Reagan Was Stupid Too

Just ask the Democrats and their media affiliates

Every day, the Democrats criticize President Bush on the Iraq War—and anything and everything else they can think of. More accurately, they degrade, humiliate, debase, and demean him. Their purpose is to destroy the President’s credibility and if possible to assassinate his character in the process. Besides their propensity to lead us into war after major war, and their skill at rewriting history, destroying the credibility and reputations of their political opponents is what Democrats do best. They do these things as a matter of practice and policy in order to gain political power. Make no mistake about it: The first priority of Democrats is to gain and keep power. The prime prerogative of each and every Democrat candidate is to get elected and to get reelected for the sake of the party and the far-reaching benefits and consequences of political power. National security and the general welfare of American citizens are distant considerations. While such statements inevitably provoke Democrats to claim they are being abused by virtue of being called unpatriotic, the facts reveal their objections to be nothing more than angry cries from overly defensive, guilty operators attempting to hide from the truth of their political sins.

Let’s review:

According to the always lurching left Liberal Democrats and their propaganda affiliates, the mainstream media, Ronald Reagan was stupid. No, not merely stupid, he was a simpleton, a shallow, unsophisticated, unschooled and unthinking dunce. As “… the silver-haired Brahmin” of the Left, Clark Clifford, put it: Reagan was an “amiable dunce.” Furthermore, as the Democrat propagandists repeatedly (Repetition is the key.) told us: being stupid and being president of the most powerful nation in the world, made him the most dangerous man in the world as well. So as to leave no doubt, they also said he was a warmonger!

So there it was: We had a bloodthirsty, war crazed, dunce for a president who, unless brought down yesterday, would destroy the world by inciting the Soviet Union to launch their huge arsenal of intercontinental ballistic missiles—loaded with multiple nuclear warheads—against the U.S.A. and its allies. Not only did the Democrats keep telling us these things; they told the world—including our enemies. That’s right, they told our enemies that our president was a stupid, dangerous man—exactly what they are now telling us, our allies, and our enemies about our current president.

Satisfied that they had sown their seeds of deceit so well—that they had convinced the American public and much of the rest of the world that our president was a dangerous buffoon—the Democrats now attempted to panic the world by convincing us that as long as Ronald Reagan was president, nuclear destruction was imminent! They demanded that we “freeze” all nuclear weapons, immediately. As Charles Krauthammer put it, “Like George W. Bush today, the U.S. president was seen as a greater threat to peace than was the enemy he was confronting.”

The Democrats wanted us to stop the arms race and above all, to not make the Soviets angry with us. But President Reagan had a far different view and a plan to go with it. Contrary to virtually every position espoused by the Democrats, Reagan took a very hard line on the Soviet Union, which had placed missiles in Europe, thus ending the nuclear status quo. With the backing of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher of Great Britain and Helmut Kohl of Germany, Mr. Reagan stood firmly against the Soviets. He faced them down and they dismantled their missiles. Fundamental in his strategy, he:

• Took a nuclear hard line
• Aggressively expanded our military capability
• Strongly backed the Strategic Defense Initiative (Star Wars) and
• Defined and promoted the Reagan Doctrine of supporting anti-communist guerrillas everywhere (especially Nicaragua).

He did all of these things and more despite relentless negative criticism and demeaning, dishonest attacks on him from the Democrats—and in the face of highly publicized, media-hyped “peace” rallies here and abroad, including the largest one in U.S. history in New York City in 1982.

In their obsessive determination to destroy President Reagan, the Democrats managed to panic millions of people in order to get a nuclear freeze—something they would rather not speak about today. Why? – Because the insights, policies, and strategies of Ronald Reagan worked astonishingly well. Moreover, history has wasted little time in establishing Mr. Reagan as perhaps the second greatest U.S. President of the twentieth century.

Ten months after Ronald Reagan left office, the Berlin Wall came down. After decades of failed policies of various U.S. presidents, the Cold War was over. The “amiable dunce” had accomplished what none before him could. For eight long years, while his Democrat opponents and the Liberal media kept up their dishonest, often disgusting, attacks on him, he forged ahead buoyed by his sense of optimism and his unwavering belief in himself and the nation he so loved.

