Reagan's Hurtful Side

Originally posted by OCA
AIDS? It was just starting back then, any Demos speak up about it?

Yep, just starting. And Reagan ignored it 'til 1987.
---------
Many Still Troubled by Reagan's Legacy

BETH FOUHY

Associated Press

SAN FRANCISCO - As one of the first physicians to confront AIDS when it began its rampage through the gay community, Dr. Marcus Conant lobbied the Reagan administration in 1982 to launch an emergency campaign to educate Americans about the disease.

It took the president five more years to publicly mention the crisis. By then, almost 21,000 Americans had died and thousands more had been diagnosed. Conant, who lost scores of friends and patients to the disease, is still deeply angry - one of many Americans who view Reagan's legacy in a harsh light.

"Ronald Reagan and his administration could have made a substantial difference, but for ideological reasons, political reasons, moral reasons, they didn't do it," said the San Francisco dermatologist, who now deals with a new generation of AIDS patients. "President Reagan and his administration committed a crime, not just a sin."

Despite the accolades lavished upon Reagan since his death Saturday - for ending the Cold War, for restoring the nation's optimism - his many detractors remember him as a right-wing ideologue beholden to monied interests and insensitive to the needs of the most vulnerable Americans.

Bruce Cain, a political analyst at the University of California, Berkeley, said Reagan singularly brought conservatism into the mainstream during his presidency, an orthodoxy that has made Democrats and liberals an enduring minority in Washington.

"What made things worse for them is that he was an extremely influential figure, and his ideas had lasting impact," Cain said.

Elected on a promise to slash taxes and crack down on freeloading "welfare queens," Reagan depicted government as wasteful and minimized its capacity to help people, ideas that survive today. Reagan also dealt a blow to organized labor by firing the striking air traffic controllers, and appointed Antonin Scalia, still the Supreme Court's most conservative jurist.

Reagan's weakening of the social safety net by dismantling longtime Democratic "Great Society" programs arguably vexes his critics the most. By persuading Congress to approve sweeping tax cuts for the wealthy while slashing welfare benefits and other social services like the federal housing assistance program, Reagan was blamed for a huge surge in the nation's poor and homeless population.

Many won't forget his administration's proposal to classify ketchup as a vegetable as a way of further reducing spending on federally subsidized school lunches.

"Ronald Reagan really was a modern day Robin Hood in reverse - he stole from the poor and gave to the rich," said Michael Stoops, a longtime advocate for the homeless in Washington.

Critics give Reagan grudging credit for his ability to connect with working-class voters, who would come to be known as Reagan Democrats. He also galvanized conservative Christians to participate in the political process - even while putting some of their more prized goals on the back burner, like restricting abortion rights or restoring prayer in public school.

But other activists point to Reagan's early silence on the AIDS crisis as doing the bidding of the far right, with devastating results.

In San Francisco, the number of AIDS cases peaked during the Reagan administration. AIDS activist Rene Durazzo remembers it as a frightening time when "chronic death" seemed to pervade the city streets.

"The number of people dying was horrific. The disease was very visible - people were suffering and wasting," Durazzo said. "It was a very volatile environment, there was so much anger at the government for not paying attention."

In the end, critics say Reagan's enduring legacy may be the generation of Republican leaders - including former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, House Majority Leader Tom Delay, and to some extent George W. Bush - who came of age during his presidency and have pursued a conservative social agenda with even greater gusto. That, in turn, helped create the bitterly divided political environment that exists to this day.

"The tone has gotten more venomous, largely because of the people who came after Reagan and carried the Reagan banner," said Roger Hickey, co-director of Campaign for America's Future, a liberal advocacy group. "I give him full credit for unleashing the vast right-wing conspiracy."
source
 
I hate it that that happened, but Iran did seem like the greater threat then. Even so, it later became clear what type of leader and regime we were dealing with and it looked like it was hardly the type that you would want to support.

Still, I found this information interesting though:

The Carter administration furnished Iraq, through Saudi Arabia, exaggerated reports of Iran's military weakness as a way of encouraging Saddam to invade.

Link
So many liberals make Carter out to be a president who could do no wrong and always did the right thing. And yes, I realize that this article is critical of Republicans, but at least that should keep people from talking about how it was biased.
 
We'll help ya when we want and take you down when we want

Isn't that the truth, and I would have it no other way. Saddam served his purpose at the time.

God bless Ronald Reagan! Perhaps the greatest president of the 20th century!

Right on OCA !!!!
 
Originally posted by eric
Intelligence is not one of your strong points I see. I'm also glad your proud of your physical structure, do you feel tough, like a real man ?

No, you did not write it, but you did post it. The man has not even been in the ground for a week, learn some respect young man !

That is my problem, plain and simple ! It shows your character, which, as evidenced, is lacking many positive traits.

