Goodbye to the Gipper?

t's time for the GOP to say goodbye to the Gipper.

Not to Ronald Reagan, the president who faced down the Soviet Union and helped revive American morale. But Republicans should turn away from the Gipper, the president's sometimes glib, sometimes misguided. sometimes reckless alter ego.

And it should perhaps turn back to other icons of its history.

For the Gipper is far different from President Reagan. Reagan accurately assessed the danger and the weaknesses of the Soviet Union. As many have noted, he stood almost alone among American leaders in believing the evil empire must be resisted and could be defeated. Its demise in 1989 is a huge achievement.

Republicans rightly exult in that legacy. But that is from Reagan, the cold-eyed yet fearless strategist. He grasped the whole historical situation and the essence of communism. He was courageous, but — despite what his critics said — he wasn't reckless. Basically, he outwaited his opponent.

Consider in contrast the Gipper's feckless venture into Lebanon. There, in contrast, he presented a bold face, but he never understood the situation. That's why he sent U.S. Marines into a stronghold of fanatics, but wouldn't let them load their weapons.

When suicide bombers killed 241 American servicemen and 58 French servicemen, The Gipper and the U.S. cut and ran, emboldening Islamic militants. The Gipper was good for stirring words, and easy promises, but not so useful when it came time to hang tough.

Reagan helped revive the U.S. economy. But he did it by backing Fed chief Paul Volcker, who jacked up interest rates to choke off inflation.

The legacy of the Gipper, however, is that financial progress can be achieved without pain. But light of the financial meltdown, it may be time to re-evalute that.

Yes, Reagan helped restore American optimism. But did The Gipper make "pessimism" -- a.k.a. caution and prudence -- taboo in political discourse?

The Republican Party needs to rethink its fixation on the Gipper.

Not all doom and gloom

Don't give up just yet.

A bipartisan ticket

Run this guy with Sarah Palin and they might win in a landslide.

I am a professor of molecular biology and biochemistry at UC Irvine, and I have consistently refused, on principle, to participate in the sexual harassment training that the state and my employers seem to think is so important.

(Thanks to obscurestore.com)

The Gipper vs. Ronald Reagan.

The Gipper backed amnesty for illegal immigrants.

But was that wise? Did it encourage millions of people to come here -- to build shopping centers, condos and McMansions it turns out we neither needed or could afford?

Or to take care of the lawns and children of Wall Street hustlers who will soon be as extinct as dinosaurs?

Is this a case where we needed Ronald Reagan, and NOT the Gipper?

So the GOP needs to rethink where it stands on this.

Hard money, hard choices

And didn't Reagan -- unlike the Gipper -- take a tough stand by backing Volcker in raising rates to squeeze the crap out of the financial system in the early '80s?

And a tip of the hat to much-maligned President Grant, who vetoed inflationary legislation. Right now that sounds better than it has in years.

Goodbye to Gipper, welcome Abe back

It's time for the GOP to dismiss the Gipper, but turn its attention to Abe. And maybe Ike too.

It should continue to honor the achievements of Ronald Reagan, of course. But the party must wean itself from the mythologic Gipper.

Reagan defied the Soviet Union. Along with Margaret Thatcher and John Paul the Great, he led a successful stand. Soviet Communism couldn't take it.

But is excessive spending on the military also part of his legacy? Remember President Eisenhower, who warned against the military-industrial complex.

And the Gipper cut and run in Lebanon, after putting U.S. troops in an untenable spot.

Immigration? The Gipper signed the first amnesty. This encouraged millions of people to enter the country illegally.

The mantra is that they were needed. It's now becoming evident that many came here to build houses and shopping malls that weren't needed in the first place.

Or to take care of the homes and families of stock market hustlers who -- it is now evident -- were running financial schemes they didn't understand.

Yes, Reagan helped restore American optimism. But did The Gipper make "pessimism" -- a.k.a. caution and prudence -- taboo in political discourse?

Did the Gipper's tax cuts temporarily stimulate the economy, but also ignite what now seems like growth with a faulty foundation?

And note that his tax reforms removed millions from the tax rolls. These voters now, notoriously, are unconcerned with raising taxes.

Maybe that's why the party needs to turn back to Lincoln.

Meltdown

A persuasive look at the meltdown.