Ways to avoid controversy over a general Reagan comment

1. Qualify it. Say you dislike his means and ends of success, and are just acknowledging the fact of it. (People do this with the nastiest world leaders all the time).

2. Say it only to people who know, like, and trust you. Those who know you will infer the likely intent and context without qualification. Saying it in public carries risk, especially absent qualification. Motivations and context you didn't intend may easily be attributed to you.

3. If you're going to say an evil figure's views or ideas "had some truth to them," make sure you are abundantly clear which you mean. Mussolini's policy on train punctuality is doubtless admirable if taken in isolation. :D

This works for all candidate statements on Reagan, and as far as I know everyone left in the field (Mercer? :P) has made such statements. Unless made at the funeral or soon after, if they are made without qualification and in public, I take a dim view of them. Reagan is one president that doesn't need to be held up as an example of any kind for anything that could be remotely construed as positive.

Why would you claim that mine are?

You only gave 3. There may be 5 or more. :shrug:

It reminds me of the Russian pols who indirectly hold up Stalin as a positive example--it's just an attempt to patch into some of the positive remembrances some have towards an era. It's as old as politics, but with a truly reprehensible leader like Reagan I think it's unnecessary and abhorrent.

1) Either these candidates TRULY admire this monster (Reagan), or
2) They don't, and then what the hell are they saying that stuff for?

:D

Come on... He admires Reagan, has Friedmanites on his economics team, is supported by neoconservatives like Kagan and Kristol, is involved with the Council on Foreign Relations (which wants to expand American corporate influence around the world), and does nothing but bash progressives (activists, Gore, Kerry, Democrats in office previous to Reagan, Democrats in office post-Reagan, wants to expand the military, and bring more "faith" into politics...

I don't care what plan he has on his website (promises, promises.) The guy's a fucking neoliberal stooge and fail to see how he'll be anything but "nicer" than Bush. Don't try to sell me neoconservative bullshit in a progressive package. So those are our choices? The DLC, the neoconservatives in sheeps clothing, and the other guy. Yeah, I'm pulling the lever for the other guy.

remember that one?

It's a sad day when our top candidates all sound as liberal as Richard Nixon.

Which makes it a dangerous statement. His opponents will read evil intent and context into it, and his supporters will read positive intent and context into it. And neither group will be able to figure out how the hell the other can be so sure about their conclusions.

...and International through Eye Spy Community-Military Intelligence (All Three) Business and Commerce Intelligence.

It has lightened my depressed state. Please forward these suggestions to the three remaining candidates.

In other words the GOP realizes it must move on.

What is so tragic about it, is that he is connected directly to GWB in way that they cannot be disconnected. He brought many of the bastards into DC that have since worked for GWB and been forced out. Crooked, Greedy, Ignorant, all to a fault.