He was one of the greatest. His proud legacy will remain!

The man who brought down the Berlin wall and Communism. Rest in Peace, Gipper.

He was one of the greatest. His proud legacy will remain!

I know there are plenty who disagree, but without a doubt I think the greatest president in my lifetime. He was a gentleman, a moral paradigm, and an inspiration leading the country out of 15 years of malaise.

He was one of the greatest. His proud legacy will remain!

A great American that we all owe much. God Bless him in his eternal home.

Opposite ends of the political spectrum for me but , having lost a grandmother to alzheimers, I wouldn't wish it on anyone. He's now free of this horrid disease, blessings on his family.

I never cared for the guy, and won't miss him. He had plenty of symbolic significance to "ending" communism, but it was really economic reality that did that (things in USSR were going to crap before Reagan ever got involved). I was only a child when he was president, but I very vividly remember the nuclear arms race and how it scared me to death as a kid, and of course the crazy idea of Star Wars. I was convinced Reagan would bring us all to nuclear destruction, and I'll never forget the long hours watching Iran Contra hearings. Nonetheless, I know lots of people liked him.

Alzheimer's is a terrible disease, and well, it is likely a blessing he died as I doubt there was anything left of his mind by the end. It sure is a testament to the good care he received as most with Alzheimer's don't fare as well as he did in terms of longevity.

And let's not forget the "October Surprise" & the deal with Iran and the hostages. C'ya, Mr. Raygun. I for one won't shed any tears over his passing.

And let's not forget the "October Surprise" & the deal with Iran and the hostages. C'ya, Mr. Raygun. I for one won't shed any tears over his passing.

and of course Reagonomics, "trickle down economic theory" - the huge growth in military spending and the start of huge growth in government beaurocracy. He was mostly well liked and symbolic - he never accomplished great things as a president, and so I doubt he will be remembered as one of the great ones.

And let's not forget the "October Surprise" & the deal with Iran and the hostages. C'ya, Mr. Raygun. I for one won't shed any tears over his passing.

Does any president during your life time have a smidget of your respect?

Give me a name.

I bet I can find some dirt on him. Does one president's dirty laundry stink less than the other's?

I tip my hat to all that have served the office, from Kennedy to Reagan to Clinton to Bush. Its a tough job... probably THE toughest.

Does any president during your life time have a smidget of your respect?

Give me a name.

I bet I can find some dirt on him. Does one president's dirty laundry stink less than the other's?

I tip my hat to all that have served the office, from Kennedy to Reagan to Clinton to Bush. Its a tough job... probably THE toughest.

Based on what people have been saying about, I would say the answer to your question is yes. As for me, no. There have not been any presidents in my short lifetime (6 different presidents) that I have respected - though the really early ones I could not say much about. Who cares if it's a tough job? It has nothing to do with whether I respect them or not. They wanted the job. I was only making a comment on what someone else said previously about Reagan being one of the greatest - as though he could actually compare to Lincoln for example. ;)

I will remember him for his ability to talk to each individual as if he were in the living room with them. I'll remember his wit and savvy as a politician. I will remember him as a man who made us feel as if he knew that we had sunk somehow in some unknown way and come not in some enormous ground swell way, but in a way your father may give you a bit of advice just on the topic that was bothering you that somehow made you feel better about yourself.

I will remember his fairwell address as I came of age at 18 years old and felt as if he really believed that America was the country he thought it was, he did not see the rough edges or the wrinkles on the face of the country. For him the country was like the old man who looks at his wife of 50 years and sees her as the way she looked on there wedding day. It is this optimism that I will remember. He let us feel it to and it gave us just a bit of our innocence back that my father's generation had stripped from them through the Vietnam, Watergate years.

Did he have failures that I will remember. Sure, but they are for another day. Another debate about policy. Today is for reflection about the man. Possibly the last president that didn't have to fake his personna. (If he did I don't want to know). He seemed to be the idealist, the optimist and the Father figure that America was searching for.

RIP Gipper..."(He) Slipped the Surly Bonds of Earth to Touch the Face of God"

When I was a young kid, Reagan was an aging matinee idol who made westerns. As I grew up, he became the 20 Mule Team Borax spokesman on TV, already playing on his cowboy roles from movie days.

Cocky, full of ourselves, we laughed when Reagan ran for governer of California, like a cowboy sheriff comin' into town to straighten the place up, hell, to save California from hippie anarchy: pot parties, inventing rock and roll, tripping out on LSD, and demonstrating against the Vietnam War. The good Republicans of California loved Ronald, the Hollywood actor like they love Arnold today. "He's one of us," they'd say, recalling the era of "It's a Wonderful Life" of the 30s, that Reagan was a product of.

Ronald's gift was being "the Great Communicator." After all, he was a trained Hollywood actor and good at speeches. As a statesman, he had about the same status as our beloved Dubya. What did a Hollywood actor know about international laws and protocols? Nonetheless, he and Gorbachev couldn't have been better cast as the ones to end the Cold War. It may be Reagan's threatening to build a Star Wars shield over the earth that would zap Soviet missles, was seen by the Soviets as so crazy, they decided the game was long past worth playing. Communist world domination was long lost anyway. That threat really died after the Korean War in the Fifties. All skirmishes after that, Cuba, Chile, The Congo, Vietnam, were all legitimate national revolutions. After the Cuban Missle crisis in 1962, the Soviet economy was on the skids, it's military weak, and will for world revolution broken. But that's why they called it the "cold" war. It was a long stand-off that lasted so long as to become ridiculous. Reagan was the perfect leader to pop the bubble and disarm with Gorbachev. And he did it with grace and dignity of the finest statesman, better than a Hollywood actor.

Even if you disliked his politics, his stuffiness, his conservatism, you had to like the guy. His folksy attitude in front of the mike, his humor, humility, shyness, made us feel that's all he wanted, for people to like him, and we did.

He was one of the greatest. His proud legacy will remain!

While I think it is largely true that the Soviet Union would have collapsed anyway because communism is economically unsustainable, Reagan drove the nail in the coffin with great eloquence and changed the world.

