Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Deval snubs the Gipper

By

From today’s Globe:

Governor Deval Patrick decided not to sign a proclamation recognizing Feb. 6 as “Ronald Reagan Day.”

Say it ain’t so DP!

Admittedly, as a conservative Reagan is one of my heroes.  I was sad when he died and spent his entire funeral in the Littlest Pub drinking Jameson and Guinness with some of my friends who also mourned his passing in the traditional Irish way.  So my personal feelings are that he should be honored in this way.

Sadly, even the people at the Ronald Reagan Legacy Project appear to have lost interest in this cause since they haven’t updated their blog since November 9, 2006.  Not even a post on his birthday this year, which just passed last week (February 6). 

To me this stinks of partisan politics.  What do you think?

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. What other Presidents have days proclaimed in their honor in Mass?

    <

    p>
    I’d like to know that before I decide an answer to your question.

    • From Massachusetts General Laws:

      <

      p>
      Albert Schweitzer’s Reverence for Life Day
      Washington’s Day
      Veterans of World War I Hospital Day
      Aunt’s and Uncle’s Day
      Horace Mann Day
      Mother’s Day
      Father’s Day
      Purple Heart Day
      Senior Citizens’ Day
      Disabled American Veteran’s Hospital Day
      Army and Navy Union Day
      Veterans Day
      Anniversary of Death of General Pulaski
      Bunker Hill Battle Anniversary
      Boston Massacre Anniversary
      Commodore John Barry Day
      New Orleans DAy
      Anniversary of Death of General Lafayette
      Patriots’ Day
      Evacuation Day
      Veteran Firemen’s Muster Day
      Student Government Day
      United Nations Day
      Loyalty Day
      Memorial Day
      Polish Constitution Day
      Peter Francisco Day
      Children’s Day
      Columbus Day
      Teacher’s Day
      Maritime DAy
      Jamacian Independence Day
      Iwo Jima Day
      Tadeusz Kosciuszko Day
      Public Employee Week
      Pearl Harbor Day
      Grandparent’s Day
      Anniversary of enlistment of Deborah Samson
      Lithuanian Independence Day
      Statue of Liberty Awareness Day
      Slovak Independence Day
      Korean War Verterans Day
      Human Rights Day
      Exercise Tiger Day
      Former Prisoner of War Recognition Day
      Homeless Unity Day
      USO Appreciation Day
      Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Day
      Destroyer Escort Day
      School Principals Day
      Native American Day

      <

      p>
      OK getting tierd of this.  There are more, just go to the link. 

          • As is JFK, of course, but Rose is famous for more than just JFK.  It’s not like they’re giving out random days to Presidential moms.

            • ..it just isn’t in the MGL.  We had a congrats to the queen Mother on her 100th birthday, too.

              <

              p>
              Notice – Reagan isn’t one of the MGL automatic repeaters.  That means Deval had to conciously say to the GOP caucus – no, your proclaimation isn’t good enough.  I’m saving MY signature for the Duxbury basketball team championship!

              <

              p>
              Also notice – all the GLBT Pride proclaimations that Romney signed as a courtesy, which now have him in hot water on the national level, regardless of his personal opinions, aren’t on the automatic repeater list either.

              <

              p>
              Tells me something about both signers.

              • Also note that when Romney ran in 1994 and 2002, he ran saying that he would be a friend to gay people.  So anything remotely “pro gay” that can be dug up on him can’t be painted as a “courtesy”.  It’s what he said he would do.

            • The day was given to her because she was JFKs mommy.  From the law “to honor the matriarch of the Kennedy family.”

                • I meant Kennedy, not matriarch.

                  <

                  p>
                  It’s part of what makes you complaining about Deval treating Reagan “shabbily” so funny. I don’t think there’s a single Kennedy family member you haven’t spoken ill of.

                  <

                  p>
                  Here’s a sample:

                  <

                  p>
                  “Indeed, he may not have, as Porcupine would imagine that pouring various Kennedys into cruisers for special rides home is a forty year old tradition in Washington, D.C. that has evolved into standard practice.”

      • It looks like the only two presidents that are so honored with their own day in Massachusetts are Washington and Kennedy.

        <

        p>
        And you thought the Scott Brown thing was a tempest in a teapot…

      • every 50 years or so.  This way, they have a natural expiration date unless the lege gives it another 50 years.

        <

        p>
        Some of these are downright silly.  Also interesting to note that of the list above, 13 (by my count) are recognition of war in the group sense (I would count Korean War Vets Day, but not Anniversary of Death of General Lafayette, for example).

        <

        p>
        It seems like we ought to celebrate peace more and war less, no?  OK, OK, I’m a terrorist sympathizer or I don’t support the troops or whatever.  Reagan would call me a commie, yadda yadda.  It just seems like Veterans Day + Memorial Day covers ’em all, by definition (unless you want a third for active duty folks, which I guess aren’t veterans).

        • Frankly, if I don’t see Deval Patrick wearing a big white wig during April, I’m not even going to hope for him to wear Hawaiian shirts during the last week of August.

