New Site Reaches Out to the Tea Party

Seriously, I am at a complete loss as to what that means? Back in 1980 I was so disappointed with both party candidates that I voted for Independent John Anderson. Still think I was right on.

Here are the facts I know on Reagan. To clarify as well, he had a GOP Senate for almost his entire term, so he was not "fighting" an opposition Congress.

He grew the Government to over 20% of GDP, the largest it had ever been to that point. So is "Reaganesque" Big Government?

When Reagan took office, unemployment stood at 7.6% and grew to 10.5% by the end of his 2nd year. So this would imply that the actions being taken by Obama, which resulted in a much faster stop to a much bigger recession as "Reaganesque."

Reagan tripled the US Debt from approx. $900B to $2.9T. So is deficit spending "Reaganesque?"

As someone who grew up in the Army, this next one impacted me personally. in 1983 the Marine Barracks in Beruit were attacked by terrorists with 240+ U.S. Marines killed. In response, Reagan pulled the troops and did not retaliate. So is not responding to Terror attacks on our Military "Reaganesque?"

BTW, a French installation was also attacked and 10 French Soldiers died...The French government retaliated with Bomb strikes.

When Reagan took office, the Top 1% earned 9% of U.S. Income...With Trickel Down Economics I under Ron and Trickledown II under W, today the Top 1% earns almost 20% of U.S. income. So is growing the wealth of a select few by taking income away from the Middle Class "Reaganesque?"

In 1981 Reagan rode in on a wave determined to marginalize and eliminate Unions, the major force in growing the Middle Class that defined us as a Country. Since then as Union numbers shrink, middle class jobs off shored to China and India have grown. Growing the Middle Class of China and India at the expense of the U.S. Middle Class, is that "Reaganesque?"

I can go on, but at this point I think I have given a clear enough picture on why "Reaganesque" is confusing.

He was a decent man and a decent President, but this concerted effort to rewrite History is as crazy as TX replacing Thomas Jefferson with Phyllis Schafley in History books.

Or to be even more confused, the "Conservative Contract" being pushed by some on the Right, is a checklist of 10 Con principles that candidates must meet 8 of 10 to receive Con funding.

Mr. Reagan scores a 6 of 10 and therefore would not qualify for running for office...

So either the COns have gotten crazier, or they are fabricating the legacy that was Reagan.

CommonSense of KS 2:11PM June 15, 2010