Reading and experience are two very different things, you did not have to live in fear growing up of a nuclear war with the Soviet Union, I did, and it was not a comforting thought.

As far as me being stupid, think what you may, opinions of people of your class and stature mean very little to people like me.

Furthermore lay off the language or you will not post again, that is a promise, try me !!!!

I'll watch the language.

BTW, you called me a "little man" and a homo for posting an article.

Try addressing issues and not just attacking people personally.
 
BTW, you called me a "little man" and a homo for posting an article

I never said you were a homo; but you constantly defend these twisted, sick people, that is why I said your buddies. If you find the phrase "little man" that offensive, I think you might have a complex of some sort.
 
Lets see would him mentioning it have saved any of the 21,000 lives? Well not that I believe this person as i'll bet anything he mentioned it way earlier. The fact is homosexuals refused to moderate their overly promiscuous behavior and in fact went as far in their ignorance as to infect the blood supply. But its all Ronnie's fault right? Just another pass the buck story in America.

The statement about "vast right wing conspiracy" makes this article a joke.

Flasher you know you are making a major ass out of yourself this morning right? But then again you should be used to that by now.
 
Originally posted by eric
Yes, citizens who are in desparate need of help for their disease !

Come on Flasher, tell a mod what you really feel about us who feel that queers are mentally defective.
 
Originally posted by nycflasher
I'll watch the language.

BTW, you called me a "little man" and a homo for posting an article.

Try addressing issues and not just attacking people personally.

Pot meet kettle. Grow some balls!
 
6'5????? damanit. Id be lost standing up next to you. Your a foot and 4 inches taller than me.
 
Originally posted by KLSuddeth
6'5????? damanit. Id be lost standing up next to you. Your a foot and 4 inches taller than me.

My first girlfriend, from West Islip, NY, was a little Italian girl with a father who looked like Jay Leno.

We used to look like a circus sideshow walking down the street.

Me 6ft.+, her 4'11".

ANyway, air's not that much diffferent up here...;)
 
Originally posted by nycflasher
"This week's mourning of Reagan was nauseating because so many engaged in a whitewashing of his record. You can't evaluate Bill Clinton without mentioning Monica. You can't revisit Nixon without bringing up Watergate. And you cannot anoint Reagan as one of our great presidents without talking about his thoughtless actions on civil and human rights."

Do you agree with that at all, OCA?
I think it's a good point.

He was fine on civil rights you idiot. Can't criticize reaganomics, cause it works, can't criticize his hardline stance on communism, because it worked. Now your inventing stuff whole cloth about his civil rights record. What intellectual fraudery.
 
Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
He was fine on civil rights you idiot. Can't criticize reaganomics, cause it works, can't criticize his hardline stance on communism, because it worked. Now your inventing stuff whole cloth about his civil rights record. What intellectual fraudery.

What did I "invent"?
You idiot.:p:
 
Originally posted by nycflasher
Ronald Reagan's Hurtful Side
June 12, 2004
by Stan Simpson
source

When I think of Ronald Reagan, I think of Nelson Mandela.

One is without question one of the great men of modern times. The other, well, was a bad actor.

Now that Reagan is buried, there's no better time to unearth the truth of his distorted legacy. His civil and human rights record was so deplorable it anchors him among the lower rung of modern presidents. His indifference to South Africa's apartheid government needlessly added to Mandela's 27-year prison term.

While the Great Communicator harangued Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down that Berlin Wall, he apparently got laryngitis and didn't push South Africa's racist white-minority rulers to end its government-sanctioned oppression of the black majority.

Instead, Reagan, who valued South Africa's anti-Communist standing, proposed "constructive engagement" with its leaders, essentially an endorsement of the status quo. Had America stepped up with sanctions, which is what most of the world was doing, apartheid would have tumbled sooner than 1994, when a released Mandela was elected president.

"With specific regards to human rights, the Reagan era left a lot to be desired," says Richard A. Wilson, director of the Human Rights Institute at the University of Connecticut.

"Reagan could have supported multiracial elections in [South Africa] much, much sooner. A policy of `constructive engagement' was not a clear lead or stance in the awfulness that was apartheid."

Insensitivity, particularly to people of color, was the hallmark of Reagan's eight years in office. He kicked off his presidential campaign in 1980, not in his California hometown, but in Philadelphia, Miss. - notorious for the 1964 murder of three civil rights workers. In espousing a "states' rights" agenda - translated into "pro-segregation" in the South - Reagan let the good ol' boys know he'd have their back.

When Reagan signed the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday into law in 1983, he couldn't resist a dig at the slain civil rights leader. When asked if he thought King was a communist sympathizer, Reagan responded, "We'll know in 35 years, won't we?" - referring to the time frame in which classified FBI tapes would be released.