        • it’s Armed Forces Day, celebrated in May.  The US gov’t is better at supporting our military in volume of holidays than in substantial terms.  Bush Admin is worse than most.

    • Reagan was beloved by people in both parties.  He was the last Republican presidential canidate to carry Massachusetts; he did that in both elections. 

      • However, putting my personal feelings aside, do we have FDR Day?  Truman Day? Eisenhower Day?

        <

        p>
        These were all Presidents of notable accomplishments. We could proclaim a day for each of them.

        <

        p>
        Or…we could have a legal Holiday each year, say in the middle of February, and we could call it Presidents Day!

        <

        p>
        We could even start that this weekend.

          • to include George H.W. Bush; he was born in Milton. (Clearly the intent of that section seems to be to honor presidents from Massachusetts.)

            • But actually associated with MA. Coolidge, for example, wasn’t from MA originally; he was born and raised in VT, but moved down here later and was governor and then President.

              <

              p>
              GHW Bush may have been born here, but he’s spent his political life avoiding the association with our state, and never really did much here… as far as I can tell, he left when he was 18 and never came back.

              <

              p>
              So, no, I don’t think the section ought to be amended for him.

      • He wasn’t loved across the board. Perhaps it is Deval’s opinion that Regan wasn’t that great of a president? 

        • Reagan was loved across the political spectrum.  According to the Globe article (thanks for putting in the link to whom ever did that), most of the states have signed on including 13 with Democrat governors.

          • Clinton left office with higher ratings than Reagan.  I suppose then that we can say Clinton was loved “across the spectrum”?

            <

            p>
            Here’s a really good link to Presidential approval ratings.

            <

            p>
            http://137.99.36.203…

            • Gotta get some work done today.  Here is a quick link about Reagan’s popularity growing with age and how he stacks up accross the political spectrum.

              • Reagan’s average approval rating during his two terms in office was 57 percent, in the mid-range for a postwar president and tied with Bill Clinton’s rating. But looking back today, – 66 percent – say they approve of Reagan’s work, according to an ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll.

                That’s a familiar phenomenon: Presidents tend to be rated better as they recede from the fray. Reagan scored a similarly strong retrospective job approval rating in February 2000. And Jimmy Carter’s was 66 percent in a poll a couple of years ago – a full 20 points higher than his career average while in office.

                <

                p>
                I’m sure you’d support Jimmy Carter Day!

                • Like I said, I was posting quickly.  I was referring to the part where it gave the partisan breakdown of his support.  I couldn’t find a good source for that info.  I will try and look more later. 

                  <

                  p>
                  If anyone has a good link to presidential favorable ratings by political party, please post it.

          • …I am saying that I disagree with the statement that he was loved across the political spectrum, that’s all.

            <

            p>
            It seems that in Mass at least, many of the Democrats who revere Reagan lean towards the DINO side of the spectrum. And I am sure there are plenty of Dems out there who could articulate why they don’t think Reagan was that great of a president.

            • and I guess that you could debate what “loved across the political spectrum” means, but for what it’s worth:

              <

              p>
              1980 Presidential election
              (MA  results)

              <

              p>
              Reagan  1,057,631  (41.9%)
              Carter  1,053,802  (41.7%)
              Anderson  382,539  (15.2%)

                • It wasn’t just conservatives supporting Anderson–Anderson was supporting a 50-cent per gallon gas tax, something none too popular with the Reagan crowd. I don’t think you can add Anderson’s support to either, actually, in a meaningful way. What that shows is that Reagan got a plurality, was only ahead of Carter by a hair.

              • From your link

                <

                p>
                1980 Nationally

                <

                p>
                Reagan 43,898,770 (50.8%)= 489 Electoral Votes
                Carter  35,480,948 (41.0%)= 49 Electoral Votes
                Anderson  5,719,222 (6.6%)= 0 Electoral Votes

                <

                p>
                It really wasn’t a close election and it was against an incumbent.

                <

                p>
                From this link because for what ever reason the one you gave did not have the state by state breakdown for 1984.

                <

                p>
                Reagan 1,310,936 (51.22%)
                Mondale 1,239,606 (48.43%)

                <

                p>
                Before going on to another landslide victory.

                <

                p>
                Not to mention how easily Carter carried Mass in 1976

                <

                p>
                Carter 1,429,475  (56.11%)
                Ford  1,030,276  (40.44%)

                <

                p>
                And if you look at the by county results for Mass, the only place Carter didn’t carry was the Cape.

                • The devil himself could have beaten Jimmy Carter in 1980. Between the thing in Iran and the economic situation, it was pretty much a perfect storm. Reagan’s subsequent re-election came largely as a result of luck (Reagan did have outstanding luck–his biggest f***ups turned into triumphs frequently due to events beyond his control or knowledge)–recessions all end sooner or later, and Reagan benefitted spectacularly from tight money policies instituted prior to his term in office.

            • Reagan played the role of President so beautifully that those not paying attention might have thoroughly enjoyed the show.

              <

              p>
              Given Patrick’s stated desire not to govern by soundbite, I can understand see a thoroughly principaled reason not to honor the master of the soundbite.

