

We need another Ronald Reagan. We need someone who can raise this nation from the ashes where Barry has firmly placed us. But sadly, I do not see one.

Great thread...

 

[Friends]

Ronald Reagan was one of the top five BEST Presidents that this nation has ever had. I believe without a shadow of a doubt that history will look back on his Presidency and see that he took this country from the precipice of disaster to one of it's greatest periods. Unfortunately, what he built, what he believed in and what he envisioned has been slowly destroyed by the current and past several administrations ( and I include GWB in this as well).

Things happen for a reason. We may not know what the reason is, we may never know. But there is a reason. My mother told me that and I believe it with all my heart.

We need another Ronald Reagan. We need someone who can raise this nation from the ashes where Barry has firmly placed us. But sadly, I do not see one.

Great thread...

Ronald Reagan was more successful than Jimmy Carter. Nevertheless, Carter was a better president.

When Carter was president an average of 2,600,000 jobs were created every year. Under Reagan that declined to 2,000,000.

Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record - Real Time Economics - WSJ

The highest rate of unemployment under Carter was 7.8 percent. Under Reagan unemployment rose to 10.8 percent. The highest under President Obama has been 10.0 percent.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE.txt

Although Reagan raised taxes several times, the top tax rate declined from 70 percent to 28 percent.

Historical Top Tax Rate

Consequently, during the Reagan administration real after tax income for eighty percent of the population declined.

The Vampire Economy | DNDN Message Board Posts

And the national debt doubled.

History of the United States public debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The inflation that ended Carter's presidency, and which declined during Reagan's presidency was due to fluctuations in the price of petroleum over which neither president had much control.

http://www.inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Rate/Historical_Oil_Prices_Table.asp

 

[Mad Scientist]

So G.E. has been controlling the Gov't since 1962 eh? I'm shocked I tell ya'!

Liberals should do a little research to see just how many G.E. connected people work for, excuse me, CONTROL Obama. It's not JUST the Bankers that own him.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Ronald Reagan was one of the top five BEST Presidents that this nation has ever had. I believe without a shadow of a doubt that history will look back on his Presidency and see that he took this country from the precipice of disaster to one of it's greatest periods. Unfortunately, what he built, what he believed in and what he envisioned has been slowly destroyed by the current and past several administrations ( and I include GWB in this as well).

Things happen for a reason. We may not know what the reason is, we may never know. But there is a reason. My mother told me that and I believe it with all my heart.

We need another Ronald Reagan. We need someone who can raise this nation from the ashes where Barry has firmly placed us. But sadly, I do not see one.

Great thread...

Ronald Reagan was more successful than Jimmy Carter. Nevertheless, Carter was a better president.

When Carter was president an average of 2,600,000 jobs were created every year. Under Reagan that declined to 2,000,000.

Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record - Real Time Economics - WSJ

The highest rate of unemployment under Carter was 7.8 percent. Under Reagan unemployment rose to 10.8 percent. The highest under President Obama has been 10.0 percent.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE.txt

Although Reagan raised taxes several times, the top tax rate declined from 70 percent to 28 percent.

Historical Top Tax Rate

Consequently, during the Reagan administration real after tax income for eighty percent of the population declined.

The Vampire Economy | DNDN Message Board Posts

And the national debt doubled.

History of the United States public debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The inflation that ended Carter's presidency, and which declined during Reagan's presidency was due to fluctuations in the price of petroleum over which neither president had much control.

Historical Oil Prices: InflationData.com

Welcome to the board, Friend....

Enough chit-chat:

"Nevertheless, Carter was a better president."

No doubt you teach geopolitical history at one of our noteworthy universities....

You won't like this:

“1980…Carter was the bumbling, egotistical coward bent on surrendering to the Soviets, who claimed to have been attacked by a giant swimming rabbit. Carter’s economic policies had produced a 21% interest rate, a 17% mortgage rate, and a 15% inflation rate in a ‘hat trick’ of presidential incompetence. Not only that, but he had produced skyrocketing unemployment.

