Former U.S. President Gerald Ford dies at 93
The only U.S. President never to be elected, the oldest U.S. Present in history…
Donald Rumsfeld, Gerald Ford, Dick Cheney
Read or listen to Gerald Ford’s 1975 address in Helsinki before the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe…
Mr. Chairman, my distinguished colleagues: May I begin by expressing to the Governments of Finland and Switzerland, which have been, superb hosts for the several phases of this Conference, my gratitude and that of my associates for their efficiency and hospitality.
Particularly to you, President Kekkonen, I must convey to the people of the Republic of Finland, on behalf of the 214 million people of the United States of America, a reaffirmation of the longstanding affection and admiration which all my countrymen hold for your brave and beautiful land.
We are bound together by the most powerful of all ties, our fervent love for freedom and independence, which knows no homeland but the human heart. It is a sentiment as enduring as the granite rock on which this city stands and as moving as the music of Sibelius.
Our visit here, though short, has brought us a deeper appreciation of the pride, industry and friendliness which Americans always associate with the Finnish nation.
I am sorry for the passing of Gerald Ford. He seemed a good man at a time that the U.S. was in trouble. But standing close to those two. If he knew then what we know now. Things would have been very different.
I think that the States will need another President like Gerald Ford to heal and rebuild the States after the Bush Administration is done with it.
Comment by Howard Lumsden — Wed, Dec 27th, 2006 @ 12:47 pm
Cheney has really put on some weight in recent years obviously.
Comment by Phil — Wed, Dec 27th, 2006 @ 2:48 pm
More weight in more ways than one. That “aw shucks” grin has turned into a sinister sneer and both Cheney and Rumsfeld look like they got their suits at Sears.
Sad that the one in the middle had to go first.
Comment by DAVE THE RAVE — Wed, Dec 27th, 2006 @ 3:01 pm
Hi Phil,
>The only U.S. President never to be elected….
George W. Bush was not elected in 1999 for his first term either. He was given office by a vote of the conservative Supreme Court after he had lost the popular vote. He would have lost the electoral college vote too if a fair count had ever been finished in Florida, where his brother and the Republicans broke the process for his benefit.
Have a nice day,
Antti
Comment by Antti Nannimus — Wed, Dec 27th, 2006 @ 5:24 pm
“Bush was not elected in 1999 for his first term either”
Get over it. He won. They counted the vote 3 times, each time his win margin increased.
So do you want a 4th count?
Comment by winter — Wed, Dec 27th, 2006 @ 6:24 pm
“So do you want a 4th count?”
How about a recall election? I’m sure it would be a landslide.
Comment by DAVE THE RAVE — Wed, Dec 27th, 2006 @ 6:44 pm
How about a recall election?
Huh, he can’t run again. So get over it. He will be known as the Best President of this Century.
Comment by winter — Wed, Dec 27th, 2006 @ 6:47 pm
Jerry Ford always struck me as a nice fellow. Nothing hidden or sinister about him. He wasn’t really a popular president, but I never understood why.
Was it due to the gas crisis? Post-vietnam, anti-government sentiment, in general? His understated style of dress?
Anyway, he seemed ok to me.
And 93-years is a long life! RIP
—
winter—had the court decided against W, you’d probably still have the House and Senate. Instead, now, I predict that the Republicans will need to reinvent themselves to regain any popularity.
Maybe even change their name and plead ignorance about past deeds:
“It wasn’t us, really!”
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Wed, Dec 27th, 2006 @ 6:51 pm
“Huh, he can’t run again. So get over it. He will be known as the Best President of this Century.”
I have gotten over it, it’s just the rest of the 300 million US citizens who are having a difficult time with it. And by the way, tough guy, don’t tell me to do anything.
The only thing he will be remembered for is lying, killing thousands and probably getting away with it all.
Comment by DAVE THE RAVE — Wed, Dec 27th, 2006 @ 6:54 pm
“remembered for is lying”
OK i am game, name one.
Comment by winter — Wed, Dec 27th, 2006 @ 6:55 pm
More weight in more ways than one. That “aw shucks†grin has turned into a sinister sneer and both Cheney and Rumsfeld look like they got their suits at Sears.
That’s what happens to you if you live in DC for too long.
Huh, he can’t run again. So get over it. He will be known as the Best President of this Century.
I am guessing that when Bush goes, somewhere around 2030, they’ll replay his post 9-11 speech over and over again, not the photo of him sitting in the classroom reading My Pet Goat.
He has been a pretty lousy president though. He had the 9-11, invasion of Iraq boost, but after that he settled around 35 - 40 percent support, where he’s been ever since.
And thanks to him, the Republicans lost both the Congress and the Senate this year. Democrats were able to hang W. around the necks of Talent in Mo., Conrad Burns in Mt., and Macaca in Va., and sweep all of the seats they needed to take. Ironically, it was Harold Ford, Jr., perhaps the most administration friendly of the lot, that wound up losing.
Republicans in the post 2000 election drank deeply from the Rove kool-aid container. They were told of election-proof majorities and “realignment” that would last for a generation. But it didn’t materialize. Their culture warriors swung too far to the right, their 38-year grip on Washington (as epitomized by that photo) bred corruption that dragged the rest of them down, and the idealistic naivety that led to the Iraq War silenced the rest of them.