              <

              p>
              Or a master of deficit expansion when he’s working on the budget.

                • Kantian ethics here? I suppose I’d have to agree if the principle were “don’t sign symbolic proclamations”.

                  <

                  p>
                  As one who thought Reagan was dangerous, I’m suggesting that there might be a different principle at work here.

          • most likely, is that he just died recently (two years ago, I think?) Everyone is popular when they die–look at the to-do they put on for Ford.

            <

            p>
            As time goes on and we consider how much of the current disaster in the White House was built upon the foundation laid by Reagan (including support for the Afghan fighters which ended up supporting Islamic terrorists), that popularity is sure to fade. The reason there have been so many things named for him, or state “Reagan days,” is that there has been a highly organized movement pushing hard for this sort of thing, not because he was “loved across the political spectrum.”

            • Reagan was more responsible than anyone for the dependence we have on fossil fuels. During the Carter years energy conservation and R&D for alternatives were going strong. One of the first things Ronnie did was defund and cut off all of those programs.

              <

              p>
              This nation should never forgive him for that. Never.

              • had nothing at all to do with the reduction in conservation.  Why spend $2000 to heat your house for the winter when you can spend $20,000 for green heat?

  3. I’d also point out that Feb. 6 is Bob Marley’s birthday as well. A man who, speaking globally, probably has more name recognition than RR. A double recognition might be in order. What say you?

    • Does Bob Marley have more name recognition than The Gipper.  They both were passionate seekers of worldwide peace, though!

  4. who spent many years of his adult life as a civil rights lawyer, making sure that every citizen could exercise the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

    <

    p>
    Ronald Reagan needed the votes of white people in the South who were angry about integration, and Reagan played to this racial division.

    Space doesn’t permit a complete list of the Gipper’s signals to angry white folks that Republicans prefer to ignore, so two incidents in which Lott was deeply involved will have to suffice. As a young congressman, Lott was among those who urged Reagan to deliver his first major campaign speech in Philadelphia, Mississippi, where three civil rights workers were murdered in one of the 1960s’ ugliest cases of racist violence. It was a ringing declaration of his support for “states’ rights” – a code word for resistance to black advances clearly understood by white Southern voters.
    Then there was Reagan’s attempt, once he reached the White House in 1981, to reverse a long-standing policy of denying tax-exempt status to private schools that practice racial discrimination and grant an exemption to Bob Jones University. Lott’s conservative critics, quite rightly, made a big fuss about his filing of a brief arguing that BJU should get the exemption despite its racist ban on interracial dating. But true to their pattern of white-washing Reagan’s record on race, not one of Lott’s conservative critics said a mumblin’ word about the Gipper’s deep personal involvement. They don’t care to recall that when Lott suggested that Reagan’s regime take BJU’s side in a lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service, Reagan responded, “We ought to do it.” Two years later the U.S. Supreme Court in a resounding 8-to-1 decision ruled that Reagan was dead wrong and reinstated the IRS’s power to deny BJU’s exemption.

    Reagan may be beloved by many, but when he didn’t denounce the racists in BJU or Philadelphia, Miss., he didn’t endear himself to the Americans who had to wait centuries to be treated as humans.

  5. These represent ‘Days’ which are actually laws and are automatic repeaters; House, Senate and Gubanatorial proclaimations of ‘Days’ are also done routinely for a variety of people (don’t be so sure there hasn’t BEEN a Bob Marley Day!).

    <

    p>
    Many of them could be revisited – does anybody else besides me REMEMBER the Armenian Genocide?  And who did it?

    <

    p>
    I am disappointed because Patrick had initially seemed to be reaching out, with his rhetoric about being everybody’s governor.  This is a small thing, and he used it to behave shabbily. 

    • Are you that old? I am certainly aware of it, as I believe are most people familiar with world history/politics.

          • Mrs. Mina’s people were never found.  But there are some victories.

            <

            p>
            My dad liberated the Camps in Poland.

            <

            p>
            And a neighbor in Yarmouth found his brother after 20 years in Saddam’s prisons – it turns out he WAS alive.  Sold his store, went back to Iraq to rebuild his family.  We liberated Nazzar Al-Rajak, too.

    • extremists like Grover Norquist and his ilk, for whom this is part of a plan to make Reagan a neocon saint. Part of the plan includes using Reagan to replace FDR, architect of the hated Social Security program, on the dime.

      <

      p>
      Those who want a Reagan Day in Mass. have the burden of showing why this president alone deserves to have his name added to the canon. Not the other way around.

      • Steverino,

        <

        p>
        This is not about Norquist, this is about Ronald Reagan.

        <

        p>
        The President of the United States that was responsible for bringing down the Berlin Wall, winning the cold war and recovering the economy from recession.  He was one of the few politicians in recent history that transcended the differences of the parties and drew votes from all sides.  This state voted for him in both elections.

        <

        p>
        We are talking about honoring a former president on his birthday, nothing more.  No one is asking you to change your name to Ronnie or anything that would impact you life in the least.