His administration made the mindless suggestion, in an effort to cut back on free school lunch programs, that ketchup and relish could be considered vegetables. America's 40th president opposed affirmative action, appointed mostly conservative judges and civil rights commissioners, supported Saddam Hussein in his war with Iran, and backed a slew of rightist dictators. As he was with apartheid, the Gipper's silence about a raging AIDS epidemic spoke volumes.

In commemorating World War II, Reagan, against the advice of his advisers and Jewish leaders, laid a wreath in 1985 at a cemetery in Bitburg, West Germany - the resting place of more than 40 Nazi soldiers of the notorious Waffen SS.

"I don't know what his personal feelings may have been," Julian Bond, chairman of the national NAACP, said over the phone Friday. "But whatever they were, his political feelings were developed to appeal to that group of Americans who aren't comfortable with democracy and justice and fair play."

This week's mourning of Reagan was nauseating because so many engaged in a whitewashing of his record. You can't evaluate Bill Clinton without mentioning Monica. You can't revisit Nixon without bringing up Watergate. And you cannot anoint Reagan as one of our great presidents without talking about his thoughtless actions on civil and human rights.

Reagan's self-effacing charm, one-liners and avuncular ways made some look past his shortsighted public policy. "His personality trumped his politics," Bond says. "He apparently was a decent human being, loved his wife, was friendly to all. And that geniality for many people masked the bad side of his politics."

In the plus ledger, Reagan brought pride and toughness to the United States after a Jimmy Carter era that had us looking soft. Reagan's influence in ending the Cold War with the Soviets was significant. His survival of an assassination attempt from a kook named Hinckley was heroic.

In the sunset of his life and battling the debilitation of Alzheimer's, the man who elevated the conservative political movement engendered something he doled out sparingly as president.

Compassion.



Stan Simpson's column appears Wednesdays and Saturdays. He can be reached at [email protected].

E-mail: [email protected]

If you want other stories on this topic, search the Archives at ctnow.com/archives.

Just to put my 2 cents in. Not every Pres can do everything that everyone wants him to do. So AIDS wasn't at the top of his list,not everyone has AIDS. He was concerned about Legionars(Sp?) disease. I know that spelling was way off.No President will ever be able to make everyone happy,period. No matter what anyone says,he did change the world. A lot to the ar left probably don't enjoy all the attention he is getting. He deserves it though. I lso think that picking on someone after they are gone is pretty wimpy. Go ahead,critisize what you like,but some of these writers are just asholes,plain and simple. This guy just sounds to me like a far left that did not agree with Reagan's policies,therefore he must have been a bad president...WRONG! This guy should probably grow up a little and realize the world doesn' revolve aroung Dems,Libs,Con,or Republicans. It seemsso childish that he would beat someone when they are down like an old man. When Clinton goes,he will get respect too,and I bet if anyone dare touch him,this jackass would go nuts!!!
 
"In San Francisco, the number of AIDS cases peaked during the Reagan administration. AIDS activist Rene Durazzo remembers it as a frightening time when "chronic death" seemed to pervade the city streets."

I love lib "logic"

They jump all over civil rights issues in South Africa while turning a blind eye to Idi Amin murdering hundreds of thousands in Uganda. Apparently it is acceptable, in the eyes of libs, that a black government murders and tortures it's black citizens. But let a white government deny voting and property rights to its black citizens, and the libs get their butts on their shoulders about that. Makes me rather curious about their priorities.

The revisionists are also busy about our role in "creating" Saddam. Yes, we aided him. It was a means of keeping the crazed homicidal zealot Khomeini in check. Did it backfire to some degree? Absolutely. Perhaps the vertical hold on Pres. Reagan's prescience was out during those months. Guess he should have been able to predict that Saddam would turn on his neighbors 15 years later or that he would use WMDs against his own people.

And finally, libs blame Reagan for the AIDS epidemic. That is laughable on its face. If homosexuals did not engage in rampant promiscuity, practicing their deviant sexual preferences with multiple partners, AIDS would not be so prevalent. Sexually transmitted AIDS is a TOTALLY preventable disease, even among homosexuals, if one practices basic common sense prophylaxis.

The most hilarious part of the articles posted is the line that George Bush, Newt Gingrich and Tom Delay learned their conservatives values from Pres. Reagan and that created the "bitterly divided" political and social clime we see today. That is exemplary of lib inability to accept responsibility for anything. It never occurs to libs that their intransigence, their virulent hatred, their inflammatory rhetoric, is at least as much to blame for the divisions within our society.

Ronald Reagan was everything libs fear and loathe. He was a man of principle. He was a man of faith. He was a man who had the courage of his convictions. He was a man who felt that an individual bears the responsibility for his or her own actions.

Whereas Slick Willie Clinton, that lib paragon, was a glib, unprincipled, devious charlatan more concerned with the meaning of the word "is" than in keeping this country safe from terrorists who were emboldened by his ineffectual "leadership".
 

Forum List

Back
Top