Carter’s brilliant strategic ploy of abandoning the shah of Iran, an important American ally, soon led to soaring oil prices and, of course, Islamic lunatics holding fifty-two Americans hostage in Tehran, where they remained for 444 days, until Carter was safely removed from office by the American people. (Carter’s abandonment of the shah also gave rise to the global Islamofascist movement we’re still dealing with today.)


Under Carter, Americans were permitted to put gas in their cars only on alternate days, based on whether the last number of their license plates wan an even or odd number. The price of oil had risen 154% since the beginning of Carter’s presidency.

With all that going for them- plus that old Mondale magic- Democrats were dumbstruck that they lost the 1980 election. (Nor could they understand why gas prices, inflation and interest rates shot down and the nation enjoyed peace and prosperity soon after Reagan became president.) Naturally liberals asked themselves” What other than a dirty trick could explain Carter’s loss?


The Left’s theory was that in October, one month before the 1980 presidential election, members of Reagan’s campaign clandestinely met with representatives of the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and offered to sell him weapons in exchange for his promise not to release the hostages before the election. By delaying the release of the hostages, the theory went, Reagan would deprive Carter of a triumphant victory on the eve of the vote. In other words, liberals believed the Islamofascist cutthroats who had been toying with Carter like a cat with a ball of yarn for the past year wanted Carter replaced by someone stronger, like Reagan.

But it seemed like a perfectly plausible theory to the editorial board of the New York Times.”
Coulter, “Demonic,” p. 84-85

 

[Moonglow]

When Ronny was president he did the same thing to counter culture icons Cheech and Chong, and many others.
In 1954 Reagan was an actor but then after his acting days died he became the Screen Actors Guild president. A labor union.

 

[PoliticalChic]

When Ronny was president he did the same thing to counter culture icons Cheech and Chong, and many others.
In 1954 Reagan was an actor but then after his acting days died he became the Screen Actors Guild president. A labor union.

Do you have a point to make....or your usual post?

 

[bobcollum]

Did you just hear this story?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Did you just hear this story?

It was mentioned in one of the books that I'm reading this week....why do you ask?

 

[bobcollum]

Just curious, it's been floating around for a while.

 

[Friends]

Welcome to the board, Friend....

Enough chit-chat:

"Nevertheless, Carter was a better president."

No doubt you teach geopolitical history at one of our noteworthy universities....

You won't like this:

“1980…Carter was the bumbling, egotistical coward bent on surrendering to the Soviets, who claimed to have been attacked by a giant swimming rabbit. Carter’s economic policies had produced a 21% interest rate, a 17% mortgage rate, and a 15% inflation rate in a ‘hat trick’ of presidential incompetence. Not only that, but he had produced skyrocketing unemployment.

Much of this is rhetorical hyperbole, and does not merit a response. As I have already pointed out, the inflation that happened in 1980, and which diminished during the Reagan administration was due to fluctuations in the price of petroleum over which neither president had much control.

http://www.inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Rate/Historical_Oil_Prices_Table.asp

 

[Friends]

Welcome to the board, Friend....

Enough chit-chat:

"Nevertheless, Carter was a better president."

No doubt you teach geopolitical history at one of our noteworthy universities....

You won't like this:

Carter’s brilliant strategic ploy of abandoning the shah of Iran, an important American ally, soon led to soaring oil prices and, of course, Islamic lunatics holding fifty-two Americans hostage in Tehran, where they remained for 444 days, until Carter was safely removed from office by the American people. (Carter’s abandonment of the shah also gave rise to the global Islamofascist movement we’re still dealing with today.)

The 1953 Iranian coup d'état (known in Iran as the 28 Mordad coup[3]) was the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iran Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh on 19 August 1953, orchestrated by the intelligence agencies of the United Kingdom and the United States under the name TPAJAX Project.[4] The coup saw the transition of Mohammad-Rezā Shāh Pahlavi from a constitutional monarch to an authoritarian one who relied heavily on United States support to hold on to power until his own overthrow in February 1979.[5]
1953 Iranian coup d'état - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

---------

Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh was a popular, and democratically elected leader. He was a moderate Muslim, a moderate socialist, and considerably more decent than any ruler Iran has had since.