        <

        p>
        What did Rose Kennedy, Candle Safety, the Hallmark holidays et al do to justify the days that are honoring them?

        <

        p>
        And what does “neocon” even mean? 

        • Clinton was more popular, FDR achieved more. Many others could be added to the list.

          <

          p>
          As we have seen, the only Presidents afforded such recognition have been those born in the State.

          <

          p>
          Why is this a big deal anyway? Somehow I think your hero wouldn’t really think Government should be used to idolize former Presidents anyway.

        • …is at minimum an exageration that fails to mention the roles that the Pope, Poland, Lech Welsa, Gorbachev, and the people of Germany played in ending the Communist Bloc.

          <

          p>
          Regan had a hand in the fall of the Berlin Wall, but I have yet to see evidence that any one person or group is “responsible” for the fall.

            • You forgot:

              <

              p>
              – helping Americans feel good about driving gas hogs

              <

              p>
              – reducing complex issues to divisive sound bites

              <

              p>
              – ignoring AIDS

              <

              p>
              – slashing mental health budgets and dumping hundreds of thousands of mentally ill into homeless shelters

              <

              p>
              – slashing student loan programs

              <

              p>
              – driving the national deficit to levels only surpassed by the current administration

              <

              p>
              – trickle down economics…

          • of american containment policy that was created by democrats.

            <

            p>
            I fucking HATE the “reagan beat the soviets” line.

            <

            p>
            Brehznev beat the soviets.  Read some history.  I’ll fight any overexuberant honoring of Reagan on those grounds alone.

        • Steverino is right here.

          <

          p>
          There is a planned, partisan effort on the part of Republicans to elevate and use Reagan’s memory to push their otherwise unpopular programs. You know, stuff like dismantling Social Security and environmental regulation, and provoking stupid wars.

          <

          p>
          I don’t understand how the heck you can ask “And what does ‘neocon’ even mean?”  Are you Sleeping Beauty? Were you just, just kissed?

          • does anyone imagine that Grover Norquist pushes Ronald Reagan days across the country to celebrate bipartisanship?

            <

            p>
            Of course not. His team uses Reagan as a cover to push highly unpopular radical agendas, like dismantling Social Security.

            <

            p>
            I used to have a very old great-aunt, who pretended not to understand what people were saying, when she didn’t want to hear it.

      • proponents of Reagan’s ‘Voodoo Economics’:

        <

        p>
        “These “trickle-down” tax cuts–coupled with a tremendous boost in military spending–were designed to bankrupt the government, pressuring it to reduce government spending and thereby justifying draconian cuts in social programs.”

        <

        p>
        King Georges policies are like ‘Voodoo Economics’ on steroids, aided and abetted by a rubber stamp Congress of course.

      • My favorite example is from Minnesota.

        <

        p>
        In 2004, members of the MN Taxpayer’s League (like our own Citizens for Limited Taxation), spearheaded a petition drive to rename the Floyd B. Olson Memorial Highway after Ronald Raegan.  Floyd was governor of MN during the depression and widely credited with getting both parties to work together to get the state through it.

        <

        p>
        The MTL wanted to tear down statues of Olson along the highway and at the State Capitol and erect monuments to Reagan.

        <

        p>
        Their press release said “It is finally time to put official celebration of socialism and communism firmly in the past. Floyd B. Olson represents the failed path of socialism. It is ridiculous that we still celebrate his vision while not properly honoring Reagan’s visionary leadership that liberated so many.”

        <

        p>
        Indeed.  Never mind that Olson was a progressive rather than a socialist and many of his reforms were carried to fruition by Republicans.

        <

        p>
        The petition was defeated overwhelmingly.

        • I wonder when those Highly Principled, Moral Republicans are going to remove the statues to the vile Ben Tillman that adorn the South Carolina capitol? They might as well have a Shrine to Racism. When South Carolina takes down the Tillman statue, then and only then will get worked up about us ignoring Reagan.

  6. My gosh, they named National Airport, and the Dept. of Commerce — and I think a friggin aircraft carrier after him. It was painful enough that he carried the state twice. Oy!  I was not a fan…

    <

    p>
    May he rest in peace.

  7. Would that the Democrats would more often aquire the lovely aroma of Democratic partisanship! Had we done more for partisan gain, we might not be mired in Iraq!

  8. I would say that the entire concept of Ronald Reagan day is partisan politics. Conservatives wave Reagan like the flag. The more they can add his name to things, the more he becomes a symbol that everyone was somehow better under him, and that makes it easier for the next Reaganite to get elected by simply invoking his image.

  9. as a MA native, is this,
    even though I was too young to vote at the time.

    <

    p>
    At least it saves us (hopefully) from ever having to endure the suggestion of a proclamation day for him.

        • McGovern was hilarious — an obvious leader with nothing to lose.  His speech was the highlight of that night, and possibly the best of the convention.

          • was when McGovern said “and in conclusion…” Everyone in my Senate district stopped listening after the first forty-five minutes. Maybe he said something funny after that.

    • but in both the 1972 election result that I linked to above, and in all other graphics used, the blue and red representing Dems & GOP are inverted. Blue is GOP.

