That was an interesting exchange and eemonstrated the difference in the thinking of a Liberal vs a Conservative. Rush's response was not really included except in the few words between the statements of the caller.
When Reagan came to office, the country was a mess. When he was re-elected, he came within .18% of the votes in Minnesota of carrying every state in the union. There has never been a more decisive victory in history. The caller may or may not have known this, but it strikes any challenge to the impact Reagan had on the country moot.
Reagan changed the way that Americans thought about themselves and about the country. This conversion of attitude crossed party lines, economic stratas, race, religion and gender. He ushered in the period of the "Peace Dividend" that cut back military spending and helped to lead to the boom times of the 90's.
The caller called out various details that the Right likes to use as litmus tests. He set up the false gambit that if this is true than that is true. If these are the tennets of the Right then Reagan cannot be a hero of the Right because he did not champion these petty issues.
In truth, Reagan was a hero to the country and the country knew it. .18% of the vote in Minnesota is all that kept Reagan from carrying every state in the union. His opponent was from Minnesota and he almost did not carry his own state.
What might we gleen from this?
So wait. Because Reagan carried almost every state, that makes every single criticism about him "moot"? (1)
On top of that, he cut military spending? What? (2)
Domestic policy of the Ronald Reagan administration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Domestic policy - Ronald Reagan - election
But Reagan, in fact, increased spending too. He proposed an enormous increase in the military budget ($1.5 trillion over five years) to rebuild armed forces that he claimed had been allowed to deteriorate badly in the 1970s. Congress approved that increase, although it was later scaled back significantly.
If you would care to respond to what I said, then do so. If you would like to respond to voices echoing in your own head, then why quote me?
1. Not every criticism is stiken moot. He did that whole Contra thing and he did raise taxes and blah, blah, blah. Who cares? Were you there?
When Carter left office, the word on the street was that the USA was finished. The Japanese were taking over and we were a footnote in history. No international respect, no ideas, no passion and no future. Plenty of rust and plenty of bloat.
When Reagan left office, the USA was the pre eminent Super Power and was poised to reconstruct the economy of the world using computers.
2. Reagan did not cut defense spending. By uping the ante in the weapons race, the Russians had to cash out their chips. When Reagan talked about the SDI, the Russians thought it was ready to deploy.
How does"ushered in the era of" and "cut" translate as synonomous in your language?
There were several days when it was so dark and cloudy it was hard to tell if the sun really did rise...
