next »

[Russ White]

http://news.yahoo.com/low-iq-conservative-beliefs-linked-prejudice-180403506.html

Teaser: "Nonetheless, there is reason to believe that strict right-wing ideology might appeal to those who have trouble grasping the complexity of the world."

No kidding. Might explain why there are so many out there who are continually convinced to vote against their own interest.

[ronkny]

http://news.yahoo.com/low-iq-conservative-beliefs-linked-prejudice-180403506.html

Teaser: "Nonetheless, there is reason to believe that strict right-wing ideology might appeal to those who have trouble grasping the complexity of the world."

No kidding. Might explain why there are so many out there who are continually convinced to vote against their own interest.

I believe the OWS is made up mainly of lefties.  Do you think they understand the complexities of the world? 

[ddickerson]

From the article you posted:
"People who give in to racism and prejudice may simply be dumb, according to a new study that is bound to stir public controversy."

That is a falce premise because conservatives are NOT racists, even tho' liberals like to parrot that myth. It makes a good slogan tho'. Racists are dumb shouldn't stir up any controversy. Right?

[BGuttman]

Not all conservatives are racist (i.e. anti-Black or anti-Hispanic) but it seems all the anti-Black racists and anti-Hispanic racists align themselves with the Conservatives.

There are blacks who are anti-White racists and anti-Hispanic racists, and there are Hispanic anti-White racists and anti Black racists.

Many of the Black anti-White racists align with the Democrats, but many Hispanic anti-Black racists align with the Republicans.

Anti-Black racism (and all the other forms I've mentioned) is far from dead in America; it was sleeping through the 1990s and has resurfaced, energized by the election of the first African-American president.

Note that anti-Catholic sentiment took a bump upward in the wake of Al Smith's nomination (and loss) in 1928.  It was a factor as late as 1960 against the nomination and eventual election of John Kennedy.

[Baron von Bone]

From the article you posted:
"People who give in to racism and prejudice may simply be dumb, according to a new study that is bound to stir public controversy."
 
That is a falce premise because conservatives are NOT racists, even tho' liberals like to parrot that myth. It makes a good slogan tho'. Racists are dumb shouldn't stir up any controversy. Right?

It seems you had some difficulty understanding the article--as likely due to the fact it doesn't tickle your ear as to careless reading (less likely due to lack of smarts). I added that clarification because I expect it's likely you'd take the initial comment as an implication that you're dumb, but that's not my intention. That seems to be a pretty common pattern among conservatives--also spinning words in a highly defensive manner and taking offense at any excuse (even if sometimes they have to invent it), though you seem much less guilty of that one than most far right wing types ... at least the taking offense part, and as far as I can tell. You also seem pretty reticent about such things though, which can mean it's really just about not revealing what's actually going on inside.
 
At any rate, you're presuming premises that serve your personal sentiments rather than any that actually have anything at all to do with that article (please try and remember the difference between a premise and a correlation--the article is about social science, not religion).

[ronkny]

So many words. ^
So little said.
Here's a new word
   concise  [kuhn-sahys] 
Part of Speech:   adjective
Definition:   short, to the point
Synonyms:   abridged, boiled down, breviloquent, brief, compact, compendiary, compendious, compressed, condensed, curt, epigrammatic, in a nutshell, laconic, lean, marrowy, meaty, pithy, short and sweet, succinct, summary, synoptic, terse
Notes:   use terse  to characterize brevity or succinctness of expression in a person; concise  is used to characterize this in a message
Antonyms:    expansive, lengthy, long, long-winded, redundant, repetitive, wordy

[ronkny]

Not all conservatives are racist (i.e. anti-Black or anti-Hispanic) but it seems all the anti-Black racists and anti-Hispanic racists align themselves with the Conservatives.

There are blacks who are anti-White racists and anti-Hispanic racists, and there are Hispanic anti-White racists and anti Black racists.