      <

      p>
      According to the editors note at that site, the Red=GOP, Blue=Dem, is a recent media construct, and so they have elected to keep the colors on the maps as they are.

      <

      p>
      I don’t recall when the terms Red & Blue started being used as stand-ins for the parties. Damn you liberal media!!!!

      • Red is usually associated with socialist parties and blue is often associated with conservative ones.

        <

        p>
        A quick visit to the Britain, and you will note that the Labor Party’s website is decorated in red and the whereas the Tories have chosen blue.  Similarly the French UMP as opposed to the Parti Socialiste.

        <

        p>
        I always thought that showing the Democrats as blue was a nice way of ducking the red-baiting that used to be more common during Reagan’s day. Oh, those glorious days of Laffler curves and jelly beans.

      • until 2000, when the dispute over the election cemented the identities and colors into Americans’ minds.

        • that’s not the story I’d heard.  I had heard that Dems were always red and GOP blue until one of the big three (ABC, CBS, NBC) accidentally swapped the two a handful of presidential elections ago.  It stuck.

          • Somewhere on the Web, you can find the maps of various past electoral results, clearly showing the alternating colors. Can’t remember where, though.

  10. The constant push to name things after Ronald Reagan began well before his death, and I and many other people find it frustrating and galling and offensive.  He’s got far more named after him than he ever could’ve deserved, IMO.  Continuing the push for more Reagan deification is partisan politics.  Enough already.

    • Bob Barr from Georgia that is trying to have at least one thing in every county in the country named for him.

          • The war with Afghanistan served to put the nail in the coffin that was the Soviet Union. Reagan had nothing to do with it, aside from taking credit for it with “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down that wall’.  The Soviet Union was in economic shambles and the people were exhausted from the Afghani war. It was internal pressure, a crumbling infrastructure, and war fatigue that caused the fall of the Soviet Union-nothing Ronnie did contributed to that. 

            <

            p>
            If only the Bush administration would learn from history.

          • 18 years of Brehznev letting their entire country decay and 50 years of foreign policy by 8 US presidents.

            <

            p>
            Gimme a break.  Reagan didn’t do a thing to the soviets.

            <

            p>
            Oh, he “outspent them”.  What next, the war on terror will have been won by Lockheed Martin and BEA’s fighter jet contracts?  It’s a stupid line of argument and deserves to be soundly defeated in the public discourse.

            • that Reagan, and Bush after him, managed, by personal rapport with Gorbachev, to navigate the the beginning of the collapse of a hostile expansionist empire without triggering the use of that empire’s vast nuclear arsenal.  The Politburo could easily have decided to go down swinging, and making them comfortable enough to go gentle into the night was no small accomplishment.

              • You could include Clinton’s first couple of years as well.

                <

                p>
                I’d call that more of a lack of incompetence than any spectactular achievement, but in light of the current administration, not screwing up is looking pretty amazing.

                • I have noted this before:  After Vietnam and Carter, the Democrats have not been blessed with a lot of credibility in the security/foreign policy arena; Republicans had this credibility in spades until 2003.  Clinton ran on domestic issues, twice.

                  <

                  p>
                  Bush has aquandered that huge asset for the Republicans; they must secretly think of him fondly.  But Democrats have not yet filled that void.  I’m convinced that the last election was a repudiation of Republican foreign policy since 2003, but I’m not sure that it was an endorsement of Democratic policy, to the extent there is one.

  11. On one military-related day – this was about five years ago, so I don’t remember which one – there was a House proclaimation honoring the troops and Commander-in-chief George W. Bush.

    <

    p>
    A single Democrat – Matt Patrick? – objected, and since these things are done on a voice vote, it had to be withdrawn.

    <

    p>
    After about two weeks, it was offered again – having missed the day in question – re-written to support the troops and the Commander in chief.  No name, just commander in chief.

    <

    p>
    At the time, we joked that the Democrats wanted to present it to their fantasy President, Jeb Bartlett.

    <

    p>
    The Democrats seem weirdly obsessed with this – I have never heard a Republican refuse to refer to the O’Neill office building or the Moakley courthouse by their proper names, no matter what they think of their politics.

    <

    p>
    Symbol over substance, indeed.

    • And why are they already naming things for Menino when he isn’t even dead yet? I mean, he’s still in office and they’re naming hospital wings after him.

      <

      p>
      Very wrong, imo.

      <

      p>
      But whoever stood up against honoring Bush, good for them.  They should be proud of that.

  12. Umm, so why do we need the government to tell us that February 6th is a day to honor Ronald Reagan. I thought that government was the problem, not the solution.

      • “Shabby display of personal power”? Why on earth should Deval sign this?  Was Ronnie from MA? Did he film a Bonzo movie here?

        • To be polite to your political adversaries, and show respect their heros/heroines, no matter how misguided you may think they are.

          <

          p>
          It’s a matter of extending a courtesy.  Deval has merely provided a demonstration that his talk about civic engagement was exactly that – talk.

          • If it was Reagan’s mom up for an honorary day, I’ll bet Deval would’ve signed it. But it was Reagan.