Mohammad-Rezā Shāh Pahlavi was never a popular dictator. In 1979 the only way President Carter could have kept him in power would have been by a military occupation of Iran. I am glad Carter did not order that, and sorry that President Eisenhower did order the overthrow of the democratic government of Iran.

 

[Ravi]

Reagan was a bad actor and a bad president.

And that's no one's fault but his own.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

1. “If liberals had supported Ronald Reagan the actor, they wouldn't have had to deal with Ronald Reagan the politician.

2. In 1954, my father Ronald Reagan began hosting a weekly TV series, "General Electric Theater." The show aired Sunday nights at 9 on CBS, and consistently ranked in the top 10. Dad hosted the show and appeared as an actor in a number of episodes. Nancy made sure we watched it every week.



3. …he toured the country by train and visited GE factories, local chambers of commerce and civic groups. The thousands of speeches he gave helped prepare him for bigger things to come.

4. But I haven't felt warm and fuzzy toward GE since that day in 1962 when Dad came home and told us he had just been fired by GE and his show, "General Electric Theater," was canceled.



5. Dad explained that CBS hadn't canceled the highly rated show. Instead, GE had pulled the plug. As the company was negotiating some government contracts, Bobby Kennedy, the attorney general of the United States, bluntly informed GE that if the company wished to do business with the U.S. government, it would get rid of "General Electric Theater" and fire the host.

6. Dad had criticized the Kennedy administration in some of his speeches, and the administration fought back through the president's brother. Within 48 hours of Bobby Kennedy's call, Ronald Reagan was out of a job.

7. So, in a backhanded way, Bobby Kennedy launched Ronald Reagan's political career. It was a classic case of liberals outsmarting themselves. If Bobby Kennedy had let Ronald Reagan continue hosting his successful TV show, would my father have run for governor? Doubtful. And if he had not been elected governor, he certainly would not have run for president of the United States.



8. Sometimes the Law of Unintended Consequences is a good thing!"
Ronald Reagan's Son Remembers The Day When GE Fired His Dad - Investors.com

I've met Michael. We share mutual friends. That said, he is nuts where it comes to dear old dad. (I have...) shhhh

 

[there4eyeM]

"8. Sometimes the Law of Unintended Consequences is a good thing!"
Well, PoliChic (pronounced as in French) back to you.

The story is very interesting. I love history and how events turn other events. Doesn't matter if it is true or accurate or whatever. It certainly is believable. I only disagree with the presence of the good in #8.

The connection to 'liberals' (not sure what that means to people here) is vague. Nixon didn't do some nasty things? Only 'liberals' are capable of vengeance? It is just another side of nepotism. Call it affirmative unfavoring.

Or, was Nixon a 'liberal' and I missed a lot more than I thought I had?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

"8. Sometimes the Law of Unintended Consequences is a good thing!"
Well, PoliChic (pronounced as in French) back to you.

The story is very interesting. I love history and how events turn other events. Doesn't matter if it is true or accurate or whatever. It certainly is believable. I only disagree with the presence of the good in #8.

The connection to 'liberals' (not sure what that means to people here) is vague. Nixon didn't do some nasty things? Only 'liberals' are capable of vengeance? It is just another side of nepotism. Call it affirmative unfavoring.

Or, was Nixon a 'liberal' and I missed a lot more than I thought I had?

Michael was adopted and Nancy was sending him to be diddled by a family acquaintance.

but number 7?

7. So, in a backhanded way, Bobby Kennedy launched Ronald Reagan's political career. It was a classic case of liberals outsmarting themselves. If Bobby Kennedy had let Ronald Reagan continue hosting his successful TV show, would my father have run for governor? Doubtful. And if he had not been elected governor, he certainly would not have run for president of the United States.

Nancy already had Ronnie thinking about Politics. Shit, Ronnie loved politics from his days in Union politics.