Does any president during your life time have a smidget of your respect?

In my lifetime? Well let's see, that would be from 1961 onward, so the first one would be the obvious - Kennedy for the Civil Rights Act, which Johnson signed into law after his death only somewhat reluctantly, and something that was much more important than Reagan getting the "credit" for the U.S. outlasting the USSR in the Cold War, for example.

Kennedy also for having the balls to stand up to Kruschev (sic?) in the Cuban Missile Crisis, in the face of Mutually Assured Destruction. Something you don't hear the tough-guy, "war hawk" Republican's ever daring to give a Democratic president credit for.

Another ex-president that I highly respect is Carter. You may laugh at that choice, but not only does his true compassion for the human race stand in sharp contrast to the feigned "Compassionate Conservatism" of GWB, but Carter has proven it on a daily basis all during his later years since leaving the White House, with his Habitat For Humanity participation, overseeing free and fair elections in other countries, etc. Carter has been more than generous with his time and effort.

By comparison, what do you see Bush1 doing with his life after the Presidency? Working for the military-industrial complex, (Carlyle Group) to foist yet more war on the world, and to bilk the American taxpayer out of their hard-earned dollars.

[QUOTE=thatsmybush Did he have failures that I will remember? Sure, but they are for another day. Another debate about policy. Today is for reflection about the man.[/QUOTE]

How could you not like the guy? One of a kind. He'll be remembered for his great success (credit shared with Gorbachev and the Pope, a confluence of visionaries at a moment in history) in bringing the Cold War to an end. He'll be remembered for grace, a common touch, and for embodying that great optimistic streak in the American character at a time we needed it.

I miss him because, conservative as he was, he never demonized the opposition, never questioned their integrity, patriotism or heart, and knew how to sit down and deal when the time came. Most people don't realize what a great compromiser he was. We miss that in politics these days.

I dropped a tear or two when I heard he'd passed.

[QUOTE
...conservative as he was, he never demonized the opposition, never questioned their integrity, patriotism or heart, and knew how to sit down and deal when the time came.[/QUOTE]

Yes, this is perhaps the greatest tragedy that the Mayberry Machiavellians that got Bush into the White House have hoisted on America. It would be nice to return to the politics of old.

A side not to this - when it was time for his famous speech that included "Mr. Gorbachev tear down that wall!" His advisors removed that segment. They thought the language was too strong and intimidating. His response - "Last I checked I was the one elected president. Put it back in!" He certainly had a way of talking right to people. He knew how to temper his remarks with humor and forcefulness when required. He was Grandpa President.

Though he was able to keep the politics on a civil level, many tried to vilify him in the press/media. Even yesterday, you could see the slant many wanted to give to some of his accomplishments and innitiatives. You could see it took effort for them to temper their remarks.

I think Bush speaks across party lines in much the same way Reagan did. He has been under attack for the past 18 months yet he has never lost his cool. That's much more than can be said about Kerry.

I think Bush speaks across party lines in much the same way Reagan did. He has been under attack for the past 18 months yet he has never lost his cool. That's much more than can be said about Kerry.


In the famous words of Ronald Wilson Reagan. "Well...there you go again." Why don't you shelve the vitriol for a moment. In deference to the man I will not engage you in this obvious attempt to flame the thread.

No one is looking to "flame the thread". There is not "vitriol" either. Can't you just accept someone's observation without getting into it yourself? I watched quite a bit of coverage of it yesterday, as I am sure many did, and I couldn't help but notice certain people such as Sam Donaldson making judgments, etc about Reagan's policies. They were not statements of fact presentes as an unbiased cronology of his political history. They were judgments on his policies. I guess these guys can't help themselves. It must be something akin to an occupational hazard. I was actually quite aware of the effort it took to temper their remarks. You could see it and hear it. That was my observation and I am entitled to it.

And if it's Bob Novak, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, Ann Coulter, et al waxing nostalgic on Ronnie Raygun, I don't suppose those are overly-positive "judgments on his policies" instead of purely "statements of fact"?

No matter what anyone says about any Republican politician or their policies, if it's anything short of glowing praise you would have a problem with it.

Your shtick is getting very old, LS.

The man died yesterday. Heaping praise is appropriate. Getting some last minute jabs in, is gauche.

The man died yesterday. Heaping praise is appropriate. Getting some last minute jabs in, is gauche.




Last minute jabs would have been given before he died. Just because someone dies that does not entitle them to any respect, admiration, etc automatically. A figure such as he was controversial, and so those of us who are critical of the guy are noy gauche in criticizing him after death. It might be gauche at his funeral, but hey this is an open forum filled with people who did not know him personally - and plenty of others who did not like him or his policies. Let the criticism roll... how about the backward Middle East policy he started, and has been continued for 25 years. How about making the rich richer? How about $400 for a $7 hammer under his bloated military spending? Ah, I feel better now. :cool:

The man died yesterday. Heaping praise is appropriate. Getting some last minute jabs in, is gauche.


what would you post here tomorrow if Clinton died tonight? Seriously.

what would you post here tomorrow if Clinton died tonight? Seriously.

I'd pay my respects even though I completely disagreed with his politics. I'd give him credit for his speaking ability and for his laid back humor. I don't think flaming someone (even if you disagree with them or their views) right after their death is in good taste.

I'd pay my respects even though I completely disagreed with his politics. I'd give him credit for his speaking ability and for his laid back humor. I don't think flaming someone (even if you disagree with them or their views) right after their death is in good taste.
I agree with you, and I agree with what Steam said below. I just wonder if Steam could manage to say something good about Clinton, were he to die tonight. And what sort of "decent interval" he would observe before starting to bash him again.

I miss him because, conservative as he was, he never demonized the opposition, never questioned their integrity, patriotism or heart, and knew how to sit down and deal when the time came. Most people don't realize what a great compromiser he was. We miss that in politics these days.

I dropped a tear or two when I heard he'd passed.[/QUOTE]

NEVER demonized the opposition? Tell that to the Evil Empire (USSR), and tell that to anti-VIetnam war protestors when he was California governor.

