Mike Brewer

YouTube Video

YouTube Video

YouTube Video

YouTube Video

YouTube Video

These guys were inspiring. They had vision, and an apparent ability to touch something within the American consciousness that unified and motivated us all to higher purposes and accomplishments. Why has this quality apparently gone the way of the Dodo in today's politicians?

TTEscrima

RR made the list? His legacy is running the country today. Several of the men you listed flat out said that certain groups of people who stayed in the shadows were in the process of stealing our country. We know where the good leaders went and why it happened, question is can we do anything about it at this point.

Wolfeye589

Seems today most politicians care more about keeping the voters happy than changing things for the better. People don't like change, even if it helps them in the long run. I'm generally leery about politicians who everyone likes, but maybe thats just my cautious nature.

My personal favorite is Teddy. Only president I know of that was in a barfight and won...He's got my vote!

__________________
"Igitur qui desiderat pacem; praeparet bellum."
"If you want peace; prepare for war."

Mike Brewer

Damned right Reagan made the list! I know you're probably one of those that sees any and every Republican as the same animal, so it's easy for you to be so wrong about George W Bush being a part of the Reagan Legacy, but that's just not accurate. You go back and check out the things Ronald Reagan stood for and built within the government, and you'll see that most modern Republicans - George Bush especially - have gone in a very different way than Reagan suggested. Thier economic policies, foreign relations policies, military policies, government policies, and even basic executive policies are vastly different from what Reagan suggested. The types of people they appoint and choose to surround themselves with are different than Reagan's. The positions within government that they choose to build are different than Reagan's.

I know it has become fashionable of late to send people off to do all kinds of research on their own instead of just providing some supporting facts, but I am no shortcutter! Nay! I am a kind-hearted, educated discussioner and so I will take it upon myself to provide you with some facts about Reagan to support my choice. Armed with these facts, you may feel free to research them for validity. No stalling here, my friend. No sending you out on goose chases or stalling while you decide whether or not it's worth looking into. No sir, I am a full service debater. Buckle up, brother... Here you go!

Reagan was a registered Democrat and avid admirer of FDR's up until Kennedy. His part with the Democratic party was based on the fact that Democrats had strayed away from those very ideals that made FDR such an admirable leader. This was in the timeframe that George McGovern was coming to prominence, and the Democrat Party really and truly was swinging away from most of what they had been. Reagan felt true to his principles, regardless of the party's move away from them, and this led to the now-famous statement that he had not left the Democrat Party, but rather that it had left him.

Reagan's strength and vision - even as early as his loss to Ford for the nomination in 1976 - showed that he was going to be an invaluable force in confronting the Soviet Union. He took the Soviet threat head on, and on all fronts, and he did it in a way that was both visionary and incredibly effective. Lest we forget, even the projects for which he was most mocked ("Star Wars") are now not only very real, but a cornerstone of public diplomacy efforts abroad. Reagan was multi-dimensional enough to recognize that he had to not only beat the Soviets in terms of military might, but also in terms of economics, diplomacy, and public "face." He was savvy and effective at all of them. He showed that he was both tough and at the same time approachable. I have it on very, very good, first hand information that it was precisely Reagan's genuine toughness combined with his strength of character that made his "back channel" talks and negotiations with Gorbachev so effective.

Reagan's platform in 1980 was a four-part deal that still defines what is, in my mind anyway, a great way to see government. He ran on lower taxes as a way to stimulate the economy, less government interference in people's lives, more State rights, and a strong national defense. His statement regarding the economy: "Government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem." rings truer today than ever.

Reagan hacked and slashed income taxes to an all time low as well. He put more money in the hands of American people, and he stimulated the supply side of the economy, which increased important economic factors like investment, expansion, and job creation. Unemployment was at roughly 8% when Reagan came into office - the highest it had been in this country since the Depression - and the inflation rate was something like 12%. While increasing defense spending by a massive 40%, he managed to steadily cut both the unemployment rate and the inflation rate throughout his presidency, he managed to see somewhere on the rder of 15 million to 16 million new jobs created because of the supply side economic policies he advocated, and sent the economy - which was in a recession under Carter - into a steady and respectable 3.5% growth. All of this resulted in not only an improved economy and the best military we've ever had, but also a total impact of less than 1% on the revenue the government brought in. That, sir, is phenomenal by anyone's estimation!