Nancy had plans for Ronnie just as Hillary had plans for Bill. Both were from Illinois upper class families

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The Reagan Legacy Project pays Michael's salary. Shit, without it Michael might have to go out into the cold cruel world and sell himself.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/22/books/review/22SHESOLL.html

How Republicans Created The Myth of Ronald Reagan

With the Gipper's reputation flagging after Clinton, neoconservatives launched a stealthy campaign to remake him as a "great" president.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Welcome to the board, Friend....

Enough chit-chat:

"Nevertheless, Carter was a better president."

No doubt you teach geopolitical history at one of our noteworthy universities....

You won't like this:

Carter’s brilliant strategic ploy of abandoning the shah of Iran, an important American ally, soon led to soaring oil prices and, of course, Islamic lunatics holding fifty-two Americans hostage in Tehran, where they remained for 444 days, until Carter was safely removed from office by the American people. (Carter’s abandonment of the shah also gave rise to the global Islamofascist movement we’re still dealing with today.)

The 1953 Iranian coup d'état (known in Iran as the 28 Mordad coup[3]) was the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iran Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh on 19 August 1953, orchestrated by the intelligence agencies of the United Kingdom and the United States under the name TPAJAX Project.[4] The coup saw the transition of Mohammad-Rezā Shāh Pahlavi from a constitutional monarch to an authoritarian one who relied heavily on United States support to hold on to power until his own overthrow in February 1979.[5]
1953 Iranian coup d'état - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

---------

Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh was a popular, and democratically elected leader. He was a moderate Muslim, a moderate socialist, and considerably more decent than any ruler Iran has had since.

Mohammad-Rezā Shāh Pahlavi was never a popular dictator. In 1979 the only way President Carter could have kept him in power would have been by a military occupation of Iran. I am glad Carter did not order that, and sorry that President Eisenhower did order the overthrow of the democratic government of Iran.

1. Your post could hardly be topped as proof of what the Great Man posited:
"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so."


And...again, enough chit-chat....let's get down to disemboweling....


Dr. Abbas Milani is he Director of the Iranian Studies Program at Stanford University. His recent book is “The Shah,” is based on ten years studying the archives of the United States and of Britain. The following is from his recent lecture on that subject.
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/297919-1



2. Prior to 1951, Britain controlled Iran’s oil industry. The US foresaw how the one-sided dominance would result in a nationalist uprising, and warned Britain, but they refused to alter the agreements, claiming that they knew how to deal with the ‘natives.’

a. Mossedeq was the nationalist leader of the Iranian Parliament, becoming so via democratic process, and the first thing he did was nationalize the oil industry. Britain wanted to attack Iran, but Truman wouldn’t allow it. Then the Brits tried to get the Shah to use the army to throw Mossadeq out…but the Shah refused to do anything illegal.


3. When the communists attacked Mossadeq, the nationalists, the middle class, the merchants and even a broad swath of clerics—Islamists such as Ayatollah Abolgasem Kashani, a mentor of the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini—had initially supported Mossadegh.

4. But by November of ’52, try as they may, the US could not make a deal with Mossadeq, who demanded 100% control of oil, which would never be accepted by Britain. The US began to agree with overthrowing the Prime Minister.

a. The power of the communists was increasing in Iran…and the economy suffered a downturn. Both factors caused a loss of popular support for Mossadeq- but due to the loss of support, he felt the need to gravitate toward the communists. This scared off the clergy.

b. Brits and the US began to send in agents provocateurs to act as communists to further cause rifts between the clergy and Mossadeq.

c. As compensation for his support, Ayatollah Kashani began to demand veto rights on legislation, and Islamic laws, and laws against Baha’is. Mossadeq refused, and lost the cleric’s support.



5. Due to the unrest and criticisms, Mossadeq decided to dismiss the parliament; without any constitutional or legal basis. His supporters warned him that this would allow the Shah to make recess appointments, including the Prime Ministers. He didn’t believe that the Shah would do it….he was wrong. On August 13th, 1953 the Shah signed the decree which removed Mossadeq and replace him with General Fazollah Zehedi. “When pro-Shah soldiers went to arrest Mossadegh, they instead were captured.” http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/issue51/articles/51_14-15.pdf The Shah fled to Rome.