You know I really don't hate Clinton as many of you think. I actually have a sort of fondness for him as a 'guy'. I know a few just like him. I didn't respect him as a president because of his actions. I always thought he was capable of doing great things, but instead he seemed to be too concerned about having a good time. His closest friends have said the same, from what I have read and heard. Many of the people he put in place were incompetent and just as lax as he. That is what I disliked about him. I feel that many of the policies put our national security at risk. I said that a long time ago and it seems I may have been correct.

I give him credit for being a 'great communicator' just as Reagan was. Though I never met the man, I have heard that he too is able to make one feel as if they and their problem are the most important thing to him at that time. He catches peoples hearts and minds with his soft-spokes speaking skills. But he quickly forgets his charge, once the cameras are off.

If he were to die today, he would certainly be too young, and that would be a loss in itself. Maybe you should have asked me what I would say, were Carter to die. I had no use for his policies and weakness'. Yet I would give him the respect that was due a president. You have to remember that Carter and Clinton were treated much differently by the press during their terms. Reagan was vilified just as Bush is being vilified. To do it now when his family is in mourning is not cool.

He was one of the greatest. His proud legacy will remain!

even among those of us who disagreed with him and voted against him.

I heard President Reagan speak (i.e., I was in the audience). He was the most effective speaker I ever have heard. (And I have heard every President since President Ford speak live at least once). Even if you disagreed with what he was saying on an intellectual/political level, his speaking style and mannerisms made you want to agree with him.

He left the United States and the world in a better state than he found it. And, he recognized that even those with whom he disagreed deserved respect and decent treatment.

I think that he will come to have a similar legacy to that of Franklin Roosevelt. Today, President Roosevelt is venerated just below the ultimate greats -- Washington and Lincoln. In his day, Franklin Roosevelt had many detractors and was disliked, even hated, in certain quarters. However, today, even Republicans pay homage to President Roosevelt and his legacy.

Finally, I would like to say a word of praise for Nancy Reagan. Mrs. Reagan received more negative publicity than all but two First Ladies (Eleanor Roosevelt and Hilary Clinton). She dealt with the negativity with poise and grace. The last ten years must have been hell for her. My grandmother died of Alzheimer's disease at the age of 94 after a decline of many years, including the last eight years in a nursing home. I have a good idea of what the last years of President Reagan's life must have been like. Mrs. Reagan stayed with him throughout it and made sure that his legacy and image were protected. She served her husband and her country well.

Y

Reagan was vilified just as Bush is being vilified. To do it now when his family is in mourning is not cool.



Please stop equating Bush with Reagan. They are unfortunately very very different people. One was Reagan the other is trying to be Reagan. One thought introspectively and developed his own policies and convictions. The other has had ash tray deep policies spoon fed to him. One carried 49 states and was known for having "Reagan Democrats", the other lost the popular vote and the only thing you here from former Reagan Democrats is the chirp of crickets. One led us out of a malaise, the other has driven us back into it. One took on the Russians and helped bring about the end of the cold war, the other is in danger of beginning a Holy one.

I agree with you, and I agree with what Steam said below. I just wonder if Steam could manage to say something good about Clinton, were he to die tonight. And what sort of "decent interval" he would observe before starting to bash him again.
He was the first president who allowed B-grade Hollywood actors everywhere to believe that one day they too could become President of the US. My momma taught me if you can't say something nice and all...so I should probably stop now...but I will say it does rather sicken me to hear all the politicians gushing over this person now that he's dead. I never liked him or his policies much when he was alive and I feel bad for his relatives upon his passing, but I can't really say I shed a tear when I heard he died.

I never liked him or his policies much when he was alive and I feel bad for his relatives upon his passing, but I can't really say I shed a tear when I heard he died.

Basically sums it up for me too.

Speaking as a right-wing kind of guy, I'd say that he should be remembered for being a highly likable, reasonably effective president that will have is legacy forever shadowed by a couple of poor personal decisions that degraded both himself and the presidency. As an automtive industry guy, I will forever be indebted to him for sustaining the longest freeze in fuel economy standards ever (huge for stability and competitivness, being a solid global free trader, which helped the auto industry get its piece of China.

According to GWB's former Treasury Sec'y Paul O'Neill, when the Administration was feeling cocky after the 2002 mid-term elections and wanted to press for more tax cuts, O'Neill warned Cheney that the country was already heading for fiscal disaster, with the biggest deficits in history forecast, Cheney replied, "Reagan already proved deficits don't matter."

Maybe I missed something, Mr. Phallus?? :confused:

Speaking as a right-wing kind of guy, I'd say that he should be remembered for being a highly likable, reasonably effective president that will have is legacy forever shadowed by a couple of poor personal decisions that degraded both himself and the presidency. As an automtive industry guy, I will forever be indebted to him for sustaining the longest freeze in fuel economy standards ever (huge for stability and competitivness, being a solid global free trader, which helped the auto industry get its piece of China.
You had to like him personally, and he bumbled into some fair successes through sheer bulldog determination and a clear vision of right and wrong, however (some might think) misguided. Chalk up some points for the Gipper. Silly as his schtick sometimes was, he wasn't by any means a half-mean, half-bright, drug-addled prick like ... oh well, time for national unity, never mind.

He did Communism a massive service, by the way, by helping bring about the collapse of the monstrously deformed Stalinism that was giving Marxism a bad name in Russia and Eastern Europe. We Trots will be forever grateful, which is an irony that I'm sure would be lost on him...

He was one of the greatest. His proud legacy will remain!

Spot on:

Rush Limbaugh's Tribute to Ronald Reagan

June 7, 2004

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: You know, they say, ladies and gentlemen, that when someone who has lived just a wonderful life, a full life in every way, that sadness upon that person's death is inappropriate, that it's not necessary. Yet, I have to tell you, I'm sad today. Some of you have written over the weekend and speculated as to what was -- not "wrong" with me -- but why I was sort of subdued on Friday. I had received information on Friday that this was coming, and this has affected me in ways that I did not expect. President Reagan has basically been out of the public eye for at least ten years, and everyone knew this day was coming, Saturday's day was coming, but nevertheless, since Saturday afternoon at four o'clock Eastern time, I have felt like a part of me died as well. But I know that Ronald Reagan lives on in my heart, as he will live on in all of your hearts as well.