There were negatives as well, to be sure. The increase in the national debt was a biggie, and one that Reagan regretted. However, I think that what he accomplished (and what he accomplished at a time when it was critical we did so) qualify him as one of our great leaders. History is one thing, but consider also the point of view at the time. You do realize that in his 1980 bid, he won 44 of the 50 States, and in 1984, he won 49 of them! The single and only State Reagan lost in his re-election was Minnesota. That should tell you what the American people thought of the man all by itself, but in case it doesn't, consider also that he had a whopping 73% approval rating among the populace during his presidency. That's absolutely incredible, and it remains one of the highest of all time, with only LBJ topping it at 74% immediately following Kennedy's assassination.

So yeah, Reagan earned his spot on the list.

TTEscrima

"Ronald Reagan was the most popular president ever to leave office," explained ABC anchor Elizabeth Vargas (6/6/04). "His approval ratings were higher than any other at the end of his second term." Though the claim was repeated by many news outlets, it is not true; Bill Clinton's approval ratings when he left office were actually higher than Reagan's, at 66 percent versus Reagan's 63 percent (Gallup, 1/10-14-01). Franklin Delano Roosevelt also topped Reagan with a 66 percent approval rating at the time of his death in office after three and a half terms.

In general, Reagan's popularity during his two terms tends to be overstated. The Washington Post 's lead article on June 6 began by declaring him "one of the most popular presidents of the 20th Century," while ABC 's Sam Donaldson announced, "Through travesty, triumph and tragedy, the president enjoyed unprecedented popularity." The Chicago Tribune (6/6/04) wrote that "his popularity with the electorate was deep and personal... rarely did his popularity dip below 50 percent; it often exceeded 70 percent, an extraordinarily high mark."

But a look at Gallup polling data brings a different perspective. Through most of his presidency, Reagan did not rate much higher than other post-World War II presidents. And during his first two years, Reagan's approval ratings were quite low. His 52 percent average approval rating for his presidency places him sixth out of the past ten presidents, behind Kennedy (70 percent), Eisenhower (66 percent), George H.W. Bush (61 percent), Clinton (55 percent), and Johnson (55 percent). His popularity frequently dipped below 50 percent during his first term, plummeted to 46 percent during the Iran-Contra scandal, and never exceeded 68 percent. (By contrast, Clinton's maximum approval rating hit 71 percent.)"

For anyone who cares to look at the actual polling data, the facts show that Reagan was definitely not the most popular post-war president, and during many comparable periods he was among the most unpopular.

I guess you're too young to have served under Reagan in the Military, his policies and those of his VP are what put todays political scene on the track we're now locked into. His pathetic attempts at feigning poor memory over the Iran Contra scandal were classic BS to avoid prosecution for supplying terrorist organizations with weapons and money, along with being involved in the drug trade, yeah, GREAT man. Quite the dynasty he began, Reagan AND a Bush, Bush, Clinton, Bush...Clinton, yeah nothing hinky going on.

Mike Brewer

Hold on...just...a...second.

Did you honestly just include Clinton as part of the Reagan "dynasty?"

Ooof.

I also find it hard to believe that you'd blame Reagan for the election of George W. Bush. Or did you forget that Bush Sr. was defeated after his first term by the King of the Democrats, who won twice thereafter? If you ask me, there are two dynasties going on - Clinton and Bush. Reagan had nothing to do with that.

I would also submit to you that getting involved with Iran Contra was an illegal act, granted. I do think, though, that it was very likey that Reagan made the call based on what he thought was best at that time. Reagan managed to broker the release of hostages from Tehran - hostages who'd spent more than a year in captivity as a response to Jimmy Carter's mis-steps - and put us on at least a predictable footing with Iran. The fact that Reagan ended up trading arms for hostages may be deplorable to some, but I'd guess that those hostages were thankful as hell. Also, when one considers that the bulk of the arms sold to Iran for the release of Americans were TOW missiles (wire-guided, limited range weapons that cannot generally outreach US issued countermeasures on the battlefield, and which were used almost entirely fighting Iraqi armor) that are not, have not, and likely will never be a strategic threat to Americans, the question ceases to really be a moral issue and becomes one of Reagan breaking the law. Was it wrong of a President to break the law? Yep. Sure was. Was it wrong to negotiate a back-door deal with a hostile nation to both try and improve relations and secure the release of American hostages? Not in my opinion, no. What was wrong with that deal is that we didn't follow up the way we should have, we didn't finish the job we were there to do, and we didn't support the people in the region that might have been our productive allies to this day. But that, it's worth noting, fell largely to Bush Sr. after Reagan was gone from office.

It's also worth noting, mind you, that the whole idea for the exchange of TOWs for Hostages occurred after Israel did the very same thing. Yes, ladies and Gentlemen, Israel sold the very same TOW missile to Iran why? To secure the release of an Israeli hostage. It worked, and for better or worse, we followed suit.

