President Reagan's not even in the ground yet and they've already started their Speak Ill of the Dead campaign against him.


hen each of these reporters' socialist propagandists' times comes, demonstrators handing out leaflets to mourners at the funeral home criticizing his or her "career" would be much more respectful than the recycled hatchet jobs these urinalists are publishing right now. The same goes for their editors who assigned or approved such post-mortem take-out pieces.

Critics See a Legacy Tainted by Social Issues [AOL Spews link]

By ROBIN TONER and ROBERT PEAR, The New York Times

Let's make a deal. Unless there's some new criticism about President Reagan you can actually come up with, you liberals promise to wait until his interment before you start pissing on his grave. In return, conservatives will dispense with referring to you slimes and your Slimes as "all slimes" until then. OK?

WASHINGTON (June 8) - Despite Ronald Reagan's personal popularity,

At least try?

...his domestic agenda was in many ways bitterly polarizing.

Oh, well. Should've known better.

Asking a liberal to make and keep any promise is like asking them to breathe only through their noses. There's simply no point in it—unless you consider how their fashion of headwear for this and every season includes nothing but steeply conical asshats.

Then, as now, conservatives hailed his tax cuts, his stirring defense of traditional values and his commitment to getting government "off the backs" of the American people.

What's not to hail there?

But many liberals and progressives see his domestic legacy very differently,

They would. But what's with your calling them "liberals and progressives" as if the two were distinct and separate entities? Rather redundant, don't you think? Like saying "Nazis and fascists." One is synonymous with the other.

...particularly on AIDS, civil rights, reproductive rights and poverty.

Because he didn't pander to The Interests™ like Dhimmicraps do, these libressives (or progerals) believe he was some homophobic, racist, woman-hating destroyer of the poor. Yeah, that's original.

Though clearly sympathetic to Mr. Reagan's family,

Though clearly you're speaking through your asshat here, as this opinion fantasy of yours is shared by absolutely no one who has more than two functioning braincells.

...they are still angry over his policies,

Also original. Find anything under the sun that they're not angry over and that would be news.

...which they assert reflected the unbridled influence of social conservatives.

Whereas letting anyone do whatever they want simply because it feels good without any regard for consequences is the kind of unbridled influence liberals want to see reflected in their dream of a totally socialistic government dull mudhut village inside a swamp.

Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, posted an open letter on his organization's Web site this week,

Saying how deeply sorry he was for the loss of our former president; and out of respect for his family, would refrain from making any disparaging remarks about him or his political career until after he was buried.

...addressed to a friend and fellow gay rights advocate who died of AIDS. "I have tremendous empathy and respect for Mrs. Reagan, who lovingly cared" for her husband "through excruciating years of Alzheimer's," he wrote.

See?

"But

You didn't think there wasn't going to be a "but" or a butthead following all that, did you?

...even on this day I'm not able to set aside the shaking anger I feel over Reagan's nonresponse to the AIDS epidemic or for the continuing anti-gay legacy of his administration."

Not having a grave on which to piss yet, he's left doing it all over the public while they're in the process of trying to come together and properly show their respect for the passing of one of our nation's highest office holders.

Must make a note of that so when Qlinton inevitably succumbs to some nasty syphilitic infection from one too many bouts of philandering, I'll know what to post on the Net right after his death certificate is signed.

Advocates for people with AIDS have long asserted that Mr. Reagan's lack of leadership on the disease, which was first reported by the Centers for Disease Control in 1981, significantly hindered research and education efforts to fight it.

He did lead, by example. He always accepted responsibility for the consequences of his own actions and never, as is standard operating procedure among raving moonbat liberals, tried to blame someone else for any of his irresponsible acts. Too bad those in the whoring-around community didn't follow that example more closely and prevent such a disease from spreading until it got into the nation's blood supply and infected unsuspecting, innocent children and older people. That's thoughtless, heartless and cruel, and shows no sign of self-restraint, personal responsibility or leadership.

But let's blame Ronald Reagan—again—for all that. It makes it a lot easier to avoid the inconvenience of having to admit that those in this community could have themselves successfully fought and prevented the spread of AIDS before it reached that proportion. Or are you admitting that the persons who engaged in such irresponsible sex were too stupid to know, even after their doctors told them, that they risk spreading it to others if they continued to engage in it?

