Three candidates who could kick Reagan's ass

I'm absolutely thrilled after watching our three top candidates furiously denounce the Reagan legacy in the South Carolina debate.

Finally, we're having a debate about those horrific eight years of Beirut bombings, Persian Gulf genocide, Central American hegemony and economic ineptitude.

And what we're seeing is three fantastic candidates, any of whom could beat the holy hell out of the paper doll known as the Great Communicator.

Best of all, Reagan is even getting tarred with Bush's ideas. Hillary moved so seamlessly from stomping on Reagan's grave to criticizing the privatization of Social Security, the viewer could almost forget that privatization is the biggest dream of George Bush, and not so much of Ronald Reagan.

Reagan beat two of our best and brightest: Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale. Carter was a pure visionary, saddled by the economic crises of Nixon and Ford and the international failures of Nixon.

Carter did the responsible things: launched energy policies to free us of Middle Eastern oil, negotiated an Egypt-Israel peace that somehow endures, wrestled with inflation without sacrificing principle.

He was beaten by a vapid stuffed suit who talked like a TV granddad but was a manipulator and a liar. Reagan nearly nuked the globe. He kept secret the approaching collapse of the Soviet Union so he could play act as a tough-talking Commander in Chief while his military ignored the law and traded arms for hostages and cheap oil.

Reagan acted with ferocious disregard for peace and global responsibility. He stoked the economy with cheap oil, achieved by fomenting the bloody Iran-Iraq war by selling weapons to both Saddam Hussein and the ayatollahs.

As our candidates look to outdo each other criticizing Reagan, perhaps we'll see in the media an honest reappraisal of that blood-thirsty fool's reign of global terror. But even if we get no more than we got last night, at least we're getting something other than Reagan worship on our televisions.

And showing America that Reagan is no more worthy of worship than the shit head now living in the White House is the first step to beating Reagan's next legacy candidate by a landslide.

Hillary would beat him on communication and brains.

Obama would beat him on inspiration and brains.

Edwards would beat him on looks and brains.

It's morning in America. Get used to it.

•  Change?

  Or experience. Or progress. We win.

  by overlander on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 07:50:56 PM PDT

•  Finally

  a positive post!

  by oceanstar17 on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 07:56:59 PM PDT

  •  Heh.

    Maybe not from Reaganites' perspective.

    by overlander on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 08:01:10 PM PDT

•  best and brightest????

  Were you alive back then? Carter had many of us progressives seriously considering voting third party. Mondale was the worst person to pick to run in 1984. Gary Hart presented a chance to look to the future. The Dems blew it. We have a chance again this year to look to the future instead of the past. I hope we don't blow it again but it looks like we might.

  by Better Days on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 08:02:36 PM PDT

  •  Gary Hart would have been more electable

    And would have made a fine president.

    by overlander on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 08:04:29 PM PDT

    •  Anybody

      I think anybody would have been better than Mondale - he of the one state victory.  Even boring old John Glenn would have won more, I expect.

      by greatdarkspot on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 08:09:00 PM PDT

  •  I was alive back then

      And I remember disliking Carter, supporting Kennedy, and when Kennedy lost the Democratic nomination, being for Anderson.

      But I had a certain excuse:

      I was eleven.

      Looking back, with the experience of what ideological purism actually gets you, namely, the opposite of everything you claim to stand for, I can see that I was a bit silly and wasn't seeing the big picture.

      Ideological purism is for people who never have to deal with the consequences of their votes: people who are going to have nice houses and cars and health insurance, who never really have to worry about access to abortions or being arrested at an airport on the basis of their appearance, who think forests are nice but have never actually been in one and wouldn't notice if they disappeared.

      I expect I'm more radical on issues than most people on this site.  But it's plain nuts to maneuver in ways that result in Republicans winning.  The only way that really progressive issues will be realized is when the Democratic Party, imperfect as it is, regains a really solid lock on power, and the Republicans are shut out.

      When the Republicans no longer pose a political threat, then let's start talking about fine distinctions among Democrats.  Until then it's perfectly pointless.

    by WIds on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 08:18:56 PM PDT

    •  Especially when the distinctions

      are so very small among our remaining three candidates.

      by overlander on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 08:20:44 PM PDT

    •  This is one of the best comments

      I have read here in a long time.

      by Jjc2006 on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 08:29:03 PM PDT

•  Carter was great? What are you on??

  Jimmy Carter did more damage to the Democratic brand than any president since James Buchanan.  I'll never forgive him for being such a weak little sh** with the hostage situation.  Never.  He should have never listened to Cyrus Vance - that idiot.
  And Mondale had a tin ear - how can you say that these two are our best and brightest?  Reagan SLAUGHTERED them - Mondale one ONE state!
  And speculation how today's candidates would do in a race against him is as useful and wondering how Teddy Roosevelt might have done in a race against John F Kennedy.  

  by greatdarkspot on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 08:07:55 PM PDT

  •  Peace treaty, energy policy, motivational speech

    Yeah, Americans just can't handle the truth.

