Tuesday, June 18, 2013
Tuesday, June 18, 2013

Ron and Lenny

Two icons who inspire selective amnesia

61 comments

Ron and Lenny

POSTED: Tuesday, June 23, 2009, 11:27 AM

Here they go again, with their rites of canonization.

One congressional Republican says that President Obama should crusade openly for the Iranian people, because "this is what worked for Ronald Reagan in the Cold War." Another says that "the Iranians would do well to remember the words of Ronald Reagan." Another says, "Ronald Reagan was strong in his rhetoric and forceful in his advocacy." Another says, "Ronald Reagan didn't say to Mr. Gorbachev, 'That wall is none of our business.'" John McCain has been on Fox News reminiscing about Ronald Reagan. And a former Ronald Reagan aide, Jeffrey Lord, writes that, with respect to Iran, "Barack Obama is no Ronald Reagan."

You see where they're going with this. Granted, who else are they going to retroactively canonize - George W. Bush? The guy who mired us in Iraq to the tune of $12 billion a month? Hardly. Every political party needs an icon, and icons tend to grow more sainted with the passage of time. (Witness the Democrats and JFK.)

But what's most striking about the latest outbreak of Reagan canonization is the way his acolytes have willfully succumbed to amnesia. They were all adults during Reagan's reign, yet they choose not to remember what actually happened. For nostalgic Republicans, it's undoubtedly preferable to judge the current president against a standard of perfection that never existed.

Here's the factual reality: Reagan, while actually alive and in office, made all kinds of compromises that drove the conservatives nuts. At the time, they would joke to each other, "Its not that Ronald Reagan lacks principles, it's just that he does not understand the ones he has."

As Jack Pitney, a former Republican party official and Capitol Hill aide, once told me, "I remember sitting in meeting with those guys, when they were fuming about the president, and they always seemed to need a box of Di-Gel to get through the day."

Reagan riled conservatives by...get this...talking to the enemy. He decided that Mikhail Gorbachev was a Soviet leader he could do business with, particularly on arms control, and the GOP base went ballistic. The right was not happy about Reagan's tilt toward detente. One conservative leader, Howard Phillips, called Reagan "a useful idiot for Kremlin propaganda." Columnist George Will charged that Reagan was furthering "the moral disarmament of the West." The Washington Times newspaper compared Reagan to Nazi appeaser Neville Chamberlain. Various conservatives called Reagan "a traitor to anti-communism."

Other Reagan deeds are conveniently being airbrushed at the moment. Saddam Hussein committed all kinds of heinous acts during the '80s, yet you'd be hard pressed to find a Reagan expression of outrage; on the contrary, Iraq was an ally of convenience, as vividly evidenced by the December '83 photo of Reagan special envoy Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with the tyrant.

And the actual Reagan portraiture would not be complete without noting his '86 backdoor deal with Iran, whereby we agreed to ship weapons to the bad guys in exchange for the release of seven American hostages. Robert McFarlane, the national security adviser who personally participated in the attempted swap, told a Senate committee that Reagan approved the arms sale on Aug. 6, 1986. One can only imagine how the Fox News commentators, and the Reagan canonizers, would react today if Obama was caught trying to pull off a deal like that.

But the top prize for amnesia really belongs to McCain. The other night, while reminiscing about Reagan with Sean Hannity, the '08 presidential candidate had this to say: "You and I are both students of history and we've seen this movie before - when Ronald Reagan stood up for the workers in Gdansk in Poland, when he stood up for the people of Czechoslovakia in Prague Spring. And America did. And some good Democrats did too."

McCain might consider himself to be a student of history, but he just flunked. He claimed that Reagan stood up for the Czechs during Prague Spring, which was a brief period of enlightenment during the era of Soviet dominance; the problem is, Prague Spring happened in 1968. Reagan was finishing his first year as California governor in 1968 (he would raise taxes during his tenure). Reagan didn't even become president until 1981.

This is the problem with tethering one's mind to nostalgia. At some point, it's no longer sufficient to engage in highly selective amnesia; there is always the temptation to simply make stuff up. I question whether these Obama critics can credibly assess the current president if they insist on committing themselves to a willful misreading of reality a quarter century past.

-------

What follows has nothing to do with politics whatsoever. This is about baseball, and the tragic fall of an icon - someone who undoubtedly inspires a certain amount of selective amnesia.

Tonight, HBO is airing an updated documentary segment about former Phillies/Mets star Lenny "Dude" Dykstra, who is now reportedly close to financial ruin after a brief high-flying career as a financial hustler. He's the the target of 20 lawsuits, he lives in an unfurnished mansion on the brink of foreclosure, he and his wife of 23 years are divorcing, and he appears to be in serious denial about everything.

Lenny was always a compulsive (albeit entertaining) narcissist. I saw this first hand, when he was at the peak of his athletic fame; the tell-tale traits were already in evidence. One long day overseas in November 1993, I accompanied Lenny around Paris, where he was acting as an ambassador for Major League Baseball. I wrote a story; for interested sports fans, I am reprinting it below.

You may be wondering why I am doing this today, at the risk of Ignoring All The More Important Things to Write About. Two reasons: (a) Because it's summer. (b) Because I can.


Paris, Nov. 22, 1993 -

The Dude meets The Ritz. What a concept.