Many of the Black anti-White racists align with the Democrats, but many Hispanic anti-Black racists align with the Republicans.

Anti-Black racism (and all the other forms I've mentioned) is far from dead in America; it was sleeping through the 1990s and has resurfaced, energized by the election of the first African-American president.

Note that anti-Catholic sentiment took a bump upward in the wake of Al Smith's nomination (and loss) in 1928.  It was a factor as late as 1960 against the nomination and eventual election of John Kennedy.

Where is this, "anti black racism" ?   

[Bonefide]

bahahahaha, thank you ronkny.

I'd say most racists are a product of their upbringing. Lack of intelligence doesn't breed hate.

[Baron von Bone]

I'd say most racists are a product of their upbringing. Lack of intelligence doesn't breed hate.

Are you under the impression those comments express disagreement with the story?

[Russ White]

I found the article/ study very interesting. there are several points worth noting. First, there is a huge difference between being "very intelligent", ie: good at the type of pattern recognition testing devices used to measure intelligence, and being "very smart". I, for one, am pretty good at the first, but frequently find myself coming up a bit short in the second. I spent a career working with some incredibly smart people who did not advance because they were not good at the kind of cognitive process testing that promotions were based on. It is also important to notice that there was absolutely NO reference to demographics what so ever in the article. I thought the line I used as a teaser was pretty funny. It may go a long way to explaining the common political wisdom that, "Republicans don't fall in love, they fall in line." It is not a large leap to suggest that folks who struggle with complex cognition would be drawn to ideologies which don't challenge their cognitive capacity.

[Bonefide]

Are you under the impression those comments express disagreement with the story?

even that sounded long winded....

I read the article. I stated an opinion. I find your question irrelevant; what are you trying to get at? Are you under the impression that my prior comment expressed disagreement with the story?

...the article said: "As suspected, low intelligence in childhood corresponded with racism in adulthood. But the factor that explained the relationship between these two variables was political."

if the article chose to recognize "nature vs nurture"; they did not do it overtly.

[Baron von Bone]

Here's an interesting and at least sort of related bit (the "pain of independence" the article mentions, for example).

[Michael Medrick]

 I'd throw my 2 cents in on this topic, but those of you trying to oppose the position of the article are wasting your time.

It's not everyone and everywhere in the GOP, but almost every time Mr. Gingrich opens his mouth we all get ready for remarks that make the KKK proud.
 
Child labor, 'food stamp President", Spanish called a ghetto language,...how far will he go to get elected.  And where's the push back for what are definitively the "minority" membership of the GOP.

Sorry about using more than three words in a sentence...maybe you short attention span guys can get someone to edit this down for you.

[ronkny]

I'd throw my 2 cents in on this topic, but those of you trying to oppose the position of the article are wasting your time.

It's not everyone and everywhere in the GOP, but almost every time Mr. Gingrich opens his mouth we all get ready for remarks that make the KKK proud.
 
Child labor, 'food stamp President", Spanish called a ghetto language,...how far will he go to get elected.  And where's the push back for what are definitively the "minority" membership of the GOP.

Sorry about using more than three words in a sentence...maybe you short attention span guys can get someone to edit this down for you.

Brilliant!
Witty!
Remarkable!
Wrong!

[Michael Medrick]

Brilliant!
Witty!
Remarkable!
Wrong!

No, you are!

[ronkny]

No, you are!

At least you were concise. 

[Bonefide]

I'd throw my 2 cents in on this topic, but those of you trying to oppose the position of the article are wasting your time.

It's not everyone and everywhere in the GOP, but almost every time Mr. Gingrich opens his mouth we all get ready for remarks that make the KKK proud.
 
Child labor, 'food stamp President", Spanish called a ghetto language,...how far will he go to get elected.  And where's the push back for what are definitively the "minority" membership of the GOP.

Sorry about using more than three words in a sentence...maybe you short attention span guys can get someone to edit this down for you.