            <

            p>
            And as for civic engagement, how much more engaging can you be than to state your opinion? Civic engagement doesn’t mean agreeing with everybody, or everybody walking in lock step. It’s opening forums for discussion.

            <

            p>
            We were certainly civically engaged by his decision.

            • You either get it, or you don’t.  And that is NOT a comment on intelligence, but point of view.

              <

              p>
              There is no comparision between Rose and Ron – except that both are revered by one side of the aisle.  When the opponent party is in a position of power, do you sneer and denigrate the heros of the other side, or do you shake your head and extend an essentially valueless but meaningful and appreciated courtesy?

              <

              p>
              I have seen DOZENS – perhaps hundreds – of these thing float by.  They aren’t all listed in the MGL, and you’d have to compile them from the House and Senate calendars.  In sixteen years, I honestly cannot recall a GOP governor ever refusing to sign such a proclaimation on partisan grounds – and I assure you, they were for Democrat heros and causes of every stripe, some of them anathema to the ideals of the GOP.  Not only do Democrats spike the petitions of fellow legislators – like they did with the one for Armed Servies Day, which the Governor has nothing to do – but now these formerly routine gestures of respect to the other side will have to meet some sort of internal litmus test from Deval.

              <

              p>
              Civic engagement is not mere bickering – the idea was that progressives and conservatives would work together towards a goal of good government.  Why extend a hand that will be slapped?

          • to Massachusetts is pretty clear, so Swift did the right thing, irrespective of party politics, in signing it. 

            <

            p>
            But what is Ronald Reagan’s connection to Massachusetts? 

            <

            p>
            Oh yeah. 

    • But, Tom, if you’ve come back to this thread and read the 100+ comments here, you might notice that Peter Porcupine and gop08 and you haven’t touched the point about Reagan’s political alliance with racist white voters in Southern states. 

      <

      p>
      I think they sense that a big part of the reason Deval Patrick won’t go out of  his way to honor Reagan is Deval Patrick’s personal commitment to civil rights.  I think Patrick is old enough to remember how Reagan went out of his way to do a favor for Bob Jones University, which banned interracial dating.  Ronald Reagan never apologized to African Americans, and what’s more he never even told Bob Jones University, “Your racism is wrong.”  Reagan never honored the three civil rights workers slain in Philadelphia, Mississippi.  This is a fault in Ronald Reagan’s leadership.

      <

      p>
      Deval Patrick is not “behaving shabbily.”  If Massachusetts had an Armenian American governor who chose not to promote a “Celebrate Turkish Heritage Day,” Peter Porcupine would not say such a hypothetical govenor was “behaving shabbily.”  There’s a sore point in the history of Armenians, and it would be impolite to joke about intimidating an Armenian American into honoring Turkey.

      <

      p>
      So back to your humor of intimidation, Tom:  It is not funny to joke about intimidating an African American to honor a President who played to the racists (racists who used intimidation to keep black citizens out of restaurants, colleges, and voting booths). 

      <

      p>
      This is about respect for ALL our citizens.

      • …say to Bob Jones U. that their racism is wrong, and apologize to African Americans, or honor the civil rights workers slain in Philadelphia?  Why was it a special burden for a Republican?  Because Johnson and Carter were afraid of Robert Byrd, and they were hoping a GOP could stand up to him?

        • as President.  He exerted great effort to pass landmark civil rights legislation, and was well aware that he had cost the Democrats votes in the South for at least a generation.  While it’s true that LBJ’s early politics played to racism, once he became President, i.e., once his political power was at its greatest, LBJ fought to give black citizens the rights they had been denied for years.  Carter’s close relationship with the members of the Civil Rights movement, such as MLK’s aide Andrew Young, showed Carter sought no alliance with the racist voters of the South.  In the 1950’s Jimmy Carter refused to join the White Citizens Council of Plains, Georgia, which made him stand out in that town.

          <

          p>
          But, Peter Porcupine, neither of these Presidents sought to grant Bob Jones University the tax breaks that Reagan did.  You’re dodging the main point:  the Southern Strategy, which Ken Mehlman admitted was wrong, drove a wedge between Republicans and African Americans.  This was the choice of Ronald Reagan.

          <

          p>
          You have no basis to say Deval Patrick behaved shabbily for not honoring Ronald Reagan.

          • It is also worth noting that this man who yearned so much for freedom and democracy in Soviet-bloc nations showed limited concern for democracy and human rights in other parts of the globe. After Democrats and Republicans in Congress passed sanctions against the apartheid government of South Africa, Reagan vetoed the measure.

            <

            p>
            from The Nation – June 2004

      • Hey slick, I’m actually on your side — I guess you haven’t had a chance to read my comment upstream.

        <

        p>
        So we agree on the overall issue  — probably would agree on other things, but fyi, you sound a bit preachy to me…

        <

        p>
        Lighten up, Joel.

        • Sorry.  If I’d caught your comment upstream, I would have realized the irony behind your posting of the aircraft carrier pic.