Historians have long since discovered volumes in Reagan’s own handwriting of his thoughts and ideas on a great diversity of subjects spanning decades of his life. They have been greatly impressed with his breadth of knowledge, his ability to find core meanings, and his clear vision for the future. Of course to those who knew him well, none of these “discoveries” came as a surprise. For countless years, they had been telling his critics that they had it all wrong—that the Ronald Reagan they knew well was a smart, insightful, decisive, and wise leader as well as an honest and decent man. That he was also a very likable and charismatic man was a bonus and something that was ultimately apparent to a vast majority of Americans. In time he was referred to as the "Great Communicator," which became just one more Ronald Reagan trait that dismayed and irked the Democrat attack dogs who, apparently, could not be even slightly fair minded toward this fair minded man of goodwill—a man who accomplished almost everything he set out to do and which others had failed to do for so very long.

To quote Charles Krauthammer once again, “This success is an understandable embarrassment to the critics who opposed his every policy. They supported the freeze, denounced the military buildup, ridiculed strategic defenses, opposed aid to the Nicaraguan anti-communists and derided Reagan for telling the truth about the Soviet empire. Ultimately (Reagan’s strategy) brought about the collapse of the overextended Soviet empire. The result was the most profound peace the world had experienced in 60 years -- since the very beginning of the totalitarian era in the early 1930s.”

So what did the Democrat Propagandists learn from their failed attempts to destroy Ronald Reagan and the Republicans? - Apparently nothing of value. Since the destroy-Reagan days the only things that have changed are the intensity and the cruelty of the Democrat/media attacks, which are now viciously aimed at George W. Bush. Beginning with the Bush-Gore campaign in 1999 until the present, their attacks have been predictably persistent and destructive. They have also been more outrageously dishonest, more cruel, and at times, borderline treasonous.

I will address these things more fully at another time, but for now I can say with confidence that the dishonest Democrat Propagandists will, once again, be proven wrong. Accordingly, they will again become mired in their own cesspool of false accusations and political deceit.

Until then, I have a few nagging questions:

• If Ronald Reagan was a stupid man, how did he manage to defeat the Democrats time and again?
• How did Reagan manage to accomplish the very things that Democrats had tried but failed to accomplish for so many years?
• If, as Democrats claimed, Al Gore was intellectually superior to George W. Bush, why did Mr. Bush repeatedly outscore Al Gore at Yale?
• If, as Democrats claimed, Al Gore was more intellectually curious than George W. Bush, why did Mr. Bush consistently select a far more diverse and challenging curriculum than Al Gore?
• Why did Al Gore flunk out of Seminary School?
• How is it that George W. Bush is our only president to have an MBA from Harvard?
• With his “limitations”, how did Mr. Bush manage to pass the very difficult tests and meet the high IQ standards required for acceptance into officer/fighter pilot Air National Guard training? (Note: No, his father did not and would not have helped even if he could—which he could not. George W. passed the tests and went on to become a highly skilled jet fighter pilot.)
• How did Mr. Bush beat the best of the Democrats in Texas to become the only person in Texas history to be elected governor two consecutive times?
• How did Mr. Bush beat the best of the Democrats in the country to become President of the United States two consecutive times?
• If John Kerry is smart and George W. Bush is not, why, during the 2004 election campaign, did Mr. Bush accept virtually every request for interviews from major media outlets and agreed to answer any and all questions without any prescreening while Mr. Kerry rejected virtually every request for interviews from major media outlets, thus declaring his unwillingness to answer any questions at all?
• If John Kerry is smart and George W. Bush is not, during the 2004 election campaign, why did Mr. Bush agree to an unconditional interview with Bob Woodward in which he answered the over one hundred non-prescreened questions he was asked while John Kerry declined to be interviewed by Mr. Woodward even after Woodward sent Mr. Kerry twenty questions in advance—something Mr. Woodward said he did not normally do?
  
  Considering all of the above, just exactly where does that put the Democrats on their Smart-Stupid scale? Feel free to answer at will.

Copyright © 2005 Robert D. McKinley
All rights reserved.