Suddenly, the Democrats were the realists, the ones you could trust. Kerry was good for entertainment, but people prefered the populism of John Tester and Jim Webb to the party of W. People said that Democrats ran AS Republicans in 2006, but that’s wrong. Democrats ran as Democrats and DEFEATED Republicans.
And yes, Bush did lose the popular vote in 2000, by a significant margin. We should have expected that a president that was elected by a hundred or so votes in Florida, would go on to be deeply unpopular by the end of his term. I mean he barely scraped by Kerry (of all people!) in 2004. Hopefully, this century will produce better leaders.
Comment by Anonymous — Wed, Dec 27th, 2006 @ 6:59 pm
winter: “OK i am game, name one (Bush lie)”
BUSH LIE EXAMPLE NUMBER 1:
Stay the Course. During an October 22, 2006 interview on ABC’s This Week, President Bush tried to distance himself from what has been his core strategy in Iraq for the last three years. George Stephanopoulos asked about James Baker’s plan to develop a strategy for Iraq that is “between ’stay the course’ and ‘cut and run.’â€Â
Bush responded, ‘We’ve never been stay the course, George!’
Oh, but Bush had said “stay the course,” many many many times:
BUSH: We will stay the course. [8/30/06]
BUSH: We will stay the course, we will complete the job in Iraq. [8/4/05]
BUSH: We will stay the course until the job is done, Steve. And the temptation is to try to get the President or somebody to put a timetable on the definition of getting the job done. We’re just going to stay the course. [12/15/03]
BUSH: And my message today to those in Iraq is: We’ll stay the course. [4/13/04]
BUSH: And that’s why we’re going to stay the course in Iraq. And that’s why when we say something in Iraq, we’re going to do it. [4/16/04]
BUSH: And so we’ve got tough action in Iraq. But we will stay the course. [4/5/04]
BUSH LIE EXAMPLE NUMBER 2:
During the 2004 campaign, Bush claimed “Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires — a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so.â€Â
OH, winter, Bush was lying here too…
Campaign Statement: Bush’s statement is false, since he was conducting wiretaps without warrants.
No Time for Warrants: The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act allows the President to seek a warrant up to 3 days AFTER initiating the wiretap. The President never sought any such authority after the fact for this program.
Congress Gave Authority: The administration requested the ability to conduct warrantless searches as part of the September 11th resolution, but Congress rejected this. In fact, Gonzales admitted that he was told by “certain members of Congress” that “that would be difficult if not impossible.â€Â
Eavesdropping Key To Thwarting Terrorist Attacks. A New York Times report debunks the administration’s claim that the program is vital to America’s national security. In fact, the flood of “unfiltered information” from the NSA program “was swamping [FBI] investigators” in the months after 9/11. “There were no imminent plots - not inside the United States,” a former F.B.I. official said. “The information was so thin,” one prosecutor said, “and the connections were so remote, that they never led to anything, and I never heard any follow-up.” Additionally, “some F.B.I. officials and prosecutors also thought the checks, which sometimes involved interviews by agents, were pointless intrusions on Americans’ privacy.”
And that is just the cherry on the shitcake.
Comment by DAVE THE RAVE — Wed, Dec 27th, 2006 @ 7:02 pm
Good examples, let’s not forget his “I will not engage in regime change” lie. That’s a classic.
So get over it. He will be known as the Best President of this Century.
I hope you’re being a fucking jackass on purpose.
Anyways, RIP Pres. Ford. It’s better to be remembered as a president who did, basically, not much than a president who stands in the same category as Milosevic, Taylor etc. GGs
Comment by gopha — Wed, Dec 27th, 2006 @ 7:42 pm
Pres. Ford was quite popular at the very beginning of his term. However, amnesty for those who fled to Canada during Vietnam war drafts was the turning point of his popularity. That was a brave decision, but not well accepted.
Comment by BoulderBoy — Wed, Dec 27th, 2006 @ 7:49 pm
Heh, there was even a small diplomatic crisis in Helsinki conference, when Ford and Brezhnev needed to take a leak. Security personnel of both heads of state needed to negotiate proper positions in rather small lavatory, so that the prestige of both superpowers was preserved.
Comment by Antti (the redneck one) — Wed, Dec 27th, 2006 @ 9:53 pm
winter– Of course he’ll be remembered as the best president this century. There’s only been one so far.
Comment by Anonymous — Wed, Dec 27th, 2006 @ 10:04 pm
“Suddenly, the Democrats were the realists, the ones you could trust.”
Huh, with dollars in the freezer?
with no plans for Social Security other than stay the course, keep the Ponzi game going to a fall?
with no plan other than “cut and run”
oh and my favorite, here comes “Hillary care”.
Yea, I can sure trust the Demms to raise my taxes.
Comment by winter — Wed, Dec 27th, 2006 @ 11:01 pm
” core strategy in Iraq ”
Lets see, he said its changing, hard, and will be a long fight. Which part did you miss?
“United States government talking about wiretap”
Ah, so we can’t wiretap the incomming calles from a Terrorist? Good strategy you Dem’s, thats sure to work.
“No Time for Warrants: ” again, lets not listen in to Terrorists, because we need a warrent? Is that your point?
Dave….You at least have to try to catch them. Unlike Clinton, who did not try. Thats his legacy, and he can’t stand it.