I never met Reagan, but it wasn't necessary to have met him in order to love him, which I do, and that's as great a measure of greatness as I know. People say -- I've said it, I reminded you of it many times here -- it's said that greatness doesn't need to be explained, and that's true for those people who are paying attention at the time. But sadly, most people's historical perspective traces back only to the day they were born. If you couple that fact with the realization that history education in this country, in the public school system, is woefully inept, and by that I mean that I have heard from people over the weekend whose 17- and 18-year-old kids have no idea who Ronald Reagan is. They know all about the Vietnam War and they know all about some of the horrible history involving America since, but they don't know anything about Reagan. They've not been taught much about Reagan at all.

This is a huge eye opener for them. They are asking their parents, "Why is everybody going nuts over this guy?" Millions of Americans also under the age of 30 have no concrete memory of Ronald Reagan's presidency, and yet we are all, including them, touched by his greatness. I'd like to take a moment here to explain to those of you who have no direct relationship with Ronald Reagan, you weren't old enough or even born during his presidency to have understood it or to have known how you have been affected by it, because the simple fact is that now in death, Ronald Reagan once again defines the utter beauty and blessing that is America and reminds us all of our destiny. You know, Reagan's greatness is not all about a single speech or a single phrase in a speech or a single memory. Ronald Reagan was great because he was a man. He was a great man, and he knew who he was. He was comfortable in his skin.


He was optimistic and happy. He was infectious. He dared to embrace big ideas. He dared to do big things to overcome huge obstacles in the midst of all kinds of experts telling him it couldn't be done, in the midst of all kinds of criticism, in the midst of all kinds of personal insults. I must tell you, ladies and gentlemen, I have been in awe this weekend watching some of the coverage, listening to some of the people who I remember explicitly insulting this man every bit as much as they insult George W. Bush today, now singing his praises, and I look interestingly and curiously at the TV set when I see this, and I said, "Well, which is it, then? Was he great? If he was great, he was great then." I've seen some of the most incredible testaments to his policies, and I've seen the usual digs. I mean, it's all out there, but you expect the digs in this current climate, and they're there.

But the idea that people who routinely did everything they could to diminish Ronald Reagan in the eyes of a nation who loved him, now the fact that they do not dare come forth and be honest at this point in time about their true beliefs and feelings of Ronald Reagan, is another testament to his greatness. They don't dare, because they know the love this country has for Ronald Reagan. They know it would be suicide to practice their politics as usual during this period. Ronald Reagan was great because he never gave up on his country, and the reason he never gave up on his country, ladies and gentlemen, is because he never doubted for a moment any of us. Never doubted our wisdom. He never doubted our judgment. He never doubted our ability to do the right thing. He never doubted our ability to rise to necessary challenges. Ronald Reagan never doubted the people of this country at all. That made him a huge threat, because Reagan's enemies had no threat, no confidence and no faith in the American people. They still don't. Their view of the American people is one of incompetence, lack of judgment, inability, basic averageness -- and, of course, they must think that, for if they don't, there's no reason for them.

You know, some people forget that in the late 70s and the early 80s, the Washington establishment, which is what Reagan would later call, "The iron triangle of the liberal media, liberal special interest groups and the massive bureaucracy." Some forget that in the late seventies and early eighties the Washington establish want was talking about of America's inevitable decline. Jimmy Carter's presidency was looked at by the American left, "Well, gee, if our best and brightest can't make anything out of this, maybe there's something wrong with this." Never thought there was anything wrong with them, never thought there was anything wrong with their ideas, never thought there was anything wrong with their president, and so rather than question their own role in bringing the nation to the point it was in in 1979 and '80 -- the worst economy since the Great Depression, Soviet Union on the march throughout the world -- the elites of liberalism questioned the fortitude of the American people.

Yes, my friends. It was, after all, the establishment's failed policies and worldview that had led the nation into economic and international decline. It wasn't the people, and Reagan knew it. Jimmy Carter. After Jimmy Carter, the establishment, the elites, were questioning whether the presidency itself -- I wonder how many people remember this. The late 70s, early 80s, the Washington and New York elites were themselves questioning whether the presidency itself could survive as then structured, whether it was "a job too big for any one man." Do you remember this? Some people wondered whether the Constitution should be changed to provide for a single six-year term, rather than requiring a president to run for reelection. Along came Ronald Reagan, and there's no doom and gloom in Ronald Reagan. He's the optimist, eternally so, shining city on a hill. He would have none of this doom and gloom. He rejected Washington elitism, and he had since 1964 and before. Talk about core values, talk about sticking to them.


He rejected Washington elitism and connected directly with the American people who adored him. He didn't need the press. He didn't need the press to spin what he was or what he said. He had the ability to connect individually with each American who saw him. That is an incredible -- I don't even want to say "talent." It's a characteristic that so few Americans have, so few people have, but he was able to do it. He brought confidence; he brought vigor, and he brought humility to the presidency, which had been missing for years, and this profoundly upset his political and media adversaries to no end, and Reagan enjoyed that. Ronald Reagan rejected socialism; he rejected big government. He insisted on returning as much government back to the people as was possible. He cut taxes so deeply that even some on his own staff became disbelievers and wrote books about it. They were wrong. He was right. Our lives today are a testament to how right Ronald Reagan was.

Reagan created the greatest economic expansion in American history, and certainly since World War II. He wasn't always successful in cutting government programs, but he tried. He slowed the growth of domestic spending by vetoing spending bills and by shutting down the federal bureaucracy. But in the end, you know, in our constitutional system, it's Congress that controls the purse strings and they made deals with him they didn't keep, but he tried. In fact, Ronald Reagan proved something that to this day economists, elite economists do not believe. Ronald Reagan lowered inflation during the midst of one of the most unbridled economies and its growth period in history. No economist thought that possible, but he did. He brought inflation down to 4.8% from its double-digit figure when he took office, and significantly, unlike Franklin Roosevelt, Roosevelt -- this is key -- Roosevelt turned to government in a failed effort to revive the American economy.

