I realize Ronald Reagan accomplished a great many things but does the media coverage seem to be spending an inordinate amount of news coverage on his legacy? It seems a little excessive to me.
They’re making it seem like he was the founder of the country. He did spearhead the neo-conservative movement but c’mon!
I suppose there is a lot of coverage, but I think it’s comensurate with what President Reagan accomplished. He was the defining world leader of the second half of the 20th Century (as FDR was for the first half, but even moreso because of America’s position as world leader while Reagan was actually in office).
Plus, I think you have to look at it in context of the coverage given to other items, as someone above noted – remember the coverage of Princess Diana? One could hardly argue that her impact on history was equal to Reagan’s, and the coverage of her untimely passing was both ubiquitous and seemingly endless.
I think all of the major media outlets recognize that they are going overboard, but because of the highly competative nature of news media these days they feel they have no choice. If they let up even a little then someone like the Fucking Nazi Cocksuckers network will pounce on it with the “see, we’re much more patriotic than them” play.
It’s a shame really, because before the end of the month a lot of people who like Reagan will be sick of it.
Any bets on which coin or bill congress will propose putting his head on? Maybe they’ll bring back the $2 bill as the “Reagan Commemorative”, or a special $1 coin.
The press does this now, and Reagan is the first former president to pass away during this new era of 24/7 media coverage to nothing. It doesn’t matter if he deserves it or not, the press just realizes that people will watch it…
as for the $10 dollar bill and the dime…
Reagan was popular, but not perfect, and nothing compared to Hamilton and FDR. The USA would have collapsed had it not been for Hamilton’s policies. Reagan put us 3 trillion dollars in debt, I think it would be ironic to put him on money, but really, I think we’re fine with who we have on the cash now.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Gotta disagree with you there, kindo -
It was the democrats’ budgets that put the country in the red, not Reagan’s tax cuts.
[/quote]
Double check your history, jack. Huge defense spending + lack of tax money = deficit.
Reagan prided himself on the image of small government, but the government got substantially larger, and spending went through the roof. Let’s call a spade a spade.
I do think the media has gone overboard with the Reagan coverage. I’m not trying to take anything away from Reagan. He was a great man, but I think it is time to move on.
At least with the media covering Reagan’s death, we’re not hearing morons in said media comparing Abu Grhaib(sp?) to 9-11.
Tax cuts and big spending did lead to deficits. However, the budgets Reagan originally proposed to Congress had a lot of domestic spending cuts that Congress agreed to in principle (“$3 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax cuts”) but never actually implemented. While Reagan could have vetoed the entire budget, he decided that as he got his tax cuts and defense spending, he didn’t want to risk his main priorities to fight for the spending cuts. And, despite the hand-wringing, didn’t we grow our way out of those deficits, just as was predicted?
Also, check out this source on the Reagan economic record:
[quote]tme wrote:
We were just notified that we’ll be closed Friday “In honor and remembrance of President Ronald Reagan”.
[/quote]
Bush making a new federal holiday in remembrance of Reagan is overkill in my opinion. I liked Reagan, but I don’t think he deserves his own holiday (or money for that matter, especially if another president is taken off the money to make room for Reagan). Bush is just looking for another way to gain support for the upcoming election.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Roy - it takes a big man to admit when he’s being an a-hole. I only hiope that if qnd when I’m faced with that situation, I can step up and admit it.[/quote]
RJ, I haven’t posted on this thread as of yet. I assume you are talking about my other thread?
As for the media saturation, I have a brilliant idea. Don’t watch it! I know, seems simple, but sometimes there is genius in the simplest things. I haven’t been exposed to most of the Reagan media because I have chosen not to watch much TV for the last week.
Although I wasn’t a huge Reagan fan back in the day, I still respect the man. Watching a few of his old speeches made me actually long for the days he was president versus our current less-than-articulate prez.
I don’t know if it was so much his policies that made him so memorable. As some have pointed out, he made his share of mistakes. I think that the country was in a funk after Vietnam, the hostage crisis, etc, and he somehow tapped into that… his ability to inspire started to repair some of our collective damaged psyche. Sorry for getting all analytical.