Since you were apparently old enough to be serving during that time, you're also no doubt aware that our primary enemy everywhere in the world was the USSR. No strategic goals were more important than containing Soviet influence. Attempts to change the context and look at the situation through a lens of today's battles against Islamism would be dishonest. It's important to see those things in the right light and the right context - the containment of the USSR. That's why funding the Contras took precedence over dealing with the Drug problem in Nicaragua. The priority was #1 - Contain Communism, and then #2 deal with the drug issue. One was a matter of an issue, and the other was a matter of global domination. The choice is unenviable, but easy to make.

The simple fact of the matter is that all Presidents have challenges to face that are tougher and more complex than any of us armchair quarterbacks can fathom. The weight of that office and the interplay between issues very rarely if ever allows for black and white solutions. You can criticize and pass judgement toward the negative if you like, but I prefer to acknowledge that his positive contributions far and vastly outweigh his negative ones. He defeated the single strongest, most formidable enemy we've ever faced. There will always be new enemies, and the person who manages to beat our current enemies will hopefully be recognized for the accomplishment despite the fact that we'll no doubt have a whole new enemy to deal with.

I consider Reagan a great leader, even though he had flaws and even though he failed from time to time. I think he's did a damned site better than Carter, and I think he did more (and did it better) than anyone who's come after him. In case you're keeping score, that means he's been the best we've had in about a half century, and arguably far longer.

TTEscrima

There is no such thing as a good drug dealer, no matter how you try to justify it, and OMG the irony of using Israel did it first as an excuse!! I'm surprised Osama hasn't used that one. Speaking of Osama and Reagan.

Mike Brewer

There's no such thing as a good drug dealer? Really? Odd, then, that you could find it in your heart to overlook drug-users for their faults.

And the fact that Israel sold weapons to Iran was not meant to excuse Reagan's behavior. Please grab a Kleenex and wipe off your screen so that you can see it better. You're beating to death an issue I've already conceded. I agreed that Reagan subverting Congress and his own policy was wrong, and I've agreed that it was illegal. So what exactly are you trying to prove by going back to that? That we still agree? Impressive strategy.

My opinion is that Reagan's contributions and victories outweigh his failures. If you'd like to debate something we disagree on, it might be more fun than just submitting the same piece of the argument I've conceded over and over again. Just a thought.

Like for instance, the bullshit you blurted about Bush and Clinton somehow being part of the Reagan dynasty? That was an interesting idea. Wanna talk about that some more? I'd LOVE to hear you explain how two terms of Clinton and Hillary's current candidacy are Reagan's fault. That'd just be awesome.

TTEscrima

Want a tie between them specifically? David Gergen. The dynasty I referenced though was the one I commented on initially where the parties aren't the issue, it's the people who have a special interest in things so to speak. Reagan sealed them into place BY making his backdoor drug deals from within the Whitehouse and now they have too much dirt on too many people to ever admit it and remove them from power.

We can't admit we sold out POW's for drugs or that we used the US Military to do it and then sold them to terrorist organizations, or the deals we cut with Osama when fighting the Russians. The presidents may have changed but the people "advising" them (along with their dirty laundry) remain the same.

As for the soviets being the big issue on Reagan's plate, who was holding hostages when he took office? How many Americans died at the hands of a Soviet during his administration? Quite a few died at the hands of Muslims, I waved at every Soviet sailor I saw and got drunk with plenty of them during Reagan's tenure, the Muslims on the other hand...

Mike Brewer

Seriously? You want us - or me, anyway - to accept that Reagan managed to guarantee Clinton's election? If you'll pardon me borrowing a phrase from the famous scholar Dr. Evil, that's ri-god-damned-diculous.

As for Gergen? Your theory is built on a secret link, the guy who advised Reagan on such a national security topic as communication, being the lynchpin in Reagan's ongoing bilateral dynastic legacy of Bushes and Clintons in the White House Dude! Why didn't I see it before! But wait...

Gergen was also Ford's advisor. Maybe this dynasty shit started with Ford. Or Nixon. Gergen also worked for Nixon. Goddamned dynasty shit has Nixon written all over it, too. It's easy to see how Gergen could have been such a nefarious force, what with his primary role being that of speechwriter and PR consultant. it might also be worth noting that Gergen only worked for Reagan for two and a half years of the eight that he was in office, and none of those were during the time that arms were sold to Iran. Arms sales to Iran did not begin until August 1984, and Gergen was a private citizen from 1984 through 1993. It is also interesting form a purely time-line view of things, that this means Gergen was not hired as a Clinton Advisor until after he was in office, and that he never worked for Bush Sr. in any capacity except campaign staffer in 1980 (when Bush lost the nomination, he went to work for Reagan).