The New Deal did not revive the American economy; World War II did. The New Deal just revived government. Ronald Reagan, instead of turning to government to revive a failed American economy turned to us, the American people. He worked to unleash our ingenuity, our entrepreneurism, our enterprise and productivity. You've heard it said all weekend that Reagan "made people feel good about themselves." That's true. He made people feel good about the military. That's true he made people feel good about their country. Yeah, did all of that, no mean feat, and for those of you who weren't around or paying attention in 1979 and 1980 throughout -- actually 1984 -- huge recession in '81 and '82. For those of you who weren't around, you have no idea. Nothing since has happened quite like it. Those of you who came of age during the campaign of 1992, when you listen to Bill and Hillary Clinton talk about the 80s as "the worst economy in the last 50 years," it was a lie. The American people were sympathetic to it because there was a small little recession occurring in 1990 and '91, into the '92 campaign, but it was nothing compared to what Ronald Reagan inherited and how Ronald Reagan fixed it.

This has been a staple of this program since its inception in 1988, actually, '84 in Sacramento, my adopted hometown, and that is that you are the ones who make this country great. You are the ones who make this country happen. You are the ones who create this economy. You are the people who determine the destiny of this country, not our leaders. Our leaders, if they're good, get us to do things that may be tough, maybe things we don't want to do at the time, maybe endure things we would rather not, but leaders get obstacles out of our way, leaders do show us the way, and I'm not trying to diminish Reagan with this. I'm trying to celebrate Reagan. Reagan knew because of his unbridled love for the American people, coupled with our God-given freedom, our natural yearning to be free. Reagan knew that all he had to do was unleash that, and it was "Katie, bar the doors," and he was right. He was right then; he is right today. He will be right for as long as there is America. Those who choose to follow his footsteps will also be right. Those who choose to follow in his footsteps will experience the optimism and the good cheer and the love of country that he always had. There are many who will carry on in his tradition. I'm honored to be one of them. I wouldn't be sitting here were it not for Ronald Reagan, and I never met him.


You know, Ronald not only rejected socialism and big government, but he also rejected communism. He defeated it ultimately, and well, I'm getting to that point. So many elites, so many on the left in Reagan's era, said then what's being said today about militant Islam, and what Chamberlain said about Nazism. "Well, it's there. We can't do anything about it. We've just got to try to manage it, have to try to get along with it. We have to try to make sure that we don't destroy each other," and Reagan figuratively scratched his head and said, 'What's that? Get along with this? Look at what they're doing to people. Look at what they're doing to their people. Get along with this? They're on the march. Their stated objectives were as plain as day." Those of you who weren't around during all of this, the era of the Cold War and Soviet expansionism, it is imperative you find out. It is imperative you understand what this man did. It is imperative you understand how he did it.

It's not just that he did it without firing a shot. He did it because he refused to accept it, all alone amongst those at his leadership level. So he set us out on a course to win, not "manage," the Cold War, and I consider that to be the final battle of the Second World War. He freed tens of millions of people who had been imprisoned behind the Iron Curtain for nearly five decades. Those people survive Ronald Reagan today. In his obituary they should be mentioned as "survivors," and I noticed some liberal commentators now contend that the fall of the Soviet Union was "inevitable" just as they once considered the decline of American greatness inevitable. They still don't get it and they never will. Mid-90s I attended a lecture given by Lady Margaret Thatcher at the Waldorf in New York. She made a point of saying it was Reagan, not Gorbachev, who brought down the Soviet Union primarily by proposing SDI. It was at that moment that Gorbachev knew it was over because he knew we Americans could do SDI and his country couldn't.

Later, I had the good fortune to become close friends with Lady Thatcher, and I often reminded her of that lecture and her point, and she "commanded me," which is how she speaks. She commanded me to never allow people to think otherwise, never allow people to think that it was anyone other than Ronald Reagan and the spirit of America and its goodness and its faith in God that defeated the Soviet Union. I remember I went to a dinner at a private home in Manhattan, I was asked to give the toast. It was a dinner in honor of Lady Thatcher. The guests were the usual Manhattan elites, many media people network presidents. After Lady Thatcher's remarks when the hostess asked for questions, there were none. So I rose. I asked her, "Who won the Cold War?" She gave the same answer in her lecture to the dinner guests at this dinner. They sat in stone silence. They knew it. They didn't want to hear it. I wish I had had a camera so you would know who. I'm not going to say who was at this dinner, but I wish you could have seen their faces when she said it.


Let me set the stage for you at this Manhattan dinner party. It doesn't matter who it is, because you don't need to know the names to know the type of people. Network presidents, programmers, media elites. It was a media elite dinner and I was there, and the reason I was there because of all the people invited I was the one qualified to offer the official toast to Lady Margaret Thatcher, and so I did. And Lady Thatcher, this was a dinner in her honor at this private home in Manhattan. After dinner the hostess asked her for some remarks. She made some brief remarks -- for her, brief, ten, 20 minutes. After they were over, the hostess opened it up for questions and there wasn't a person -- must have been about 25 or 30, not one person stood; not one person raised their hand, not one person had a question, and during her remarks, Lady Thatcher had not touched on the Cold War, but I had remembered being profoundly affected by her admission at this lecture that I attended with Justice Kennedy.

In fact, I was his guest at the Waldorf, and so I rose, and I said, "Lady Thatcher, could you explain? There's a lot of controversy being waged in the country right now about what brought about the end of the Soviet Union. Many people think that it would not have happened were it not for Gorbachev, that Gorbachev was a new leader, Perestroika, Glasnost. You were there. You were part of it. What's your view?" She got stern as she could be at the notion that Gorbachev had anything substantively to do with it. She stood up and she just went down the list of what it was and why it happened, and again she focused on the fact that because Reagan had the audacity, Reagan had the fortitude to proposed SDI. At the time, again -- and a lot of what I'm saying today, most of you in this audience have heard it -- but I'm hoping to reach people who have no concrete, direct memory or relationship with President Reagan because of your age or because you weren't paying attention.