Comment by winter — Wed, Dec 27th, 2006 @ 11:06 pm
“president that was elected by a hundred or so votes in Florida,”
would you care to try this line again?
By the way, with each recount, the votes for Bush kept growing, and growing, and growing. Do I have to rub it in?
Comment by winter — Wed, Dec 27th, 2006 @ 11:08 pm
Gerald Ford always struck me as a fairly decent guy, except for the pardoning of Richard Nixon, which many, including myself, found unforgivable. It is a little difficult to mourn for a man who lived in relatively good health, (except for a few mini-strokes the last few years), to the age of 93. He seemed to have a good, long life.
The picture Phil got was priceless, however. I’m with Antti: Dick Cheney looks human, not at all the bitter, power hungry, war-mongering, war profiteering prince of darkness he is now. Infact, I had to read Cheney’s name to know it was him. So, now that I see Ford surrounded by Cheney and Rummy, it makes me think that perhaps he wasn’t so decent at all.
Comment by Nipsu — Wed, Dec 27th, 2006 @ 11:33 pm
winter: “Ah, so we can’t wiretap the incomming calles from a Terrorist? Good strategy you Dem’s, thats sure to work.”
I have a friend who works at AT&T (or whatever it’s called nowadays) in Illinois. She told me that upper management was directed to survey ALL CALLS that were taken care of by their branch. Not just “Terrorist” calls, but ALL calls, including all of yours. The data of billions (maybe already trillions?) of phone calls (and perhaps the recordings of many) are being logged by your government.
What is it you don’t get?
You must just be a WUM, because you are so full of shit.
Comment by RAVE THE DAVE — Thu, Dec 28th, 2006 @ 12:19 am
I’ve got a friend, who has a friend, that had a friend, who licked a friend who tasted salty, that friend gasped and said “My boss cleans the windows in the Ovel Office. He says the president looks at fat girl porn online all day.” If he said it, it must be true.
What is it you don’t get?
Comment by Anonymous — Thu, Dec 28th, 2006 @ 4:29 am
would you care to try this line again?
By the way, with each recount, the votes for Bush kept growing, and growing, and growing. Do I have to rub it in?
You are so silly. You take me to be your regular sore loser from 2000, and here we are in almost 2007 and I am talking about the future, and you are acting like an adolescent.
Here’s what happened. Bush lost the popular vote by 550,000 votes in 2000, but won the state of Florida by 537 votes. That is to say, the votes of 537 people in Florida, were more important than the votes of 550,000 other people across the nation. That’s our system. It’s screwed up, but it’s our screwed up system. Que sera sera.
That doesn’t happen every year. The last time that happened was in 1888. The last time it happened in such a controversial atmosphere was 1824. Anyway, your greatest president of this century won by 537 votes the first time, and won by about 2.4 points in 2004 against John Kerry.
So he’s never really been that popular at the voting box. His failure to make good on very ambitious projects, like social security reform and the nation building adventure in Iraq, dragged him from being a 48-50 percent president to a 35 percent president.
They polled people today asking about how presidents will be remembered in history. 64 percent said Reagan would be remembered favorably, 45 percent said Clinton would be remembered favorably, and 19 percent said Bush would be remembered favorably.
So I guess you are going to have to do a lot more Internet punditry to reverse those numbers in the long term.
Comment by giustino — Thu, Dec 28th, 2006 @ 4:30 am
People like winter keep raving about liberty and personal freedom and privacy, and the next moment they are ready to relinquish all that in the name of this great ‘war against terror’, not even now realising that it’s just an euphemism for a ruthless and (even more so) reckless foreign policy that is not going to get you anywhere.
Comment by aet75 — Thu, Dec 28th, 2006 @ 4:54 am
” about liberty and personal freedom and privacy” for US citizens, all rest have a free pass to club Gitmo, retirement haven for terrorists.
By the way, good covergae of Super Max Prisions on TV. Now I like the fact they get 22 hrs of personal time, each day, in a cell, all alone, so sad.
“The data of billions (maybe already trillions?) of phone calls (and perhaps the recordings of many) are being logged by your government.”
Yes, they can listen to that call to the customer service center in India, ALL they want. Are you just stupid, to even think they care? About a call to India? Or that they even have the manpower? Come on … get real, or get some reality.
Comment by winter — Thu, Dec 28th, 2006 @ 5:18 am
They extended those ’special executive orders’ to include you too, man. DOMESTIC SURVEILLANCE. It is for your own good, you and your Montana Militia pals. For real.
Comment by aet75 — Thu, Dec 28th, 2006 @ 6:10 am
And why don’t you accredit your quotes properly, if you don’t answer a previous (single) post.
Comment by aet75 — Thu, Dec 28th, 2006 @ 6:29 am
James Brown passed away too y’know.
Comment by Keksi — Thu, Dec 28th, 2006 @ 8:37 am
An interesting story by Bob Woodward in the Washington Post reveals that Ford sharply disagreed with Bush on the Iraq war:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/27/AR2006122701558.html
Comment by Kimmo W. — Thu, Dec 28th, 2006 @ 11:25 am
You know, after listening Ford’s comments about the war, it makes me wonder if it’s not better to have an older dude as president—at least insofar as foreign policy goes. One might expect him to be wiser and less likely to rush into destructive endeavors.
93 would be pretty old though…….