   ..............................   

but wait, whose 2 cents were those? well whoever's 2 cents they were; ill-spent.  Are you saying Newt has an extremely low IQ? Or just that Newt is a racist conservative? I DEFINITELY am not denying that racist conservatives exist, and plenty of them are lacking intelligence. Just trying to understand how Newt relates to that article.

[actikid]

It's not everyone and everywhere in the GOP, but almost every time Mr. Gingrich opens his mouth we all get ready for remarks that make the KKK proud.

And here's a peculiar thing.  People who do this (and their supporters) are often quick to say "I am not a racist.  Can't we even have a discussion about these subjects?"

Is Gingrich a racist?  Or is he a person who race-baits, knowing that a great many of the people he hopes to win over are very sensitive to the race dog whistles? 

He knows exactly what he is doing, so I would argue it makes no difference whether he is actually a racist or just a person how likes to rally the racists.  There is no difference.  A person whose conscience permits that is, in fact, a racist.

Maybe he isn't a George Wallace or a Strom Thurman.  Maybe he is worse.

[Baron von Bone]

And here's a peculiar thing.  People who do this (and their supporters) are often quick to say "I am not a racist.  Can't we even have a discussion about these subjects?"

While at the same time crying "Race Card! Race Card!" as a reflex any time the subject is broached in any other way.

[actikid]

We should also be clear that is is not longer just the confederates and their tradition of owning slaves from Africa.  Racism works so well in winning elections that the modern GOP has expanded this to include Mexicans and Muslims -- anybody who is not just like us.

There is a real hazard in doing that because the Latino vote is large.  But they have pretty effective campaigns to block 10 million minorities from voting this year.

Racism in all its forms ...

[Russ White]

Nevermind!

[Piano man]

I believe the OWS is made up mainly of lefties. 

Oh, my God, that's shocking! I'd heard unsubstantiated rumors that there may have been lefties at some of the demonstrations, but I had no idea that the problem was so rampant. Have you reported this situation to anyone in charge? This has to be stopped. Thanks for the heads-up.

You sure are smart.

[ronkny]

Oh, my God, that's shocking! I'd heard unsubstantiated rumors that there may have been lefties at some of the demonstrations, but I had no idea that the problem was so rampant. Have you reported this situation to anyone in charge? This has to be stopped. Thanks for the heads-up.

You sure are smart.

Drinking a little too much tonight?  Just getting caught up? Took you two weeks to come up with that witty remark?  Like to take things out of context?
You're a bright one aren't cha?

[BGuttman]

[Moderator hat on]

Hey, both of you!  Let's not get personal!  Criticize the ideas, not the people!

[Moderator hat off]

[Piano man]

Drinking a little too much tonight?  Just getting caught up? Took you two weeks to come up with that witty remark?  Like to take things out of context?
You're a bright one aren't cha?

No, I'm not slow-witted; I just hadn't seen the thread before.

I'm just glad you got the scandal of 'lefty' infiltration of the OWS movement out into the open where it belongs. A smart guy like you, who reads all the right things, finds out about these things before the rest of us. You'll notice that the MSM hasn't even covered this. You're really onto something.

@Bruce, both of my posts were praising Ronkny. I don't believe that's a violation of TOS.

[Russ White]

http://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/s320x320/429593_358983277459177_100000425225723_1325928_5397794_n.jpg

HHMMMM!!!!!

[BGuttman]

It's only a part of the picture.  Nixon scored pretty high and look at what he did.

It's like I keep telling the kids about expensive trombones.  It's not what you have, it's what you do with it.

[actikid]

The whole concept of "left" and "right" in nonsense in general, and completely irrelevant to the "Occupy" thing.  While there may not be many Tea Party people in the OWS thing (there aren't many Tea Party people at all), they actually have much more in common than they have differences.