But back then, SDI was regarded much as the whole war in Iraq is today. SDI was treated was treated as a joke; SDI was dangerous; SDI was going to blow up the world; SDI was impossible. It was typical liberalism: greatness couldn't be done. Greatness can't happen. "This is only going to kill us all! This is just the meanderings of a B-actor." I mean, you people have forgotten how absolutely mean-spirited the critics of Reagan were about him and to him personally. He never flinched, never cared. He smiled at it. But when she stood up and went through this list of things and made the point that it was at that moment Mikhail Gorbachev realized it was over because he couldn't keep up. His country couldn't do it and he knew Americans could create SDI. In fact, I've got a story, there's an AP story somewhere in the stack quoting Gennady Gerasimov who was one of the spokesmen back then saying this very thing, if you don't believe me and you don't believe Lady Thatcher, and when she stood up and gave this answer, there was no applause. There was no reaction.

The guests at this dinner sat stone faced because they knew it, but they didn't want to hear it. You know, Reagan did not "hasten the Soviet collapse." He was responsible for it, and he was practically alone in his confidence that Soviet communism would fail, and his reason for believing it would fail was simple, folks, and it's a reason that is eternal. He knew the Soviet Union would eventually collapse of its own immorality if pushed in the right places, so he pushed. Reagan was also concerned about an all-powerful judiciary undermining the will of the people and attempted to do something about that. He spent eight years appointing people to the federal bench who were committed to interpreting the Constitution, not rewriting it. One of the most brilliant minds on the court today, Antonin Scalia, is a Reagan appointee. Reagan is the one who elevated Rehnquist to chief justice. The liberals are still trying to reverse this impact of Reagan. They're still trying to reverse everything he did.


That's what the Clinton presidency was about. It's what the Clinton campaign of '92 was about, was reversing the eighties. The whole reason for existence of liberalism, folks, in recent years has been to wipe out the memory of the 80s and rewrite it as something it wasn't: "Decade of greed, decade of selfishness." You know, lest we forget, Reagan was called many things by those who resented him. He was called a cowboy. Does that sound familiar? He was called a dunce. Does that sound familiar? What have I always told you by liberal playbook never changes? There are no new pages in it. He was called a danger. That sound familiar? He was going to blow up the world. Washington elites described his 49-state landslide in 1984 as "a triumph of greed and selfishness." I had to laugh over the weekend. Forty-nine-state landslide. Ronald Reagan received more popular votes than any president in history in 1984, and still there are pieces in the media this weekend, "Could Reagan beat Clinton?" Clinton never got 50% of the vote. It happen wouldn't be a contest.

You know, there was one debate in the 1980 presidential campaign, one debate, very near the election, and the Carter people thought that they were going to clean the clock of Ronald Reagan. They thought Reagan was a dunce and an idiot, and we all know what happened. You talk about deer-in-the-headlight eyes, that was Jimmy Carter in that whole debate. Ronald Reagan debated Bobby Kennedy in the 1960's. You will not believe the story of this. I forget what the subject matter was, but the Kennedy people couldn't wait for this. You know, Reagan was ascending after his Goldwater speech in '64, and the Kennedy crowd thought, "We're going to wipe the stage with this guy. This guy is nothing," the typical way that liberals look at conservatives, and particularly conservative leaders. When it was over, Bobby Kennedy called Pierre Salinger in Paris and said, "Don't you ever put me with this guy again. It's impossible." Reagan was real. He just connected one on one with everybody. He had no ego. None. He was totally comfortable with who he was. He liked who he was, and he liked everybody else.

As I said, Reagan's entire presidency became known as the "decade of greed" by Democrats who today claim to praise and venerate him. In fact, I will never forget after the election of 1984, I was in California. The Democrats, (Former California Democrat Senator) Alan Cranston was running around all over the state trying to tell old people that Reagan's reelection would cause them to lose their homes and their health care. Ever heard of that? Does that sound familiar? Twenty years ago. David Broder, I'm pretty sure, his first column in the Washington Post after Reagan's reelection called it :a triumph of greed and selfishness over citizenship,: meaning the 49-state landslide was from people who wanted theirs, who wanted their tax cut and to hell with the poor and disadvantaged and what have you. I think Broder also wrote -- Reagan was 69 when he was first took office -- Broder wrote, "He's too old to be in touch with anything." I haven't seen what Broder has said this weekend, but he was just an example.

They were all saying things like this because they hated Ronald Reagan, and don't let anybody tell you differently. They feared him, which was the reason for their hate. They could not outflank him. They couldn't relate to people as he could -- and they were the people who "had the common touch," they told us. They were the people who had the ability to understand what life was like for the average guy, and here's Ronald Reagan running circles around them. Of course they didn't like him. He posed a great threat. Reagan was accused of sexism; he was accused of racism; he was accused of heartlessness. They said he was responsible for homelessness and AIDS. They said he was going to start World War III and destroy the social safety net, including Social Security, the school lunch program. Sound familiar? See how left never changes? But Reagan was none of those things and did none of those things. He was wiser, he was smarter, and bigger than his detractors.


Thankfully, he outwitted them all and for one primary reason. He had the truth on his side. He knew that it was us that would make all this happen, the American people, and he told us that repeatedly. Everybody loves hearing what's expected of them. Everybody loves -- well, everybody reacts. Most people react to great expectations laid before them, and that's what Reagan did. Reagan elevated our own expectations of ourselves and of our country and we rose to the challenge. He knew America and the American people better than anyone, especially those who sought to govern from inside the Beltway. I'll never forget, it was I think 1990, and I was at the 21 Club in New York for dinner with some friends. I had been doing this show for two years. I don't want to over-personalize this, but Ronald Reagan believed things happened for a reason, so he wasn't worried about little details and the ups and downs of things, because he looked the long view, saw the far-off distance and just had faith that it was going to be okay -- as long as America remained America.

