ronald reagan – Page 3

Hey, does Gibbs read Instapundit?

Check out the bobble at the end. Not conclusive, but at least worth noting.

Via Scott Ott‘s Facebook account; I agree with Scott that Chip Reid’s asking a legitimate question about Reagan’s notable lack of a Nobel Peace Prize*. I will also note that my wife laughed out loud at Gibbs’ suggestion that the Washington pundit class get out more; so did I, but that was also because Gibbs needs to be at the head of that particular line.

Moe Lane

*I already know the answer, though. So does Scott. So does Chip Reid. Heck, so does Gibbs. But really, what is he going to say? “Well, they led my boss in unto temptation, and he’s enthusiastic about giving in?”

Which is the real reason that they never offered it to Reagan. He would have accepted it, graciously – and then used it to further his vision of peace, not the Nobel prize committee’s.

Crossposted to RedState.

Again: they’re angry, not afraid.

Dan Collins – who has by the way moved Piece of Work In Progress: update your links – has a post about the opposition to the President that shouldn’t be excerpted, but must be. A taste:

…they get stonewalled at town halls packed deliberately with union supporters, or find that their Representative has literally decided to phone the meeting in, and they are accused of being astroturfed, even as they watch people from out of state bused in to support the health care fiasco. They see Lyndon LaRouche wackos carrying Obama Nazi signs characterized as right-wingers. They hear that their concerns are those of a small and demented minority. They see videos cropped to make it seem as though they’re racists. They are told that their opposition to Obama’s policies springs from racism on talk shows and in editorials. They receive unsolicited emails from Axelrod after being told that their information’s not being kept by the White House, and then it’s blamed on advocacy groups across a broad political spectrum. They recall that there were 8 years of BusHitler rhetoric that went unchallenged in the MSM, which suddenly is up in arms about the extraordinary incivility of such comparisons.

[snip]

Oh, yeah, they’re angry. But it’s not because they’re stupid. It’s because “Trust us; we despise you” isn’t really very civil, is it?

Read the whole thing, and let me add one more of my own: Continue reading Again: they’re *angry*, not afraid.

Oliver Stone is mad about Reagan and Bush.

Mad, mad Oliver! (Link fixed.)

…I was going to write this whole thing up Dr. Seuss-style, but honestly? It came out completely lame. Anyway, it’s really simple: Oliver Stone’s angry as anything over the way that people cruelly went out and didn’t see his last movie, so he does what anybody would in his situation (and mindset) – go onto Bill Maher’s show and call Reagan and Bush stupid poopyheads. It’s cheaper than therapy, which Oliver Stone probably can’t afford right now anyway.

It always fascinates me how certain elements of the antiwar movement are so determined to discount the intelligence of the very people that effortlessly kicked their ass on foreign policy. I mean, they didn’t even slow down either President – so if Ronnie and/or W were dumb, then what does that make them?

Moe Lane

PS: All that being said, I liked The Doors.

Crossposted to RedState.