There are many lines of division in our society:

• Authoritarian versus people questioning authority
• Social puritans versus people who are more willing to let their neighbors make their own choices
• People concerned about their own personal standing versus those more concerned about the wellbeing of all

The dividing line clearly identified by the "occupy" movement (and an undertone with the Tea Party, which never actually articulated any common themes other than a hate of Obama), is the corruption of our political and economic systems.  That isn't "left" versus "right".  It is right versus wrong.

[ronkny]

The whole concept of "left" and "right" in nonsense in general, and completely irrelevant to the "Occupy" thing.  While there may not be many Tea Party people in the OWS thing (there aren't many Tea Party people at all), they actually have much more in common than they have differences.

There are many lines of division in our society:

• Authoritarian versus people questioning authority
• Social puritans versus people who are more willing to let their neighbors make their own choices
• People concerned about their own personal standing versus those more concerned about the wellbeing of all

The dividing line clearly identified by the "occupy" movement (and an undertone with the Tea Party, which never actually articulated any common themes other than a hate of Obama), is the corruption of our political and economic systems.  That isn't "left" versus "right".  It is right versus wrong.

Lefty's get arrested for squatting in houses, assault, urinating in public, destruction of property, murder, rape, etc at their (protests).
Righty's don't.

[badger]

http://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/s320x320/429593_358983277459177_100000425225723_1325928_5397794_n.jpg

HHMMMM!!!!!

HOAX!   

[ronkny]

http://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/s320x320/429593_358983277459177_100000425225723_1325928_5397794_n.jpg

HHMMMM!!!!!

Wow are you easily fooled!   

[actikid]

Wow are you easily fooled!   

I can't claim that data is authentic, but it is certainly consistent with what we saw of those people.  Ever since the "Southern Strategy", Republicans have had to field people who were either naturally dumbarses or else could convincingly act like dumbarses.  Hence Romney's problem today.  People that vote Republican tend to look for a person they'd be happy to have a beer with.  People who vote Democratic tent to want a person who is smart enough to do the most important job in the world.

GHWB was probably reasonably intelligent, and did his best at acting like a dumbarse.  His boy didn't have to try at all.  No doubt in my mind that either Romney or Gingrich are higher IQ than any modern Republican, at least since Nixon.

[ronkny]

I can't claim that data is authentic, but it is certainly consistent with what we saw of those people.  Ever since the "Southern Strategy", Republicans have had to field people who were either naturally dumbarses or else could convincingly act like dumbarses.  Hence Romney's problem today.  People that vote Republican tend to look for a person they'd be happy to have a beer with.  People who vote Democratic tent to want a person who is smart enough to do the most important job in the world.

GHWB was probably reasonably intelligent, and did his best at acting like a dumbarse.  His boy didn't have to try at all.  No doubt in my mind that either Romney or Gingrich are higher IQ than any modern Republican, at least since Nixon.

Do you know anything about what IQ measures?   Please do some research. 

[Baron von Bone]

There are many lines of division in our society:

• Authoritarian versus people questioning authority
• Social puritans versus people who are more willing to let their neighbors make their own choices
• People concerned about their own personal standing versus those more concerned about the wellbeing of all

The lines described tend to be drawn pretty much on top of or very close to each other though.

[Russ White]

Do you know anything about what IQ measures?   Please do some research. 

IQ tests measure ones capacity for complex cognition, pattern recognition, ability to detect differentiations, etc. there is a big difference between being intelligent and being smart.

[actikid]

IQ tests measure ones capacity for complex cognition, pattern recognition, ability to detect differentiations, etc. there is a big difference between being intelligent and being smart.

When talking about Ford, Reagan, and the two Bushes, they were not exceptionally intelligent or smart.  Republican Presidents are always puppets.  The people calling all the shots are the Moneyed Elite.  The people really in charge don't want a particularly smart President, because he could get uppity.  And again, with the Southern Strategy, they have to get most of their electors from states whose Republican voters are way below average. compared to the population at large.  So they need candidates who don't come across as being too intellectual.