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Thu, Dec 28th, 2006 @ 12:11 pm
Borrowing from the late Peter Boyle; HOLY CRAP!!! To think that there was a time when that snarling pitbull aka Big Dick looked human, is almost beyond belief. With tumbling Jerry I find it tough to have nice memories. All I can really think of is the amnesty he granted to Tricky Dick that might have started something that ended up with this fiasco called Bush. Domino effect?
Comment by Petteri — Thu, Dec 28th, 2006 @ 12:22 pm
“93 would be pretty old though……”
Not to mention the subsequent rigor mortis, it might get in the way of governing as well.
Comment by RAVE THE DAVE — Thu, Dec 28th, 2006 @ 2:25 pm
“93 would be pretty old though……”
“Not to mention the subsequent rigor mortis”
Noo, it would be a perfect age to start a ‘Fordslovakia’
Comment by Antti (the redneck one) — Thu, Dec 28th, 2006 @ 5:21 pm
All american presidents have started atleast one conflict, so my question is, which thirld world nation did Geraldo Fordovitz bomb?
Comment by The Swede — Thu, Dec 28th, 2006 @ 6:00 pm
“which thirld world nation did Geraldo Fordovitz bomb?”
Ah yes, those evil Americans again. Anyone gone to Darfur? Stopped the killing of 400,000? No, well so sad, they are dead.
Hay Swede, ….did you go?
Comment by winter — Thu, Dec 28th, 2006 @ 6:10 pm
Swede:
As I fainly recall, Ford did engage in a very bad skirmish in East Timor, Indonesia which resulted in the deaths of about 200,000 East Timorese.
Comment by Nipsu — Thu, Dec 28th, 2006 @ 6:38 pm
winter: Darfur, A.U. got troops there, its an african matter.
Nipsu: aaah East Timor, 200,000 dead. Well sounds like an American president to me! so lets hope he rots in hell, just like Nixon and the others…
Comment by The Swede — Thu, Dec 28th, 2006 @ 8:04 pm
Gerald Ford should get some props for signing the Helsinki accords, even if the effects were mostly unintended. At the time nobody thought the human rights part of the accords was anything else than the usual bullshit rethoric. As Nipsu mentioned, the U.S. did support the Indonesian invasion in East Timor the same year (1975), resulting in, yes, probably 200,000 dead people (Ford could just have said “no” to Indonesian dictator Suharto). But the various Helsinki committées in the communist countries in Europe played a quite important role in undermining the communist rule, and in that sense Ford actually did more for liberty in eastern Europe than Reagan ever did.
Comment by Eric — Thu, Dec 28th, 2006 @ 9:22 pm
“its an african matter.”
what a cop out.
So what was Yugoslavia? You know the war you failed to show up at? Or even pay for? But were good enough to show up at the end, and watch 9,000 Muslims frog match off to a machine gun? And do nothing.
Sounds like Africa is just another Yugoslavia to you.
Comment by winter — Fri, Dec 29th, 2006 @ 12:15 am
Ah Reagan, said “Tear down this wall”. And they did.
And all the liberal left, went shutter, and screamed, and …. wait, acted just like they are doing now with Iraq. Hummmmmmmmmm
Comment by winter — Fri, Dec 29th, 2006 @ 12:17 am
“Iran’s puppet terrorist gang Hizballah is paying the Palestinians to launch Qassam rockets into Israel, on a sliding scale that increases as more Jews are murdered”
Yes, lovely, and Finland is out there supporting Hizballah, by becomming “Human Shields” for Iran.
Nice. Got to love what you all do. Can you quit now?
Comment by winter — Fri, Dec 29th, 2006 @ 12:30 am
winter: NATO was involved in former yugoslavia, and the USA supported the muslims, albanians etc, the Al Qaeda gang, While Clinton got his daily blowjobs from his jewish intern sluts
Comment by The Swede — Fri, Dec 29th, 2006 @ 2:07 am
“NATO was involved in former yugoslavia”
Like 5%. The USA paid/ran 95% of that war. Go check your facts buddy, you did not bother to come to a war in your own backyard.
Comment by winter — Fri, Dec 29th, 2006 @ 2:58 am
And all the liberal left, went shutter, and screamed, and …. wait, acted just like they are doing now with Iraq. Hummmmmmmmmm
It’s not the liberal left — it’s most of the country. The majority of Americans don’t support the war. That’s reality for you.
Anyway, I am glad we are hearing more about Gerald Ford these days and less about the “Reagan Revolution” - which was not a revolution. 1776 in the American colonies was a revolution, 1789 in France was a revolution, 1959 in Cuba was a revolution. 1980 in the United States? A former governor of California got elected president. *Not* a revolution.
Comment by giustino — Fri, Dec 29th, 2006 @ 3:39 am
“The majority of Americans don’t support the war.”
and they did not support Reagan. As he won the cold war.
So just what is your point?
Comment by winter — Fri, Dec 29th, 2006 @ 4:10 am
“Reagan Revolution”
was the start of the end, for……the left. He had some great speaches
“Welfare’s purpose should be to eliminate, as far as possible, the need for its own existence.”
or the other anti welfare state
“Only when the human spirit is allowed to invent and create, only when individuals are given a personal stake in deciding economic policies and benefitting from their success — only then can societies remain economically alive, dynamic, progressive, and free. Trust the people. This is the one irrefutable lesson of the entire postwar period contradicting the notion that rigid government controls are essential to economic development. “
Comment by winter — Fri, Dec 29th, 2006 @ 4:15 am
Another thug you all support:
“Saddam and his gang ordered and carried out the Anfal operations (genocide) against the Kurdish people (in which) more than 182,000 children, women and elderly died.â€Â
Can you please quit now?