Now two years into this program, and I'm being criticized, having things said about me that have never been said about me before, and I don't know how to deal with it. I'm getting advice from people. Should I respond to this stuff or should I ignore it? People said, "Well, if you respond to it you're sort of validating it. You're letting them know it bothers you. Just blow it off. Don't react to it." I said, "Yeah, but then people are going to think it's true if I don't respond to it." This was one of the early frustrations that I experienced during this program. People saying things about you that aren't true. The instinct is to fix it and change the record. But I never knew what. I mean, for those two years there was nobody who could tell me what to do. I was with no one who had been through it, and I really had no instinct myself what to do.

One night I'm at dinner, 21, and I had to go to the bathroom so I walked into the restroom. The restroom attendant in there recognized me and came up, shook my hand. He was just ebullient. He started taking. He knew who I was. He started talking about to me about the one time he met President Reagan, and he just was as effusive, full of love and excitement, exuberance as anybody I can recall, just happy to be telling me this. And after he went through describing what his meeting with Reagan was like, and it had been fairly recently, he looked at me, he cocked his head, his eyes got wide, and he said, "You know, Mr. Limbaugh, he never got mad at 'em. He never got mad at 'em once. He just laughed at 'em." I said, "Bingo. There's my answer." In the restroom at the 21 Club, from an attendant whose biggest thrill in life was having met Ronald Reagan. That man is a preacher today, that attendant.

America's Truth Detector and Doctor of Democracy, Rush Limbaugh, continuing now with a tribute to Ronald Reagan. Ladies and gentlemen, another thing that's important to remember. It wasn't just Democrats and liberals who criticized Ronald Reagan after he left office. Republicans in Washington (I will never forget this), Republicans in Washington also were weak in defending Reagan's policies after he left office. They were afraid to defend the tax cuts of the 1980's. They were afraid to defend the charge that the 80s was a decade of greed and selfishness. They were afraid to tell the truth of why deficits grew. The Clintons called the 80s "the worst economy in the last 50 years" in 1992, and many Republicans in Washington wouldn't stop and step up to remind people of the truth. Well, I did. I remember sitting here in the early years of this program aghast that members of Ronald Reagan's own party in Washington didn't have -- it wasn't all -- but didn't have the guts and the courage to stand up and defend him, particularly when it came to tax cuts and foreign policy: the two things that he was most profound on.


Throughout the early years of this program it was an objective of mine to keep the Reagan legacy alive. I was a product of it. It's not even enough to say I believed it. I felt like I was part of it, that I would not have had the life I have were it not for Reagan. I understood it, and I believed in it, and I thought all Republicans did, too. What I learned later was that there were factions in the Republican Party. The old country club blue-blood set, they never liked Reagan because he displaced them, too. So when he was gone it was their turn to try to reassert themselves in control of the party. Well, that's what happened in the party, but this program is not the Republican Party. This program is conservatism and the Reagan legacy. You know, I wonder what Reagan would say to us about this new war, this war on terrorism, liberation of Iraq. So I went to his Pointe-Du-Hoc speech back in 1984, D-Day.

He said it was "the deep knowledge -- and pray God we've not lost it -- that there is a profound moral difference between the use of force for liberation and the use of force for conquest." He said to the surviving Rangers who scaled the cliffs at Pointe-Du-Hoc on D-Day, "You were here to liberate, not to conquer and so you and those others did not doubt your cause and you were right not to doubt. We in America have learned bitter lessons from two world wars. It is better to be here ready to protect the peace than to take blind shelter across the sea rushing to respond only after freedom is lost. We've learned that isolationism never was, never will be an acceptable response to tyrannical governments with an expansionist intent but we try always to be prepared for peace, prepared to deter aggression, prepared to negotiate the reduction of arms, and, yes, prepared to reach out again in the spirit of reconciliation." Reagan was right just as George W. Bush is today, and I really believe that if Reagan had been able he would have put his hand on Bush's shoulder and say to him, "Stay the course, George." I really believe that.

As I said at the beginning of this hour, and I've been fighting it because this is not what Reagan was about, but since Saturday afternoon at four o'clock Eastern time, I haven honestly felt like a part of me died as well. Even though I knew it was coming, we all knew it was coming. I was surprised at how deeply the act of his passing had on me, despite knowing it was coming, and I was comforted all the remainder of the weekend by the reality and the realization that I know that Ronald Reagan lives on in my heart, always will, and in all of yours. I never met him. Wasn't necessary. It was not necessary to have met Ronald Reagan in order to love him as I do, and that is as good a measure of greatness which does not need to be explained as I know. So God bless Ronald Reagan, and as he never failed to say, God bless America.

END TRANSCRIPT

He was one of the greatest. His proud legacy will remain!

Since we've all seen it here on this forum, too, I must add this; no more Ctrl+v, I promise:

Why the Left Is Freaking Out

June 8, 2004

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: We're going to continue with a lot on Ronald Reagan today but we're going to steer off into some other areas as well. I think it's time to bring back the optimism and good cheer that Ronald Reagan had, the sunniness that he was known for, but we're not going to abandon it, don't misunderstand. There's still a lot to say here, but I don't want to lose my grip on the current events cycle that continues to take place out there despite this.

There's some really wallapaloozaing stuff out there, and make sure you're up to speed on it. I was home last night as usual minding my own business not bothering anybody. When I leave home is when I begin to bother people. (Laughing.) And I got an e-mail note from one of our webmasters out in California, Brian Glicklich. And Brian is a big Reagan guy and he said he's going to take his fiancée to the Reagan Library overnight when the crowds would be less to pay his respects, said he only lives about 15 miles away from the Simi Valley, which of course where the cops who beat Rodney King were tried. Thank you, Peter Jennings. (Laughing.) Anyway, so I said, Brian, when you get back please send me a note, let me know how long the whole process took you. I'm curious how many people were able to run through there and how quickly and so forth. I didn't know what he meant by overnight. You know, Brian has weird sleep habits. So overnight could have been anywhere from midnight to three, three to six, have no clue. Brian lives out on the left coast but he has to adapt his schedule to us on the east coast for website purposes and all that.