          <

          p>
          And I am taking this seriously.  Because if Reagan had actually run on a platform of rejecting racism, it would have helped atrophy that attitude in America.  And given his big win, one would think he could have done without it.  Reagan is one of those cases where politics went somewhere much uglier than just partisanship.

          • We agree.  I do remember those times as being very divisive — I never thought that I would disagree more with the policies of a president in my lifetime.  Then W came along.

  14. I think it’s pretty safe to say that the Ronald Reagan administration was the most damaging period of the post-WW2 United States. It was a smart move to refuse to endorse a day for such a polarizing and controversial figure. His administration was fundamentally responsible for putting this country in huge debt in the name of saber-rattling at the already collapsing USSR, while paradoxically beginning the dismantling of the American economic system that had helped us be the greatest economic superpower of the century.

      • at one point, I initially had 20th century in my post: Bush II is definitely worse, though from incompetency. Reagan’s problem was he was very good at getter bad things done.

    • I’m sick and tired of hearing how “great” a president he was. He was teflon, no stick and no substance. He brought us into the age of “greed is good,” of unfettered capitalism with no conscience. He was a tool of the neocons.

      <

      p>
      Why the hell should we honor his birthday officially? Do we do that for Truman? Jefferson? Eisenhower? Teddy Roosevelt? Do we do that for FDR? He was a million times better as a president and as a principled man than Reagan could ever have hoped to be.

      <

      p>
      But that’s it, of course. In the neocon desire to erase not only FDR’s legacy, but his memory if they could, they are doing everything possible to try to position Ronnie as their FDR.

      <

      p>
      Nixon’s administration weakened the foundations of our democracy; Reagan’s administration bombed the first substanstial hole in it.

      <

      p>
      Deval is a hero for standing up to pressure from the Bonzo contingent.

        • They deliberately decided to take no action since AIDS initially only affected gays and intravenous drug users.

          <

          p>
          Not only did Reagan’s communications director (Pat Buchanan!) announce AIDS was “nature’s revenge on gay men,” the administration actively shut C. Everett Koop out of AIDS discussions for 5 years.  They included Jerry “AIDS is the wrath of God upon homosexuals” Falwell instead.  End result: they refused to fund AIDS prevention and research.

          <

          p>
          Reagan finally spoke about AIDS in 1987, 6 years into the epidemic.  By that time, 36,058 Americans had been diagnosed with AIDS and 20,849 had died.

          • Between June 1981 and May 1982, the CDC spent less than $1 million on AIDS, but $9 million on Legionnaire’s Disease. At that point over 1,000 of the 2,000 AIDS cases reported resulted in death; there were fewer than 50 deaths from Legionnaire’s Disease.

            • Your hatred of the former President is noted. Your facts, however, are not entirely in order.

              <

              p>
              The total number of known AIDS deaths in the US, 1981 and prior, was 265, not 1000+, as you state (admittedly, minor point).
              Legionnaires cases, in 1980-81, were 800+, with over 100 deaths (again, minor).

              <

              p>
              But, with regard to federal funding in the years 1980-81:

              <

              p>
              Legionnaires was, by 1980, already a well documented, extremely contagious, virulent pneumonic disease with a high degree of mortality.

              <

              p>
              HIV/AIDS, by contrast, is rather difficult to transmit, can take up to ten years from transmission to development, and there was scant awareness of it in 1980-81, as compared to legionnaires.

              <

              p>
              Being aware, as I’m sure you are, of the incredible inertia of the federal government under either party, it would seem disingenuous to castigate anyone back in 1981 for not having started a Manhattan Project for something that was just barely on the radar at that time.

              • First, I was specifically responding to JK’s assertion that people across the political spectrum loved him.  I didn’t, so don’t believe he’s deserving of a special day, especially in the state of MA. I don’t hate him by any stretch.  I think he was  a much better President than either Bush, for example.

                <

                p>
                Second, I’m talking about a period ending in 1982, not 1981.  My facts are from the CDC… By 1982, the toll was well over 1000.  And, according to the CDC, Legionnaires only ever took 50.  Still too many, but still.

                <

                p>
                Third, at the time we knew next to nothing about the transmission or development cycle of AIDS.  However, as you point out, Legionnaires was well understood by 1980.  We spent 9 million more on it over the next two years.

                <

                p>
                Fourth, you ignore the central point.  The Reagan administration, by their own admission, chose to ignore AIDS and not to fund research or prevention campaigns (particularly  ones involving advocating condom use).  You can throw out all the platitudes you want about government inertia, but it doesn’t change that basic fact.

            • unless you’re willing to see that metric used to cut current AIDS research significantly.  AIDS research is one of the best funded programs under a $/death mode of thinking.  I don’t want to justify the 1980s slow response, but looking for adequate funding shouldn’t head down this path, since it will likely pit patient groups against each other, when they should join together to increase the size of the pie, not fight over the scraps.  Globaly, for example, expenditures in fighting malaria and TB are woefully underfunded when compared to AIDS.

              <

              p>
              —>Shane

              • The issue is the Reagan administration’s decision to not only ignore AIDS, but to actively oppose funding AIDS prevention or research.

