I'm interested in hearing how other republicans will respond to this especially if what Rand Paul is saying is accurate. I've heard some point out that the 80's Reagan would be considered and RINO by today's conservative standards.
This is an old story that has been highlighted by a number of people here - mainly left leaning individuals. It’s part of that factional shift within the Republican Party from the old guard anti-communist/ neo-cons toward the more free market / neo-liberals. That is likely to cause a reappraisal Reagan’s presidency. * [FONT="]Neo-cons fall, who’ll rise on the right?[/FONT] http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=333692&f=36
Who says its wrong to criticize the most admired figures of one's political party? I think too many politicians are too afraid to criticize the most admired figureheads of their clans. It's admirable in some aspects. You never see any democrats bold enough to criticize Bill Clinton or Franklin Roosevelt. And you never see republicans do the same with Reagan. And politicians from both parties are way too afraid to criticize Abe Lincoln or George Washington. Yet I realize that climbing up the political latter is all about kissing the most ass from the most people within your party, and that I think is rather pathetic. Therefore, I think criticisms toward the most admired ought to be welcomed. But personally, I'm leery of Rand Paul. Even though I voted for Ron Paul in the primaries both times, his son I don't hold the same amount of trust for. If he gets elected president in '16 I think he will pull a bait-&-switch on his libertarian base into believing he will defy the establishment and make real changes for the better, but he will instead follow the exact same establishment status quo like every puppet is supposed to. Which would be the exact same bait-&-switch tactic Obama pulled on his Liberal base who he led to believe he'd repair the constitution and the mess that Bush left behind. Instead he just expanded all the same problems carried out by the Bush whitehouse.
A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for the fall of the USA. Libertarianism and corporate tyranny and the wealth gap it creates will lead to dissolution, uprisings, and violence in the street.
If I was a democrat, I would have no problem criticizing: Roosevelt's imprisonment of US born citizens of Japanese descent in "concentration camps" (yes, he called them that in his own words) Clinton's bombing of Iraq during his impeachment proceedings in attempts to redirect media attention elsewhere. Habitual lying about marijuana use. Denying student loans to people who have marijuana and drug violations. Sending off thousands of lower level jobs overseas with NAFTA, among other things. Yeah, they're all way to chicken to speak out and criticize their own party leaders.
Except for the bit about Clinton, I've seen the left wing talk about all of these topics ad nausea (e.g Rolling Stone, The Nation). Even MSNBC (chickenshit liberal if there ever was) shits on NAFTA and all that goes with it.
Carter's presidency had it's flaws, sure, but he at least TRIED to do the right thing. Reagan didn't give a shit about anybody but himself and big business. I think history will show Carter to have been the better Commander-in-Chief. The only good thing you can say about Reagan: At least he was better than George W. Bush!