What specifically did you want President Reagan to do? Would you have supported his declaring a national public-health emergency that included the undoubtedly effective measure of cracking down on and quarantining people who are known or suspected by health officials to be such public risks? Short of that, what makes you think anything any president could've done would've had any significant effect on altering the behavior of those whose personal choices directly contributed to this disease's progress? Even after its dangers became widely known, that community was slow to clean up its own act, contributing to even more death and heartache which no one deserved. Nonetheless, just keep blaming others if it makes you feel any better. However, don't ever expect that kind of advocating to help your cause.

His surgeon general, Dr. C. Everett Koop, wrote later that "political meddlers in the White House" had complicated his work on the disease, and that "at least a dozen times I pleaded with my critics in the White House to let me have a meeting with President Reagan" on AIDS in the mid 1980's.

Before you try turning yet another former official of an Administration you hate (i.e., Republican) into a Clarke-like bandstander—again—for your revisionist piece of history, you should mention also where you got his quote and what else he said there.

Your source, of course, is cited in a write-up from last year by Jeff Elliott regarding CBS's The Reagans miniseries hatchet job, which that network didn't even have the guts to show. Although you didn't let that stop you from recycling selected parts of it here, others might want to see what's behind your hit and run:

What the former surgeon general—who "was first viewed as a nut-job by many in the Public Health Service," whose "nomination to the post was also opposed for months by women's groups and medical professionals," and who is now your "unlikely hero of the Reagan years"—actually said three years ago at the Kaiser Family Foundation symposium on AIDS policy in Washington, D.C. (PDF document), was that these so-called political meddlers tried to "bottle up [one] report" until he agreed to remove the words "penis," "vagina," "rectum" and "condom" from it. Asking him to make his report less R-rated so most people wouldn't find it offensive and therefore would be more inclined to actually read it (which he refused to do), does not constitute "complicat[ing] his work on the disease."

The quote about him "plead[ing at least a dozen times] with...critics in the White House" to let him have a meeting with the president, is nowhere to be found either in that symposium's full transcript or anywhere else, but appears to be something you pulled right out of thin air.

What he did say about the matter was this (emphasis supplied):

Not long after the blood test I mentioned [the 1985 HIV "footprint" test], President Reagan asked me to write a report to the American people about AIDS. And then for the next two years, AIDS took over my life. I had heard it rumored that the President was going to make this request of me. And then a few days after I heard this, the President made an unprecedented visit to the Humphrey Building to the Department of Health and Human Services and thanked people for what they were doing for the health of the nation. And among things, he said I'm also asking the Surgeon General to prepare a special report on AIDS. That was it. There was never any formal request. It's a good thing I went to the meeting. It's a good thing I wasn't sleeping.

As Dr. Koop should know—but was probably sleeping in class that day when it was taught in his civic course way back during his year(s) in the fifth grade—no president has to issue a full-blown executive order to get one of his appointees to write a report. Just read the Constitution: "he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices." That's your formal request, Doc.

As for assigning blame, there's seems to be plenty of it to go around for everybody:

There were two reasons why public health authorities took a while to get a handle on AIDS in the beginning. One was that there were relatively few people trained as clinicians and researchers familiar with the rare diseases we were discussing. And the second reason was that the first patients, those with—found in homosexual men, usually patronized physicians and clinics that were more understanding of their gay lifestyle. And in making that choice these men effectively placed themselves outside the mainstream of clinical medicine and, therefore, they were more difficult to know, more difficult to reach and, therefore, more difficult to help.

Not until Rock Hudson's death in 1985 did the disease start gaining real public attention. Again, don't let these uncomfortable facts stop you urinalists from maligning this great president again, particularly after he's dead.

Mr. Reagan did not make extensive public comments on AIDS until 1987.

He only ordered his surgeon general back in 1985 to merely write a full national report about the disease.

Nothing to see here. MoveOn along.

In an interview, Mr. Foreman declared: "That history can't be forgotten. I owe it to the people that I lost not to forget it, not to pretend like it didn't happen."

After all, people are obviously pretending that his ordering that report didn't happen. Let's not forget it.