                <

                p>
                The point of the numbers is the radical difference in response to two diseases which first appeared in the early years of the  Reagan administration.

                <

                p>
                Fortunately, things eventually changed.  It still took 6 years.

  16. Admit it your all just pathetically jealous that you have not had a president of Reagans stature.  The closest is JFK and he was to conservative for this crowd.

    <

    p>
    Its humorous how you all get so worked up by the mention of Reagan’s name.  Fortunately your all still in the minority regarding sentiments towards Reagan.  I especially love the comments from those who were still in diapers.  You especially have no credibility when you comment about him.  Your just yapping what you heard your parents said.

    <

    p>
    Its amazing this issue has created so many emotional posts.  Keep it up because that’s how us R’s always win the WH.  Please keep running on emotion rather than reality.

    • It’s usually easy to tell the parody trolls from the real trolls, but this is pretty good. I’m going to give you a 5 for the parody. Well done.

    • “Here’s my strategy on the Cold War:

      <

      p>
      We win, they lose.”

      <

      p>  – Ronald Reagan

      <

      p>  “The most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”

      <

      p>  – Ronald Reagan   “The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant: It’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.”

      <

      p>  – Ronald Reagan

      <

      p>  “Of the four wars in my lifetime none came about because the U.S. was too strong.”

      <

      p>
      – Ronald Reagan

      <

      p>
      “I have wondered at times about what the Ten Commandment’s would have looked like if Moses had run them through the U.S. Congress.”

      <

      p>  – Ronald Reagan

      <

      p>  “The taxpayer: That’s someone who works for the federal government but doesn’t have to take the civil service examination.”

      <

      p>
      – Ronald Reagan

      <

      p>  “Government is like a baby: An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.”

      <

      p>
      – Ronald Reagan

      <

      p>  “If we ever forget that we’re one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under.”

      <

      p>
      – Ronald Reagan

      <

      p>
      “The nearest thing to eternal life we will ever see on this earth is a government program.”

      <

      p>
      – Ronald Reagan

      <

      p>  “I’ve laid down the law, though, to everyone from now on about anything that happens: no matter what time it is, wake me, even if it’s in the middle of a Cabinet meeting.”

      <

      p>
      – Ronald Reagan

      <

      p>  “It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first.”

      <

      p>
      – Ronald Reagan

      <

      p>
      “Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”

      <

      p>
      – Ronald Reagan

      <

      p>
      “Politics is not a bad profession. If you succeed there are many rewards, if you disgrace yourself you can always write a book.”

      <

      p>
      – Ronald Reagan

      <

      p>
      “No arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.

      <

      p>
      – Ronald Reagan

      • …or someone trying to get thrown out of a karaoke bar?  Sheesh, I thought you liked the guy; the last thing you want to do is stray from the marketing strategy and start quoting actual words that came out of his mouth!  Stick to the script, man!  Repeat after me:  Singlehandedly brought the Wall down…economic expansion…made the trains run on time — no wait, that was Mussolini…

      • one on this thread who appreciates a good wingnut troll parody. If you want to push it over the top (and maybe earn a “6”), try throwing in a little Ayn Rand reference, or at least a Simpsons!

  17. Ronald Reagan did many things to help the U.S. and the world in his eight years in office.

    <

    p>
    *  Reagan’s tax cuts (with bi-partisan support)led to the longest peacetime economic expansion in history at the time
    *  His “peace through strength” defense policies allowed him to negotiate the most sweeping nuclear reductions
    *  His “peace through strength” defense policies led to the end of the cold war
    *  He signed the legislation making Martin Luther King, Jr. Day a national holiday
    *  He restored a sense of hope and purpose to a nation that had suffered through the “malaise” of the late 1970’s.

  18. I think it would be fitting to link a Reagan Day in Massachusetts to Homeless Unity Day (Feb 20th), which I’d never even heard of until this enlightening exchange.

    <

    p>
    Without Reagan’s foresight and leadership, I would never have had my rewarding 20 year career of working with and on behalf of homeless people here in the Commonwealth.  Never mind the toppling of the Berlin Wall in which he was helped by containment-minded Democrats dating back to the Truman era.  Homelessness, the likes of which hadn’t been seen since the Depression, is his most lasting legacy!

    <

    p>
    Without him, I might have been a banker or worked for a pharmaceutical company. Thank you Ron Reagan!!!

    <

    p>
    Lazlo Toth

  19. It was St. Ronald, he of Reagan, that confirmed to me that the national Republican party was nothing more than a party of liars and hypocrites.  From an economic standpoint, of course–although an argument couldbe made that they were also hypocrites–or at least opportunists, from a social conservatism standpoint.  That is no small accomplishment.

    <

    p>
    And that merely comes from observing the national Republican party over the last 45 years or so of sentience.

    <

    p>
    St. Ronald, he of Reagan’s, detailed accomplishments are too many to mention this late at night.  But Patrick should sign the proclamation, just to remind us of how horrible St. Ronald, he of Reagan was, not only as a president, a precursor of the current president (many of their policies are indistinguishable), and how stupid the US electorate was to elect either of them.

Archives