So at 8:30 this morning I got the following note from him. "Rush, I don't believe I have ever seen anything quite like this morning. I went to the library about 3:45 a.m. Pacific time hoping to avoid most traffic. Instead, I was greeted with a five-mile long procession of cars still on the freeway, quite literally parked there, followed by a one and a half mile long line of cars on the road to the parking lot for the shuttle service to the viewing. I'm told that the wait was about five hours to get to the lot and parked, another three hours in line for a shuttle bus. This was in the middle of the night. Given circumstances, I used a back route to drive by the front of the library where a flower drop-off lane had been created and I paid many respects there. As you could imagine, there is an ocean of flowers and tributes, and even that description is an injustice to the need so many people have to remember Ronald Reagan, Ronaldus Magnus, in whatever way they are able. As I drove into the office at five o'clock this morning, traffic reporters were saying the line was lengthening, people could expect to spend ten hours or more in total waiting. There simply isn't enough time in the world for everyone who wishes to thank Ronald Reagan one more time.”


It's just amazing. And, you know, we were talking yesterday. Peggy Noonan was on Matt Drudge's radio show Sunday night and she predicted that the libs would not be able to hold fire most of the week. They start out the week praising Reagan, saying good things but after a while they couldn't contain themselves and they'd start imploding. She thought it would be shortly after the funeral on Friday. I don't know, I think it's starting to happen now. Certainly internationally. Did you hear what the Cubans said? You just have to love these communists. "He who never should have been born has died," said official Cuban radio. And I'm sure you've run into all of the people that are out there writing things about, "Ah, should have been Bush, not Reagan who died." Well, we're glad Reagan it's clearly, in that regard, a different era. But don't let this stuff bother you, folks. Let me tell you what's going on here, let me tell you exactly what's going on, because you will understand this. I mean it's hard to understand this kind of hate. I've never felt this kind of hate. I've tried to understand it, come up with various theories, theorems, stratagems and so forth to figure it out. Let me try this on you.

You know, because I have told you all these many years that I have sat patiently and firmly behind the Golden EIB Mic, I have told you that the left in this country from well, let's say 1988 just to make this simple but it actually started way before that, but 1988, to the present, the left in this country has done everything it can to rewrite the history of the eighties. They've done everything they can to rewrite the history of Ronald Reagan: decade of greed and selfishness, triumph of greed and selfishness over public service, Reagan was mean-spirited, he hated the homeless, he caused AIDS, all this stuff, tax cuts didn't work, that led to huge deficits, we could never do tax cuts, tax cuts are horrible, all they do is lead to big indebtedness and people have to work up a big bill that they all have to pay back, the grandchildren have to pay back. I mean, you've heard all this.

So in 1988 to now is 16 years. And I would even say as I said earlier that they started this revisionism long before '88. I mean, as soon as Reagan took office they were trying to smash what he believed in even though you're saying but Rush, I know this answer, but there are some things about -- Well, yes, but they don't like it, and they're not going to be able to hold their tongues for long. Here's why I think there's so much panic on the left and we're seeing so many stories in the paper about, oh, no, oh, no! Will this help Bush? And then they all conclude, no, because Reagan died too soon. Can you imagine this? I mean, the need to play politics even with the death of Ronald Reagan? I understand it. I think it's just so crass. I don't remember when Nixon died whether anybody wondered about the political impact of the Nixon funeral. I don't know if it was an election year. I don't remember. But it is what it is. I mean, I can sit here and complain about it. I'm not complaining. I'm just registering my amazement. But they are so afraid. They are afraid that Bush is going to get a bounce from this that they're saying, well, it happened too soon, nobody is going to be thinking about this on Election Day.


Look it, guys, if you want to play that game, how about this? How about if I say, you know what, Reagan died too soon. If he'd have died three weeks from now he'd have sabotaged Clinton's book. How do you like that? Well, come on now. I'm just illustrating. If I were to say that and mean it, can you imagine the hullabaloo? Let's say I write an op-ed piece and submit it to the New York Times and say, you know what, I've been looking at all this analysis of the timing of Reagan's death as though he had anything to do with it. And everybody is speculating whether or not his death is going to give Bush a bounce. Well, let me suggest that it's probably safe to say that if Ronald Reagan, Ronaldus Magnus, could have suspended his death for another three weeks, it might have impacted negatively the introduction-of-Bill Clinton's book. (Raspberry) man, they would freak out. They would literally freak, "How dare you be so callous? How dare you be so base? How could you possibly conceive of--“ I'm not conceiving of anything. I'm just following your lead. You brought up the political impact. Clinton book is a political book.

At any rate, here's why they're freaking out, folks. All these years of history revisionism -- I think this is a Rush profundity coming up, so pay extra special attention. I mean, I know you're riveted out there each and every day but you may want to pay extra special attention. All these years of revisionism trying to trash Reagan personally, trash Reagan's policies, and yet for a solid week those who tried that revisionism are faced with the fact of their utter failure to do so, 24/7, all week. The outpouring of love for this president, the outpouring of support for this president, the outpouring of detailed reasons why he was great. Right in front of their face, 16 years of abject failure. They have failed to revise the truth of Ronald Reagan. They have failed to revise and rewrite the history of his presidency and they see it daily. They see it with their own eyes, and it's the American people telling them. They know they failed and they are angrier than ever.

END TRANSCRIPT

Spot on
A predictably partisan, self-serving and dishonest "tribute". Another disgrace to Reagan's memory perpetrated by a perennial disgrace to this nation.

That, or poetic justice, depending on your opinion of the two.

With all this blather about Reagan's sunny optimism, it is important to remind everyone of the hateful garbage he has inspired. I tend to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that if he had maintained his faculties until the end, he would have spoken out against this kind of nonsense and been a moderating force on the Republican party.

not really. I'm just tired of hearing the same non-news over and over again. The first day or so it was topical. Now it's just old and stale. Even the most hardy neocon has got to admit it seems a bit much.