Comment by winter — Fri, Dec 29th, 2006 @ 4:20 am
@47,
well, you supported him too, and your support was really, really important for him, while we just did business with him. Just like we did business with Suharto (someone upthread brought up East Timor), but you seriously enabled his genocidal war.
A funny thing about the Yugoslav war is that apparently it was all the fault of people who did not fight it, did not kill anybody, did not carry out ethnic cleansing… I mean, would it be too much to place some of the blame on the people who did all the bad stuff, or is that, like too judgemental or something?
Comment by prince of dorkness — Fri, Dec 29th, 2006 @ 9:28 am
and they did not support Reagan. As he won the cold war.
He didn’t win anything. He just watched from the sidelines as his opponents started to crumble all by themselves.
Comment by Ã…boy — Fri, Dec 29th, 2006 @ 10:02 am
“Yes, lovely, and Finland is out there supporting Hizballah, by becomming “Human Shields†for Iran.”
Keep repeating that. Maybe you’ll believe it yourself eventualy.
Comment by Anonymous — Fri, Dec 29th, 2006 @ 10:37 am
Hey Winter, you seem to be a quite articulate fellow with your wisdom taking no back seat to that of your gorageous president. I would appreciate hearing your take on the present situation in Iraq and when in your estimation the final victory will be achieved? Please, don’t forget that the commander-in-chief is going to dispatch fresh troops to assist the great job that have already previously been done by your troops! Will it take, in your estimation, more than two years when the whole region is going to be enjoying of the Jeffersonian democracy? STAY THE COURSE!!!
Comment by Petteri — Fri, Dec 29th, 2006 @ 11:29 am
“Reagan, said “Tear down this wallâ€Â. And they did.”
And this morning I said “come up, sun”, and it did.
Comment by Kimmo W. — Fri, Dec 29th, 2006 @ 11:33 am
“I would appreciate hearing your take on the present situation in Iraq and when in your estimation the final victory will be achieved?”
Hell, screw “when,” just get to the “how” already.
Comment by RAVE THE DAVE — Fri, Dec 29th, 2006 @ 12:29 pm
Sad news, but I still find this skit funny. SNL missed the mark by ten years…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=an0iMbtCOiw
Comment by Zark — Fri, Dec 29th, 2006 @ 1:51 pm
and they did not support Reagan. As he won the cold war.
So just what is your point?
So you are saying that most Americans didn’t support Reagan. Explain election 1984 to me then.
By the way, Reagan did not win the Cold War, either, silly boy. If you can recall correctly, the war got hotter during the first four years of Reagan’s administration. Then when Gorbachev came in and foolishly thought he could reform communism, the *Soviet Union* fell apart. Out of the USSR came different results — European democracies like the Baltics, Stalinist successor states like Turkemistan and Belarus, and one huge borderline fascist, nominally democratic country — the Russian Federation.
There was a lot more to what happened here that the extra shove Reagan gave by expertly manipulating Gorbachev (who was more than 20 years younger than him), but along with that push from Reagan was 40 years of hard work by other American presidents, and afterwards, it was Bush I who recognized those states when the USSR collapsed, and it was Clinton who kept pressure on Yeltsin for Russia’s ultimately successful troop withdrawal from Europe.
Oh really? They reelected him in a landslide in
Comment by giustino — Fri, Dec 29th, 2006 @ 4:13 pm
You all sure want to change history. It was Reagan who went into office and asked his Defense Department to build up, do Star Wars, with a clear goal “get the Soviet Union to crumble”, and it did.
The who did not like what he did, the Europeans, the wacky left, all stuffy, and stuttered, on how inhumane he was, and what a wasted effort, to even think, he could bring down the “Evil Empire”.
Well he did.
By the way, did you all help in Darfur? Or just sit on by as 400,000 were killed? Sitting around, doing nothing, seemd to be what you all do best.
Comment by winter — Fri, Dec 29th, 2006 @ 4:29 pm
winter: The who did not like what he did…
I don’t think The Who had anything to say about it. Some of the original members already had solo careers by that time.
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Fri, Dec 29th, 2006 @ 6:44 pm
“Well he did.”
He did a few things in Iran Contra, too, Bunghead.
Comment by RAVE THE DAVE — Fri, Dec 29th, 2006 @ 7:28 pm
“…think, he could bring down the “Evil Empireâ€Â.”
So which book have you been skimming this time? I thought communist Russia fell on its own. I didn’t know a B-movie actor really had much say one way or the other.
By the way, Reagan abandoned the Star Wars weapons program right after his wife Nancy got back from the astrologist and told him the whole idea stank.
Comment by RAVE THE DAVE — Fri, Dec 29th, 2006 @ 7:31 pm
It was Reagan who went into office and asked his Defense Department to build up, do Star Wars, with a clear goal “get the Soviet Union to crumbleâ€Â, and it did.
Harry Truman did the same thing in 1948, and 40 years later it paid off. I’d argue that his policies, if anyones, “won” the Cold War.