Reagan was probably pretty with it earlier in his life. considering the success he had in Hollywood and as Governor of California.  But by his 4th year in office, he was pretty much vegetative.  W never demonstrated any significant mental capability anytime in his life.  Ironic that he was probably the least capable of all the Bushes, yet he was the one to get 2 terms.

[ronkny]

When talking about Ford, Reagan, and the two Bushes, they were not exceptionally intelligent or smart.  Republican Presidents are always puppets.  The people calling all the shots are the Moneyed Elite.  The people really in charge don't want a particularly smart President, because he could get uppity.  And again, with the Southern Strategy, they have to get most of their electors from states whose Republican voters are way below average. compared to the population at large.  So they need candidates who don't come across as being too intellectual.

Reagan was probably pretty with it earlier in his life. considering the success he had in Hollywood and as Governor of California.  But by his 4th year in office, he was pretty much vegetative.  W never demonstrated any significant mental capability anytime in his life.  Ironic that he was probably the least capable of all the Bushes, yet he was the one to get 2 terms.

When talking about Ford, Reagan, and the two Bushes, they were not exceptionally intelligent or smart. 
According to you.

 Republican Presidents are always puppets.  The people calling all the shots are the Moneyed Elite.  The people really in charge don't want a particularly smart President, because he could get uppity.  And again, with the Southern Strategy, they have to get most of their electors from states whose Republican voters are way below average. compared to the population at large.  So they need candidates who don't come across as being too intellectual.
Once again conspiracy theories, your bread and butter.

[actikid]

When talking about Ford, Reagan, and the two Bushes, they were not exceptionally intelligent or smart. 
According to you.

 Republican Presidents are always puppets.  The people calling all the shots are the Moneyed Elite.  The people really in charge don't want a particularly smart President, because he could get uppity.  And again, with the Southern Strategy, they have to get most of their electors from states whose Republican voters are way below average. compared to the population at large.  So they need candidates who don't come across as being too intellectual.
Once again conspiracy theories, your bread and butter.

It was a conspiracy, but not a theory.  It was a well understood strategy, and essentially the same play book that is still followed by Republicans today.  You will see in this article that Lee Atwater uses some rather colorful language to talk about how cultural norms forced them to change the dog whistles over the years, but the people they are targeting are well conditioned to respond to the dog whistles.

And before you again accuse me (for about the 100th time) of not providing factual references, let me point out that when you see words in blue with a blue underline (such as "this article" above), that is a reference.  Click on that you you will access all the facts that anybody would need to learn that The Southern Strategy was not theoretical in the slightest.

[Piano man]

I doubt we've had presidents in our lifetimes with an IQ below average, or even near to average. Most presidents are smart. They just seem less so when they become president and aren't up to the task.

[actikid]

I doubt we've had presidents in our lifetimes with an IQ below average, or even near to average. Most presidents are smart. They just seem less so when they become president and aren't up to the task.

That chart that started this discussion only had the two Bushes as below average and that was only slightly.

I don't believe that chart is at all accurate for GHWB.  W was so undistinguished in every aspect of his life, it could be hard to get a fix on basic intelligence.  He probably was not below average in IQ, but was most certainly below average in how he used his gifts.

[Piano man]

That chart that started this discussion only had the two Bushes as below average and that was only slightly.

I don't believe that chart is at all accurate for GHWB.  W was so undistinguished in every aspect of his life, it could be hard to get a fix on basic intelligence.  He probably was not below average in IQ, but was most certainly below average in how he used his gifts.

I guarantee that neither of the Bushes was 'below average' in intelligence. If they were completely unknown people and you met them, you'd probably say, You should run for president.

[actikid]

I guarantee that neither of the Bushes was 'below average' in intelligence. If they were completely unknown people and you met them, you'd probably say, You should run for president.

But seriously ...

If you know anybody who says something like that, are they talking about a person's intelligence?

I think not.  I'd think they are talking more about a person's charm, charisma, or salesmanship -- or possibly their drive.  Those things don't automatically correlate with IQ.