So much for a "common thread."

Your "chain" not only started several presidencies before the guy you're beginning with, but also skipped a very important link - namely Bush Sr. - along the way.

Holy conspiracy theories, Batman! Between these guys, the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers, the Carnegies, and that damned Colonel Sanders with his wee beady eyes...

You're asking for one hell of a leap in logic and reason here, TT. Reagan's policy on the Sandanistas led to the guarantee that the Clintons would enter the White House, the mass compilation of dirt on everyone in American politics (shared, apparently, by two political families that cannot stand one another and had NO relations at all prior to the late 80's), and the controlling of American politics by Reagan's designees? Umm, forgive me, but I'm afraid I'll need more in the way of proof than some bland hypothesis. Care to elaborate?

Mike Brewer

You cannot possibly be this naive.

Why do you think we were fighting in the places we were? Who do you think was equipping those Muslims? Why do you think they were doing it?

Hint:
It was the same people promoting communism and trying to undermine America in every other part of the world. You know - our premier enemy?

Don't kid yourself. Just because the Russians had blond hair and blue eyes or lifted a glass your direction doesn't mean they weren't the enemy. It doesn't mean that it was precisely the flow of Soviet money, training, and weapons that we were combatting with out own money, training and weapons. Those were proxy battlefields, and the people on both sides of it were Muslim, Vietnamese, African, South American, etc. How would you have done it, TT? How would you have rsponded to a Soviet Empire that was training, funding, and equipping third world revolutionaries to attack your interests? Would you just declare all out war on a nuclear superpower? Would you use up your troops going off to fight in the Middle East, South America, and Africa while the Russians just paid and equipped the locals to wear you out? What happens when you're all worn out and they've still got all their guys?

It's interesting to read the conspiracies, but if you're going to talk about how drastically Reagan got it wrong, how about some hindsight? How would you have done it?

TTEscrima

Nice try. No one denies there are two dynasties, but if you think things are really going to change whichever one wins, I've got some land here I'd like to sell you. The point of Gergen ( I just happened to remember his name off the top of my head there are plenty more) is that the advisor's remain the same no matter who wins the elections. Now if the people in the background who advise those in the public eye stay the same then how hard is it to admit those guiding the show are more important than the ones in the spotlight?

TTEscrima

OMFG I do believe the people fighting OSAMA BIN LADEN and the people we like to call the Taliban today were the RUSSIANS, so if you count taking weapons off their dead bodies sure the Russians were supplying them LMAO.

Unbelievably lame attempt there my man, unbelievably lame.

Mike Brewer

Brother, I've got news for you - virtually every family on Capitol Hill has far-reaching roots. Lots and lots and lots of people on the Hill have long family histories in government. It's not terribly different from most other professions in that respect. Actors and actresses beget children who want to act. Carpenters often have kids who grow up to work construction. Soldiers very often have kids who serve. If you want to talk about dynasties, you don't have to look far. It's easy to shoehorn conspiracies into reality if the circumstances you need to make them true are commonplace.

And as for advisors, I'm not sure I agree. I think you have a valid claim, but only if you can prove to me that there were advisors who were not only involved in several presidencies in a row, but who also had enough influence to steer the policies of their respective bosses. Most presidents name new cabinets when they are elected, and their inner circle of advisors tends to be made up of those they've trusted for many years. I'll entertain this one as legit if you can meet the burden of proof.

The rest of it, though, smells strongly of good drugs.

Mike Brewer

Um, no. It's lame that you'd try to make an example like this, yes. We equipped whomever the Russians weren't. That's how the whole proxy war thing works. Again, if the Russians fought the Afghanis, then we'd equip Afghanis to fight Russians. That's how that happened. I would not have thought that was a real stretch. And Osama was just another revolutionary back then. It wasn't like he wandered around with a sign on his back that said "I'm going to attack you in 21 years."

Try to stay with me.

The USSR fought in Afghanistan, so we tried to make surethe locals could beat them. The USSR was encouraging the spread of communism in South America, so we backed the guys we hoped could stop them. We fought against North Vietnam, and so the Russians backed them. Are you seriously unable to follow that? That's basic history, man. Being that you served back then and all, I'd have thought it was pretty self-explanatory.

So back to the questions I posed about what you'd do differently. Well?