Comment by giustino — Fri, Dec 29th, 2006 @ 9:22 pm
There is no disagreement that the Soviet Union was headed downhill. Its that last final push from Reagan that did it.
He pulled on the main thread, from their wool hat, then it fell apart.
But it was Reagan that did that final act. Who had the vision, on how to end the cold war, in his lifetime.
Thats the difference, here. The USA has the vision, and acts. The Europeans, well, lets just say, they opposed Reagan, and his act to bring down the soviet union. They had no vision, and no willing to act in any way, other than waive the little white flag of surrender..
Comment by winter — Fri, Dec 29th, 2006 @ 9:48 pm
Winter: you bore me. See if you can connect the dots.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/post-hoc.html
Comment by Kimmo W. — Fri, Dec 29th, 2006 @ 10:20 pm
How long was this bizarro of a country, the U.S.S.R, supposed to last. Remember how it was; “The Government pretends to pay us and we preted to work”. The damn thing collapsed into it’s hollow core and if some Yank wants to claim he did it, let him!
Comment by Petteri — Fri, Dec 29th, 2006 @ 11:51 pm
“The Government pretends to pay us and we preted to workâ€Â.
Ha! Sort of like Finland with its overly-high taxation and income redistribution schemes
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Sat, Dec 30th, 2006 @ 12:26 am
“How long was this bizarro of a country, the U.S.S.R, supposed to last. Remember how it was; “The Government pretends to pay us and we preted to workâ€Â. The damn thing collapsed into it’s hollow core and if some Yank wants to claim he did it, let him!”
Hindsight is 20/20. Judging by Finnish foriegn policy, they thought the USSR would be around much longer than it was. Why would Finland let a neighboring government infuence them so much if they knew said neighboring government was on the verge of collapse?
It is easy to confidently predict a collapse that already happened. Turn back the clock to the mid eighties and find somebody who would say the USSR will crumble in less than 10 years. In Finland, that prediction would have been labeled as crazy and hushed up; as not to anger the mighty neighbor.
Comment by Anonymous — Sat, Dec 30th, 2006 @ 12:49 am
The Europeans, well, lets just say, they opposed Reagan, and his act to bring down the soviet union. They had no vision, and no willing to act in any way, other than waive the little white flag of surrender..
Well, who are we talking about here? Did you really think the Swedes, who had Soviet submarines in the waters off Stockholm, were going to say something? Were the French and the Germans, who lived so very close to the horrors of the Hungarian Uprising in ‘56 and the Prague Spring in ‘68, going to invite those troops across the border?
Things aren’t so black and white.
Comment by giustino — Sat, Dec 30th, 2006 @ 12:51 am
“Well, who are we talking about here? Did you really think the Swedes, who had Soviet submarines in the waters off Stockholm, were going to say something? Were the French and the Germans, who lived so very close to the horrors of the Hungarian Uprising in ‘56 and the Prague Spring in ‘68, going to invite those troops across the border?”
I think you made my point. You will not do anything, because you are afraid.
Thats sad. Its also how many folks get killed, like Sadam gasing the Kurds, just to see if his gas worked.
Things, sadly, are black and white.
Comment by winter — Sat, Dec 30th, 2006 @ 1:11 am
winter:
You all sure want to change history. It was Reagan who went into office and asked his Defense Department to build up, do Star Wars
Funny you should mention that. SDI, with its $44 billion budget, is an example of the kind of crazy scientific endeavour that no private corporation would undertake and that produces no direct results but spawns many commercially viable technologies and promotes progress. Hooray for taxes. Don’t you just love them?
It is debatable whether SDI or Reagan’s general escalation of the Cold War was the primary reason for the Soviet Union’s downfall. It certainly didn’t hurt. I must say that I’ve had to reassess my view on ol’ Ronbo Raygun. While his domestic policy was driven by voodoo economics, and some of his administration’s dealings were slimy to say the least (a certain Iraqi leader comes to mind…) I must say that he exhibited true statesmanship in his relationship with the Soviet Union. I can fully understand why so many Americans still remember him fondly.
Now, Finns may have been overly influenced by Red YLE’s take on SDI back in the golden days of Manuslovakia, so please check the Wikipedia page for starters.
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Sat, Dec 30th, 2006 @ 1:15 am
I must say that I’ve had to reassess my view on ol’ Ronbo Raygun. While his domestic policy was driven by voodoo economics, and some of his administration’s dealings were slimy to say the least (a certain Iraqi leader comes to mind…) I must say that he exhibited true statesmanship in his relationship with the Soviet Union. I can fully understand why so many Americans still remember him fondly.
That’s very true. Reagan excelled at dealing with the Soviets, but life domestically under Reagan wasn’t exactly peachy. People like to talk about an “economic boom” or a “Reagan revolution” - but, quite honestly, things in urban America in the 80s were ugly, especially during the second part of Reagan’s term.
Reaganites blamed liberalism, but, hey, I was in New York City in 1986, and it was in terrible shape. It was dirty and crime ridden and not the kind of place to go out jogging after dark. And that too was Reagan’s America. I am sure young Republicans today that don’t remember those days probably would argue otherwise. But I do, and the domestic life I saw as a kid was not this pretty “apple pie, baseball, and Oliver North!” fantasy the Republicans like to think it was.