[ronkny]

But seriously ...

If you know anybody who says something like that, are they talking about a person's intelligence?

I think not.  I'd think they are talking more about a person's charm, charisma, or salesmanship -- or possibly their drive.  Those things don't automatically correlate with IQ.

And IQ doesn't mean much.

[actikid]

And IQ doesn't mean much.

No, not really, when the people calling the shots are not the elected ones.  Charisma is much more valuable than intelligence.

A person of average IQ probably won't ever be in a position to do that, but if you simply look at who HAS gotten the job, most of them aren't known as being the greatest intellects of their generation.  Other qualities select more strongly for that position.

[SensitiveJohn]

Well, Reagan was senile, and he managed to get reelected.

[ronkny]

Well, Reagan was senile, and he managed to get reelected.

Were you his personal physician?

[SensitiveJohn]

Three years into his first term as president, though, I was feeling the first shivers of concern that something beyond mellowing was affecting my father.

[badger]

Whirl Ballerina Whirl!

[Russ White]

Well, Reagan was senile, and he managed to get reelected.

So was W

[ronkny]

Yes of course, Dr. Reagan.

[ronkny]

So was W

As diagnosed by Dr. White. Thanks

[SensitiveJohn]

W wasn't senile, he just didn't give a hoot.  Or as my intellectual friends might put it, he was incurious.

[actikid]

Brilliant.  I see the Illuminati are now denying that Reagan had Alzheimer's, and in the process they are denying that Alzheimer's is a progressive disease that destroys the brain function over an extended period of time.

But why not?  They probably also deny that Reagan was a prolific spender and a prodigious tax-raiser -- a dozen tax increases during his 8 years.  While we're at it, let's also deny that Reagan, as Governor, signed into law a law that liberalized California's abortion laws.

When facts don't matter, it is a whole different world.

[ronkny]

Brilliant.  I see the Illuminati are now denying that Reagan had Alzheimer's, and in the process they are denying that Alzheimer's is a progressive disease that destroys the brain function over an extended period of time.

But why not?  They probably also deny that Reagan was a prolific spender and a prodigious tax-raiser -- a dozen tax increases during his 8 years.  While we're at it, let's also deny that Reagan, as Governor, signed into law a law that liberalized California's abortion laws.

When facts don't matter, it is a whole different world.

Hey Einstein!
Hey! Dr. Conspiracy! Reagan wasn't diagnosed with Alzheimers until 1994.  Unless you have secret information. 

[SensitiveJohn]

Another myth spread by the Republican church of Reaganomics is that Carter was a lousy job creator and that Reagan was an awesome job creator.  The truth is that there was more job growth under Carter.

[Baron von Bone]

When facts don't matter, it is a whole different world.

But when it's been quite well established that fact's don't matter to someone, upon what basis would there really be any point in attempting anything like genuine discussion with that person, or with such people in general?

[SensitiveJohn]

Hey Einstein!
Hey! Dr. Conspiracy! Reagan wasn't diagnosed with Alzheimers until 1994.  Unless you have secret information. 

That was when Reagan admitted he had Alzheimer's and was never heard from again.

[ronkny]

Another myth spread by the Republican church of Reaganomics is that Carter was a lousy job creator and that Reagan was an awesome job creator.  The truth is that there was more job growth under Carter.

You're right.  McDonalds and Burger King grew like gangbusters!

[ronkny]

But when it's been quite well established that fact's don't matter to someone, upon what basis would there really be any point in attempting anything like genuine discussion with that person, or with such people in general?

Go(insert your favorite verb) yourself

[actikid]

Those of us who are actually interested in the real world observed that by 1985, Ronnie was practically never seen in public unless Nancy was at his side, and in most cases, it was necessary for her to speak for him, completing his sentences as necessary.

In other words, the disease was at an advanced stage by that time, which means that his mental capacity was significantly impaired the day he took office.  Alzheimer's doesn't go from zero to the 1995 Reagan level of incapacitation in 5 years.