6. By August 19th, crowds filled the streets, attacked Mossadeq’s home, and took over the radio station. The question is whether these crowds were simply concerned Iranians, nationalists, communists, as the Shah’s supporters claimed, or paid CIA operatives, and the CIA claims.


a. Professor Milani, using the latest declassified archival documents, suggests two things:

a) the crowds were combinations of both, and

b) “Although declassified CIA documents confirmed many details of his account, which Roosevelt told with the relish of a John le Carré thriller, his version was exceptionally self-serving. For instance, despite knowing little about Iranian society and speaking no Persian, Roosevelt launched by his own description an instantly potent propaganda campaign. Dwight Eisenhower, president during the 1953 coup, was to characterize Roosevelt’s report as seeming “more like a dime novel.” The CIA claimed more power that it actually had.
The



There is nothing the Left likes better than putting together scenarios which paint the United States as evil....

...and I'm certain you'll get props for advancing same....as in: "Iranian coup d'état (known in Iran as the 28 Mordad coup[3]) was the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iran Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh on 19 August 1953, orchestrated by the intelligence agencies of the United Kingdom and the United States..."



Again, for the hard-of-thinking...."Due to the unrest and criticisms, Mossadeq decided to dismiss the parliament; without any constitutional or legal basis. His supporters warned him that this would allow the Shah to make recess appointments, including the Prime Ministers. He didn’t believe that the Shah would do it….he was wrong. On August 13th, 1953 the Shah signed the decree which removed Mossadeq and replaced him with General Fazollah Zehedi.


You see, the Shah had appointed Mossadegh....and legally removed him.

Mossadegh himself was appointed prime minister by the parliament upon recommendation of the Shah himself.


"Mossadegh was tried for treason, and sentenced to three years in prison. Following his release he remained under house arrest until his death in 1967. The new government under the Shah in August 1954 reached an agreement with foreign oil companies to "restore the flow of Iranian oil to world markets in substantial quantities"...In his memoirs, Eisenhower writes angrily about Mossadegh, and describes him as impractical and naive, though stops short of admitting any overt involvement in the coup."
Mohammed Mossadeq - Discussion and Encyclopedia Article. Who is Mohammed Mossadeq? What is Mohammed Mossadeq? Where is Mohammed Mossadeq? Definition of Mohammed Mossadeq. Meaning of Mohammed Mossadeq.


The version you believe is the Kermit Roosevelt version....no longer given credence.


Tough luck, huh?


Relying on you for knowledge of history would be like rushing to England for dental care.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Reagan was a bad actor and a bad president.

And that's no one's fault but his own.

Can't always believe everything you hear.


1. He was successful in the first two of the four. Volcker doubled the fed funds rate in one year, reaching 20% in 1981.
Historical Changes of the Target Federal Funds and Discount Rates - Federal Reserve Bank of New York


And the tax cuts of the Economic Recovery Act of 1981 stimulated economic growth. “As a 1982 JEC study pointed out,[1] similar across-the-board tax cuts had been implemented in the 1920s as the Mellon tax cuts, and in the 1960s as the Kennedy tax cuts. In both cases the reduction of high marginal tax rates actually increased tax payments by "the rich," also increasing their share of total individual income taxes paid.” http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm

“As inflation came down and as more and more of the tax cuts from the 1981 Act went into effect, the economic began a strong and sustained pattern of growth.” US Department of the Treasury


2. The benefits from Reaganomics:

a. The economy grew at a 3.4% average rate…compared with 2.9% for the previous eight years, and 2.7% for the next eight.(Table B-4)

b. Inflation rate dropped from 12.5% to 4.4%. (Table B-63)

c. Unemployment fell to 5.5% from 7.1% (Table B-35)

d. Prime interest rate fell by one-third.(Table B-73)

e. The S & P 500 jumped 124% (Table B-95)
FDsys - Browse ERP

f. Charitable contributions rose 57% faster than inflation. Dinesh D’Souza, “Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary May Became an Extraordinary Leader,” p. 116



So...how does that compare to "The One"?

Care to alter your post?