    The confidence that we have always had as a people is not simply some romantic dream or a proverb in a dusty book that we read just on the Fourth of July. It is the idea which founded our Nation and has guided our development as a people. Confidence in the future has supported everything else--public institutions and private enterprise, our own families, and the very Constitution of the United States. Confidence has defined our course and has served as a link between generations. We've always believed in something called progress. We've always had a faith that the days of our children would be better than our own.

    Our people are losing that faith, not only in government itself but in the ability as citizens to serve as the ultimate rulers and shapers of our democracy. As a people we know our past and we are proud of it. Our progress has been part of the living history of America, even the world. We always believed that we were part of a great movement of humanity itself called democracy, involved in the search for freedom and that belief has always strengthened us in our purpose. But just as we are losing our confidence in the future, we are also beginning to close the door on our past.

    In a nation that was proud of hard work, strong families, close-knit communities, and our faith in God, too many of us now tend to worship self-indulgence and consumption. Human identity is no longer defined by what one does, but by what one owns. But we've discovered that owning things and consuming things does not satisfy our longing for meaning. We've learned that piling up material goods cannot fill the emptiness of lives which have no confidence or purpose.

    by overlander on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 08:14:21 PM PDT

    •  Energy

      I'll grant you that his energy policy was good.  I have mixed feelings about his peace treaty - I give most of the credit to Begin and Sadat - in hindsight Carter has turned into a rank Arabist.

      And I don't know why you think he was a motivational speaker - you're very much in the minority on that one.

      by greatdarkspot on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 08:38:26 PM PDT

      •  Carter did what he had to do to govern

        not what he had to do to get re elected. That included scolding Americans who didn't want to turn down their thermostats or work for energy independence.

        I can't kick a guy for doing the right things. Sorry.

        by overlander on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 08:49:37 PM PDT

        •  Not the reason

          Carter didn't lose because he asked people to save energy.  He lost because he let a bunch of fanatics in Iran push us around.  I'll never forgive him for that - never.

          by greatdarkspot on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:15:20 PM PDT

  •  You have to admit that

    the one state Mondale won was a pretty great one...

    by WellstoneDem on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 08:32:43 PM PDT

  •  OT, Carter's Foreign Policy Team was provided

    by his big mentor...the person who helped launched his Presidential run.....David Rockefeller (and the GOP, who were looking for a friendly Dem to run when no Republican could get elected just after Watergate). They knew each other from The Council on Foreign Relations.

    Carter did not have a strong Foreign Relations background, so Rockefeller hooked him up with some Kissinger folks.

    by LNK on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 08:56:45 PM PDT

    •  Vance

      Not sure who hooked him up with Vance, but that man was a freaking disaster and we are still paying for his screw-ups.  But the buck stops with Carter.

      by greatdarkspot on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:12:45 PM PDT

•  You get a rec from me for this diary

  I LOVE it.

  I especially loved this:

  And what we're seeing is three fantastic candidates, any of whom could beat the holy hell out of the paper doll known as the Great Communicator.

  Here is why.  When Reagan was elected my best friend and I were devastated but we lived and worked in a super conservative country where Reagan was and is adored.  We even have a section of highway named "Ronald Reagan Highway".   It nauseates me every time I have to drive that section.

  Anyway, one day my friend and I were out and we found in some store a paper cut out book of the Reagans.  Seriously, no joke.  We had cardboard Ronnie and cardboard Nancy and we had all these clothes cut outs and even a snow globe with Nixon's face.

  We took it to school where we taught together.  And at lunch we would get them out and do Saturday Night Live like routines just to watch some of the right wingers get their drawers in a bunch.  Hmmf..!

  Anyway reading that brought back a flood of good memories.  My friend died in 1999 and I hadn't thought about our cut-outs in a while.  I sure miss her as she and I could spend hours talking politics.
  I am sure we would be in many long, long conversations now.

  perhaps we'll see in the media an honest reappraisal of that blood-thirsty fool's reign of global terror.

  Oh for this to be true.  I doubt it but I would love it.  

  I agreed with everything you said.

  by Jjc2006 on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 08:18:02 PM PDT

  •  Thanks. n/t

    by overlander on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 08:19:14 PM PDT

•  great points

  its important to dissect the reagan "legacy," whether Obama wanted us to or not.

  by laurenc on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 08:39:07 PM PDT

•  Reagan was backed by GE and

  Texas oil money........along with Corporate America and The Religious Right.

  Now we are up against the corporate owners of voting machines and vote counting systems.

  Links to my previous contribution(s):
  My Comment on DKos with Reagan transcript:

  http://www.dailykos.com/...

  My Comment on DKos with Election Integrity, Voting Machine news:
  http://www.dailykos.com/...

  by LNK on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 08:53:51 PM PDT

•  Different Eras + Different Players

  + Different Issues = Sounding Stupid

  by valion on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:05:15 PM PDT

  •  Thanks for playing.

    by overlander on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 05:27:53 AM PDT

    •  You're welcome. n/t

      by valion on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:05:11 PM PDT