Gary Bauer, Mr. Reagan's domestic policy adviser for the last two years of his administration, countered that spending on AIDS research rose under Mr. Reagan. Moreover, he said, because of Mr. Reagan's strong belief in cabinet government, the president largely ceded the job of speaking out on AIDS to Dr. Koop and the secretary of health and human services.

Sorry, Mr. Bauer, but you apparently don't understand Rule 1 of the political version of liberal football. You still have 404,800,000 yards to go before they'll ever agree you scored a touchdown.

In general, a hallmark of Mr. Reagan's domestic policy was an effort to slow or reverse the growth of the federal government. He and his first budget director, David A. Stockman, repeatedly tried to trim health, education and social welfare programs that had been expanding for decades, and they achieved much of what they proposed.

No thanks to the late Tip O'Neill (who's buried, by the way) and other Spendocrats in both houses of Congress. They weren't about to give up all of their Tax-n-Spend liberal pie. They needed to keep the spending part up in order to bribe voters who liked the idea of "voting themselves the treasury."

"A big part of Reagan's agenda was the devolution of social policy" from the federal government to the states, said John L. Palmer, a scholar of the Reagan years.

Which actually started under Nixon's presidency with his "revenue-sharing" programs (or even before) and survived mostly intact through both Ford and Carter's. It's not like President Reagan invented the concept.

But many liberals say that Mr. Reagan broke with the New Deal notion that government could - and should - be an instrument of social equity.

Just because Karl Marx (who's been interred), Walter Mondale and Hilldabeast like that notion too doesn't mean it's what the American people themselves believe is right and best for them. President Reagan's 49-state re-election landslide should show that—even to a liberal.

Representative Barney Frank, a liberal Democrat from Massachusetts, said: "He really did turn away from the notion that there was a positive role for government.

If "erect[ing] a multitude of New [Bureaucratic] Offices, and [sending] hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance" is such a positive role for government, we the people never would have wanted to renounce our status as British subjects.

Mr. Reagan also argued that the government better served the poor by assuring strong economic growth than by distributing social welfare benefits. He said he had no objection to financing benefits for the "truly needy" - those who could not work because of age, illness or disability. But he staunchly opposed cash assistance for people who could work.

What! No one's "entitled" to sponge off American taxpayers and contribute nothing meaningful to themselves and our society if they decide doing that makes them feel good? Did I miss the sign saying "you're now leaving the cEUntry"?

Michael J. Horowitz, a neoconservative who worked in the Reagan White House, said that by combining a conservative ideology with an affable personality, Mr. Reagan "shattered the caricature of conservatives as less caring and more mean-spirited than liberals."

Not so fast, there, Mr. Horowitz:

But

(Feh) Saw that float coming down 5th Avenue 43rd Street.

...Nancy Amidei, who was then director of the Food Research and Action Center, an advocacy group for the poor, said Monday, "President Reagan's policies may not have been intended to be mean-spirited, but in many cases, the effect was to hurt low-income people who couldn't work or who had low-paying jobs."

Evil conservatives want people to have jobs so they can work for a living and keep what they earn. Nice benevolent Liberats want slaves to have a small handout so they can stay on the government plantation and have nothing. Now which do you imagine helps the poor more?

President Reagan infuriated labor unions in 1981 when he dismissed thousands of air-traffic controllers who had gone on strike and then defied an order to return to work.

Defying lawful orders wasn't their original idea. But after one of their Drippocrap advisors said it would make the administration back down, they trusted him and continued their then-illegal strike.

But former administration officials say Mr. Reagan did not regret his action. Indeed, they say, the dismissals showed people in foreign capitals that Mr. Reagan was a person of substance who was not to be trifled with.

"They say." Another paraphrase from a quote no doubt pulled out of thin air again. As far as regretting anything, he would've regretted not enforcing our nation's laws as he was sworn to do. Of course, liberals don't really grasp the concept of "laws" and "rules" all that well, so it's not surprising they still malign President Reagan for having done his duty. Not that they get the word "duty," either.

The ascendancy of the Reaganites also moved the Republican Party to a staunchly anti-abortion stance, including endorsements of a constitutional amendment that would outlaw abortion, the appointment of anti-abortion judges and new restrictions on family planning programs that involved abortion services.