People shouldn’t forget these things when we talk about the past. But then again, most Republican pundits are by and large very well-off. I am sure that things looked just great to William Kristol in the ’80s.
Comment by giustino — Sat, Dec 30th, 2006 @ 1:49 am
…..things in urban America in the 80s were ugly, especially during the second part of Reagan’s term.
I remember it in the 70’s. It wasn’t all that great then either. Graffiti and trash everywhere! I think the downward trend began well before Reagan. Here’s one take……
“After World War II, however, the city began to face problems common to most large U.S. cities: increased crime, racial, and ethnic tensions. New York City reached a crisis point in 1975 when it almost went bankrupt. The 1980’s brought some relief, however, when real estate and stock markets boomed, but it wasn’t quite enough. The city was hit hard in the 1990’s by the national recession.”
http://www.mynewyorkconnection.com/history_newyorkcity.htm
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Sat, Dec 30th, 2006 @ 2:17 am
By the way, the 1980’s stock market…… That was a nice time for me. A very nice time. Thanks Ron
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Sat, Dec 30th, 2006 @ 2:19 am
I have to say that Ronald Reagan actually did contribute to the CCCP’s collapse. But, it was a multi-pronged approach. He championed the cause, but he didn’t do it alone. In fact, his main contribution wasn’t even spending-related; rather, it was to raise the rhetoric.
Consider Chernobyl. It was evidence of major failure, both organizational and economic. Ronald Reagan drew attention to the incident, but it’s hard to say if his words impacted eastern European populations due to censorship and language barriers. I think they came to conclusions on their own though. If nothing else, Reagan’s was able to garner support from the rest of the world by drawing attention to it.
Then look at Lech Walesa, the shipyard strikes and Solidarity movement. It was a major blow to the Soviets because they began to realize that the East Block could no longer be relied-upon as a military buffer zone. Those problems were brewing well before Reagan’s tenure though. Ronald Reagan supported the movement, although it was mainly in words and propaganda.
But, I think the most significant effect was realized due to the lands that formed both, the physical and symbolic border between east and west. Of course, those lands were East and West Germany. East Germany was the Soviets’ crown jewel. Its economy was the best of all, but it reached its height during the 60’s. Afterwards, it just began to decline. Conversely, the West German lifestyle improved dramatically from that point onward. West Germany capitalized on that disparity.
The most effective method that West Germany used, was beaming TV and radio across its border. It was illegal for East Germans to watch or listen to it, but you know how that goes. Despite rooftop visits by the secret police, westward-pointing antennas gave East Germans a glimpse of life in West Germany—a more prosperous country than even the mighty US of A. That life included nice cars and homes, consumer products of all types, rock & roll music and pornography. They wanted it all! Discontentment about their own lifestyle grew.
So, who was the architect of this grand media infiltration? It was none other than W. German chancellor Helmut Kohl. He promised them everything—even the Deutschmark. The enticement was too great to resist and East Germans started fleeing westward via Hungary—a country that itself was headed by reform-minded leaders. Eventually, even that wasn’t enough: the wall had to come down. As they say, the rest is history.
Whereas Ronald Reagan’s propaganda and rhetoric probably catalyzed events, there were many factors that led to the final dissolution of the Soviet Union. I think he sensed the crumbling of the east—starting with Poland—and he simply knew it was the right time to act. His approach was a complete turnaround from the previous detente policies. It was great timing! But, it wasn’t much more than words; the heavy lifting was already done well before him.
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Sat, Dec 30th, 2006 @ 2:36 am
“urban America in the 80s were ugly, especially during the second part of Reagan’s term.”
Humm, yes, and who ran those cities? The Liberal left. Do they get any blame?
Well no, lets blame Reagan, who has nothing to do with trash in NYC.
But the Liberal left get a free pass? Well yes, how can they be to blame? They just ran the cities, spent all the money, and asked for more.
But Reagan had the vision to act. ANd he did, so now we enjoy what he started, more prosperity in the world, not just the USA.
Thanks Reagan.
Question is? What did you all do? Well?????
Comment by winter — Sat, Dec 30th, 2006 @ 4:40 am
Winter, make up your mind already.
‘So what was Yugoslavia? You know the war you failed to show up at? Or even pay for? But were good enough to show up at the end, and watch 9,000 Muslims frog match off to a machine gun? And do nothing.’
You should be thrilled. In your books, they were all just probable hostile combatants, and therefore due for extermination. And don’t tell me they were just civilians, your view on the issue was clear enough when the Lebanon conflict was discussed.
Comment by aet75 — Sat, Dec 30th, 2006 @ 6:31 am
But Reagan had the vision to act. ANd he did, so now we enjoy what he started, more prosperity in the world, not just the USA.
Actually it seems more difficult today than it did during the Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations. My grandparents had five children. Could you imagine me trying to rear five in this day and age in America? The wealth in this country belongs to the very few, not the many. We are all still worrying about getting sick when we are in between jobs. But of course it would be “class warfare” to request any deal other than panis et circensis. This is the hole we are in in America.
And us idiots are left to be rhetorically beaten by guys like Winter that lurk and pounce upon every morsel in order to obediently suck the ghost of Saint Reagan’s dick.
Look, the guy’s dead. He was born in 1911, five years before my eldest grandfather. He outlived dear grandpa by eight fucking years. It’s over. World War I is over. World War II is over. The Cold War is over. Saddam is dead and most of our army is in Iraq.