[ronkny]

Those of us who are actually interested in the real world observed that by 1985, Ronnie was practically never seen in public unless Nancy was at his side, and in most cases, it was necessary for her to speak for him, completing his sentences as necessary.

In other words, the disease was at an advanced stage by that time, which means that his mental capacity was significantly impaired the day he took office.  Alzheimer's doesn't go from zero to the 1995 Reagan level of incapacitation in 5 years.

More secret medical records only you are privy to?    Of course it starts before.  Who spoke at the state of the Union addresses, Charlie McCarthy?

[actikid]

More secret medical records only you are privy to?    Of course it starts before.  Who spoke at the state of the Union addresses, Charlie McCarthy?

He was a professional actor.  He didn't need to have high cognitive function to read a speech.  Acting was deeply etched in his brain.  He was very good at it.

[ronkny]

He was a professional actor.  He didn't need to have high cognitive function to read a speech.  Acting was deeply etched in his brain.  He was very good at it.

OK Doc.

[BGuttman]

Remember, the guy at the top is often a figure head for others below.  I think that Cheney was the "brains" behind the Bush II Presidency.

This is not new.  Woodrow Wilson suffered a debilitating stroke in 1919 and his wife effectively ran the White House for him.  Most decisions were made by his Cabinet.

I have no doubt that Ronnie was starting to show symptoms early.  We even had jokes about his reasoning going back to the 1980 campaigns (see some old Doonesbury comics).

Fact remains that Reagan was not the Neo Conservative his reputation has claimed.  As Actkid has said he raised taxes 11 times, he signed a liberalization of abortion law in California, etc.  I'm certain if he were active today he would have been drummed out of the Republican Party.

[Russ White]

Reagan was the worst thing that happened to this country in the second half of the 20th century, but he did do a couple of good things. He equaled the tax rates for capital gains and wages, and he prosecuted over 1000 bankers after his policies created the S&L crisis. He was lucky enough to be president when the Soviet Union bankrupted itself in Afghanistan. It wasn't him that did it.

[actikid]

I'm certain if he were active today he would have been drummed out of the Republican Party.

That is very interesting speculation.  There is absolutely no doubt that, although he was radically conservative at the time, by today's standards he is solidly in the moderate-to-liberal range.

Your claim assumes that Reagan would be unyielding in his philosophy.  Maybe that is true (setting his disease aside.)  Or would he have been just as happy to see this country set back 120 years both socially and economically?

I'm rather divided on this.  What people loved about Reagan was not his policies.  They loved the fact that he seemed to have real backbone.  Backbone ALWAYS wins in politics, and Reagan was really masterful in playing that role.  W tried, but he came across as a spoiled brat.  Reagan across as genuine. 

But the question is, was the backbone thing just another acting role, or was Reagan determined in his philosophy?  Would he stand his ground against today's crazies on the right or would he happily go along with that?

[SensitiveJohn]

Reagan went from union leader to union buster.  He went from supporting abortion rights to opposing abortion rights.  He went from advocating tax cuts to raising taxes.  I think that he would have been like Romney or Gingrich and let the wind of the Republican rabble blow him the direction of most favorability.

[actikid]

Reagan went from union leader to union buster.  He went from supporting abortion rights to opposing abortion rights.  He went from advocating tax cuts to raising taxes.  I think that he would have been like Romney or Gingrich and let the wind of the Republican rabble blow him the direction of most favorability.

So you're saying that the key is to come across as if you have principles etched in rock and a backbone of steel, while actually being willing to do anything and take any position.

It's called ACTING.  Damn he was good.

[ronkny]

So you're saying that the key is to come across as if you have principles etched in rock and a backbone of steel, while actually being willing to do anything and take any position.

It's called ACTING.  Damn he was good.

Clinton and Obama are actors? 

[SensitiveJohn]

Clinton more so than Obama.