I really liked this paragraph from you (the parts you copied again in a later comment):

“With respect to: “the savage onslaught to which the left-leaning media had subjected her,” would you care to say a word or two on the “civil and respectful” way the right-wing media have treated Senator Obama on his patriotism, honor, citizenship, religion, his wife, his education, his family background, his ethnicity, his intelligence, his oratory skills, his community work, his experience, his love for country, down to his big ears and the color of his skin? Just a word or two would suffice, Michael. Perhaps words such as “my apologies,?” What did you say, “no, not a chance?” Did I also hear, “It's all part of finding out who this man, who might be our President, and of whom we don't know very much,is?” Perhaps, but do we have to swiftboat him in the process? Thank you, Michael”

I think it was the other part that you didn't cite again, which included this description of Palin:

“a condescending, sneering, holier-than-thou, oozing with disdain for Democrats and community organizers, gun/bible-toting, book banning, moose eating, wolves-shooting-out-of-airplanes, Alaska separatist, for-the-bridge-to-nowhere-before-being-against-it, snarling pit bull with lipstick on.”

which undercuts the first part. You would like Reagan to apologize for name-calling and smearing Obama, and yet pretty much do the same thing to Palin. The separatist charge for instance is even close to questioning her patriotism. At a very minimum, your string of adjectives is not precisely civil and respectful.

For the record, I'm not saying Reagan's (or his ilk) charges are fair while yours are not. They are both unfair.

What exactly does that have anything to do with anything? Your team has made slanderous charges against the patriotism of both Obama and his wife. Meanwhile, you actively revere and defend and hold up as the ultimate in presidential excellence a man who ACTUALLY committed treason against our country. That, sir, is hypocrisy.

Your ignorance is only outdone by your nasty antisocial outbursts… I'd hoped a real person would emerge from your hateful rages but after the last few 'episodes' it's obvious that is not to be.

One reason Reagan was so well liked by people in addition to his communication skills were the sources and nature of the attacks on him in the 1980s (similar to why Bush is not necessarily admired by many of us today but we still defend him against the worst aimed his way). That's a lesson still not learned by the Palin (and Palin-success) haters yet. What happens if McCain and Palin win, riots as in '68? (There's a reason to bring some troops and other military assets home, still “hot”)

Yes, it was me, D.E, Rodriguez who wrote “that negative characterization “of what Michael Reagan said about Sarah Palin. Here it goes again to refresh your memory:

Michael:

With respect to: “the savage onslaught to which the left-leaning media had subjected her,” would you care to say a word or two on the “civil and respectful” way the right-wing media have treated Senator Obama on his patriotism, honor, citizenship, religion, his wife, his education, his family background, his ethnicity, his intelligence, his oratory skills, his community work, his experience, his love for country, down to his big ears and the color of his skin? Just a word or two would suffice, Michael. Perhaps words such as “my apologies,?” What did you say, “no, not a chance?” Did I also hear, “It's all part of finding out who this man, who might be our President, and of whom we don't know very much,is?” Perhaps, but do we have to swiftboat him in the process? Thank you, Michael

Ok, now that we have author and post macthed, please tell me what your objections are.

Thank you

GreenDreams, thank-you for the post. As I've said before, Reagan was much loved, but also much over-rated.

My comments here today are not directed at the rightists here, who apparently condone, or at least forgive, these transgressions. Rather, they are for younger readers of TMV who may be unfamiliar with the history of the Reagan era. I am not making any of this up, and you can verify the facts through a quick search.

Ronald Reagan was a confessed traitor to the United States of America. He admitted selling arms to our enemy, Iran. The proceeds of the sale were transferred in direct violation of an act of Congress which he had signed, to a terrorist organization in Central America whose goal was to overthrow by violence the elected government of Nicaragua, headed by Daniel Ortega. Reagan's admission was public and televised:

“A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not.”

The accusation of “treason” has been tossed around at and by partisans of both parties. But there is no clearer act of treason than directly aiding our enemies by giving them weapons that can be (and have been) used against us.

Reagan was either complicit or criminally negligent in not supervising his top officials who then used the funds through abuse of Oliver North's tax exempt “non-profit” in violation of tax law, and insurance fraud involving the “disappearance” of boats and planes transferred to the terrorists (Contras) while insurance companies reimbursed the former owners of these properties. White House officials, including Oliver North knew about and supported the fact that drug money, from the introduction of crack cocaine to America, was used to fund the Contras. (all this was discovered through the Freedom of Information Act and is directly from Reagan's White House records. Bush Sr. White House records have been “sealed” by his son GW Bush, presumably to prevent us from learning more)

The tactics of the contras included rape and torture, killing of church workers, health care workers, teachers and elected officials. The assassination of elected officials was advocated by Reagan's CIA in a manual delivered to the Contras (also obtained through FOIA).

Reagan and Bush Sr. pardoned several of those who betrayed our country and who in the most direct way, funded an insurrection that killed many and destroyed the Nicaraguan economy. Ironically, Oliver North went to Nicaragua to warn its citizens against re-electing Daniel Ortega, who was in fact, re-elected in 2006.

That Republicans, including Palin and McCain, continue to both revere and emulate Reagan is beyond ironic. It is frightening.

My screen name is archangel. It's the only one I have. Archangel, that is. As well as screen name. lol.

dr.e

Dr. E- sorry, I mistakenly thought that a commenter above was you with a new screen name. Actually I've seen a few lately by that commenter (D E Rodriguez) and have been thinking that was you with a more strident tone than usual.

The mistaken identity certainly explains things- sorry for the dumb mixup!

Go cool off. I need at least one role model here!

Sorry, Paca, but I don't go in for schtick — I leave that to, say, Obama or Bill Clinton, and worse, ESPN and the aggravating Fox follower-on, “FSN.” (I avoid teevee but sometimes encounter it, anyway.) I go in for humor, I go in for eviscerating what others say wrongly, I go in for creativity in presenting facts, but sorry, no schtick.

“Dr. E, I was really surprised at the negative characterization that you wrote above about Palin, esp considering”

dr.e

And yes, Obama has been compared to the Kennedys. But his supporters are the youth who are both willing to overlook race and anxious to change the way government does business- not continue in the same self-defeating pattern.

Oh, and it's good to see you acknowledging that McCain was right in opposing the Lebanon mission.

But at least Reagan was smart enough to bring the troops back from Lebanon declaring it a battle we wouldn't win, and adjust his “Evil Empire” rhetoric when he found out that the Soviets were just as scared of Armegeddon as we were!