Trying to save the most voiceless among us, refusing to believe that a tiny life with a head and a heart and an ability to feel and respond to real pain is little more than a mere body part or piece of chattel, and forthrightly and honestly standing by and advocating that work and belief, is wrong?

That anti-abortion movement is today a leading force against embryonic stem cell research, which Gloria Feldt, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, called a "sad irony." Nancy Reagan has become a leading voice urging the expansion of such research, which involves the destruction of human embryos, but is considered promising for treatment of many diseases.

You liberals already got a major compromise for continuing this research, so you can just feed that load of anthropomorphized straw to your dodonkey. He shouldn't have any trouble at all chewing it to bits even with baby teeth.

Similarly, Mr. Reagan's policies on civil rights were bitterly divisive, as reflected by Mr. Reagan's strikingly low share of the black vote, 11 percent in 1980 and 9 percent in 1984.

However, we're making progress helping people escape the Slavemastercrat's government plantation and fully join the ranks of the free. Naturally this will remain a difficult journey along many underground railroads so long as there are liberals offering people free hand-outs if only they'll stay on that plantation.

In 1988, Mr. Reagan vetoed a bill to extend the reach of federal civil rights laws; he asserted it would "unjustifiably expand the power of the federal government" in the affairs of private organizations. Congress overrode his veto.

Ted Kennedy introduced his Civil Rights Restoration Act to "overturn the Supreme Court's 1984 decision in Grove City College v. Bell" and require that, "if one entity of an institution receives federal funds, the entire institution must abide by the anti-discrimination laws." President Reagan sided with the liberal Berger court (who decided Roe v. Wade), Congress didn't. If anyone was being divisive here, it was the Supreme Court. Although dodonkeys don't eat fish (red or otherwise), perhaps you brought this up as a dig against Vice President Cheney, who as a Congressman voted to sustain President Reagan's veto. That's the only reason I can think of, because it sure doesn't support your argument that our late president (who hasn't been interred yet) was anti-civil rights—unless you're claiming that the Berger court was too.

The Reagan administration also maintained that it was legally required to grant tax exemptions to racially discriminatory private schools. The Supreme Court rejected that contention in 1983.

Like the last ichthyological argument, this dig is really directed at Carolyn Kuhl, President Bush's judicial nominee for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, because she favored a tax exemption for Bob Jones University while a Reagan Administration official. Until the recent compromise agreement Pact with the Devil, SadTom obstructionists in the Senate had put a thick glass ceiling over her, denying her even the courtesy of an up and down vote.

Another move that earned Mr. Reagan the enmity of the civil rights movement was his resistance to economic sanctions against the white minority government of South Africa.

Another stark display of The Slimes' continual bias on this issue is its failure to mention how miserably out of touch the black leaders here in comfortable America were with those of the Inkatha civil rights movement there in South Africa:

Chief Mangosuthu Buthelezi, head of the 1.5 million member Inkatha movement and leader of South Africa's largest tribe, the Zulus, visited President Bush on February 28 [1990] to discuss prospects for peace in South Africa. Despite the importance of this visit, the story was ignored not only by ABC, CBS, and NBC, but also by The Washington Post. The New York Times excerpted 71 words from an AP story on the visit.

Buthelezi has long opposed sanctions, an issue he raised with Bush. As Buthelezi told AP, U.S. sanctions policy "minimizes economic growth and maximizes black misery." Instead of covering Buthelezi, ABC, CBS and NBC were busy covering [Nelson] Mandela's visit to Zambia.

Because Mandela is an unabashed communist, he and his support of sanctions got—and still gets—better treatment from the libstream media.

Mr. Bauer asserts that Mr. Reagan's record has been distorted. But Julian Bond, chairman of the N.A.A.C.P., said, "Everyone wants to extend sympathy to his family, but when you remember the actual record, it's a very, very different story."

A story we've all heard many, many, many times before, but one The Slimes' urinalists couldn't wait to rehash again right in the middle of a state funeral.

This is how liberals show respect for a late president who hasn't even been buried yet. They want to get in that last bit of hate and despising they have of him while he's still above soil.

Slimes.

	6:49 PM

Comments (registered users)