I’ve got cousins that were born AFTER Reagan left office. How long before Uncle Fucking Winter decides that they should go pay some sand fleas a visit for Saint Reagan? Is that what they deserve? A long, cold DIRT NAP for Saint Reagan?
Noh, KURAT! See on missugune lolli päsk! I fart in your general direction!
Canät we all just …. get along?
Comment by giustino — Sat, Dec 30th, 2006 @ 6:37 am
75. giustino: He outlived dear grandpa by eight fucking years. It’s over. World War I is over. World War II is over. The Cold War is over.
To a certain extent I agree. But you have to remember that most Finns today also think that we can fight the Winter War all over again, all by ourselves, just like our grandfathers did. Provide any counter-argument against Finnish welfare-statist policy (which is really empowered by Finnish nationalism), and you’ll soon find Finns trotting out the Winter War miracle - as a non sequitor - as if it’s something that can be replicated by today’s Finnish youth.
Estonia is much more admirable, in this respect. Their experience as an independent nation is still fresh enough to inspire creative thinking.
Comment by Finnpundit — Sat, Dec 30th, 2006 @ 8:43 am
winter is a jew isn’t he? a racist jew aswell, he hates islam hahaha
Comment by The Swede — Sat, Dec 30th, 2006 @ 10:03 am
wait wait wait, hating islam is not racism, its anti-semitism
Comment by The Swede — Sat, Dec 30th, 2006 @ 10:04 am
Looking at the circumstances during Reagan’s presidency would probably give us more insight into the widening gap between rich and poor—much better than just analyzing his economic policies in a vacuum.
The 70’s marked the end of industrial America; it was the last stand for unionism. When Reagan began his term, there were still huge amounts of people trained in ‘yesterday’s skills.’ Many transitioned into service jobs. The talented ones assumed supervisory positions, whereas the rest stayed at the bottom of the payscale. Many depleted their savings.
I don’t think there’s very much that Reagan could have done to save the unmotivated ones at the bottom. Their jobs simply didn’t exist anymore. But he did give those who were willing to adapt, a chance to rise. Considering the economic disaster of the 70’s and early 80’s, with high inflation and sky-high interest rates, his low-tax/pro-investment policies were a welcome boost.
The transition from manufacturing to service occurred over a decade later here in Europe and Finland. It allowed us to keep our heads in our asses that much longer. Nevertheless, it didn’t stop Reagan’s contemporary Helmut Kohl from enacting similar reforms in Germany. As predicted, they worked great!
Unfortunately, we didn’t have a similar impetus or visionary here in Finland during that period. We were still saddled with huge numbers of people, who’d have preferred even closer economic and ideological alignment with the Soviets. After all, favoring Socialism/Communism is the best way to buttress one’s own class-based jealousy. And we had plenty of that here….and still do.
And, as predicted, Finland’s standard of living fell, whereas that of others rose. Unfortunately, it’s still a problem here. People have deeply rooted thinking that’s hard to change overnight. One can only hope that we Finns travel abroad more in the future and educate ourselves to economic realities. Jealousy and protectionism isn’t the solution. After all, aren’t we self-proclaimed to be a super-race of people? So, why couldn’t we compete on equal footing with everyone else?
With that being said, as much as I admired Reagan, I can’t help but wonder if America’s underclass can be helped somewhat. Obviously, there’s a fine line between ‘helping’ versus creating economic disincentives. There should be some middle ground though; the kind that doesn’t kill-off the economy like here in Finland.
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Sat, Dec 30th, 2006 @ 2:22 pm
“Actually it seems more difficult today than it did during the Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations. ”
I have to agree. I can’t get a bid to fix my roof, they are to busy. I am now going to have to buldoze the house, and have a new one built. Thats because the builders are so busy, they only take on big, money making projects.
So I have to agree, I can’t find anyone who wants to work. That would not have been the problem back in the Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations.
Life is not happy here in the USA.
Comment by winter — Sat, Dec 30th, 2006 @ 3:53 pm
#73
Yeah. Thanks Reagan.
- For perpetrating genocide in Central America,
- For supporting murderous dictators in other parts of the world(including Saddam Hussein in Iraq, by the way) if it was in the economic and political interests of the United States.
- For treating over-consumption of the earth’s natural resources as if it were a virtue, and an American birthright; his Secretary of the Inteior James Watt actually suggested that there was no point in preserving natural resources for future generations, because “I do not know how many future generations we can count on before the Lord returns”.
I could go on and on…
Comment by Kimmo W. — Sat, Dec 30th, 2006 @ 4:11 pm
“For treating over-consumption of the earth’s natural resources as if it were a virtue, and an American birthright”
wow, that me as well. 5 cars, 2 boats, and a new 47inch flat screen High Def TV for Xmas.
I could use another tax cut. But Heck, I know, in Finland the government spends your money for you.
So sad.
Comment by winter — Sat, Dec 30th, 2006 @ 6:15 pm
#81 And when the oil crunch hits, petroleum junkies like you will be screwed! Or do you expect to be “raptured” by then?
Comment by Kimmo W. — Sat, Dec 30th, 2006 @ 6:27 pm
Or do you expect to be “raptured†by then?
All will be well after they get to drill the ANWR.
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Sun, Dec 31st, 2006 @ 1:18 am