The most exclusive hotel in Paris has catered to the likes of fashion diva Coco Chanel, Woolworth heiress Barbara Hutton, writer Marcel Proust, Arab princes, cinema stars - anyone, in fact, who feels no pain when plunking down $2,000 for a good night's sleep, including the guy who padded across the lobby on his way to breakfast yesterday.

Excuse me, sir, does The Ritz meet with your approval?

"Whoa. Awesome, dude. It don't get any better than this."

Paris, meet Lenny Dykstra.

Lenny is spending some of his postseason time serving as a foreign diplomat for big league baseball. On Saturday, he touched down in Duesseldorf, Germany; yesterday, he took Paris, and today, he is to hit Amsterdam. Baseball is played in all these places, more than ever, and Lenny's here to boost the game and spread his unique brand of inspiration.

But baseball hasn't exactly conquered France, a country where "homer" is a Greek poet and "strike" is a synonym for blocking the airport runways. Around here, your basic media star is an intellectual who can quote Celine, not somebody whose notion of eloquence is to declare that he "plays 'em one at a time."

Not that Lenny would ever let such things bother him. Clad in cuffed dungarees, he breezed into the Ritz dining room. The waiters - in black tie and tails - pretended not to notice his breaches of wardrobe etiquette.

"Hey," he said, "Can I have some eggs, man? And some bacon, link sausages and half a grapefruit? That's just to start with. And do they sell Excedrin around here?"

It had been an awesome trip already. In Germany, he bought a German shepherd. Most tourists buy beer steins, Lenny buys a dog. He tried to befriend another German shepherd on Saturday night. The Ministry of Justice is housed right next to The Ritz, and there was a German shepherd on guard duty.

"Saw that dog out there, man," said Lenny, his hands roaming the table for some sugar. "I tried to get the (Ritz) manager to let me take the dog up to my room so I could play with him."

No such luck. He also had a small problem with his room. "Couldn't figure out how to work that shower," he said. "Some water was comin' out of the nozzle, the rest was shootin' out sideways from another place. And there's two different toilets in there. One of 'em I don't pay any attention to."

At the table, Lenny was asked about his future. "I want to finish my career in Philadelphia," he said, tearing through his meal and firing up a Salem. "We both want the same thing. I kinda represent the city, the way I approach the game. We're talking about a long- term contract, at least five years."

He interrupted himself. This often happens with Lenny. His attention turned to the cubes in the sugar bowl. "Where's the real sugar, man?" he cried out. "I don't like the long melting process." Quickly, a waiter complied. Lenny turned the dispenser upside down, shook some sugar into his palm and spread it across his grapefruit.

"Baseball is the world's game," he said amid his labors. "That's why I'm sittin' in the Ritz, because of baseball. It's brought me fame and fortune, know what I mean? The money they pay us, it's unbelievable. I just wanna reap the benefits while I can. The bottom line in life is results. Everybody wants results. When you succeed in what you do, you get to reap the benefits."

By now, some of the benefits had vanished from his plate. "How do you say s'cuse me in French?" he whispered. He didn't wait for an answer. This often happens with Lenny. "S'cuse me," he called out. "Can you bring me a fresh plate of sausages?" Six sausages arrived on cue. He plunked his ashtray into the waiter's gloved hands with a half-smoked Salem still burning.

Soon it was time to leave. Next stop was the Eiffel Tower, where he would pose for photographs in full uniform. He went upstairs at the Ritz to change clothes and returned downstairs in Phillies pinstripes.

"Get me some Rolaids for my stomach," he announced. The flinty-eyed, thin-lipped Ritz staffers didn't like it that he was padding around in his socks.

Later, at the Eiffel Tower, Lenny posed on a ledge with stunning latticework as a backdrop. "Whoa!" he cried, peering at a distant bronze statue that fronts the Palais de Chaillot. "Who's that dude?" Nobody seemed to know, but Lenny had already switched gears, gazing at the tower itself.

"Whoa," he said to a journalist. "What's that up on the tower?"

"A restaurant," the journalist answered.

"What kinda food they got up there?"

"French."

By now Lenny was thinking about what he might buy in Paris. "I was thinkin' maybe I'd try to buy the Mona Lisa," he deadpanned. "Besides that, I don't know. It's my first trip to Europe. But you can go to New York and buy anything in the world that you want. I go there 12, 13 times a year. Maybe I can find somethin' here, though. Somethin' very French."

At the curb, his six-door Mercedes-Benz awaited him. Lenny was soon whisked to a sports complex. He was slated to talk to a group of minimes, the French equivalent of Little Leaguers, along with some adult members of a Paris team that competes in a national amateur league. Lenny eased out of the Mercedes and immediately asked for a hot dog.

Lenny was hungry....His handlers - driver, business manager, interpreter - all went into action. The word went out by car phone. Inside a gym, the kids awaited him. This was the championship team, and Lenny was there to say a few words of encouragement - and to award the medals, one boy at a time.

"Hey, man," he whispered to Chris Stuart, a baseball official who was doubling as Lenny's interpreter. "How do you say congratulations in French?"

"Felicitations," said Stuart, enunciating so that it came out sounding like fe-lee-sitass-iyohn.

Lenny looked as though a curveball had just frozen him on a 2-2 count. "All those words, man? To each dude?" he asked.

So Lenny stuck with the English word. "Where the sandwich?" he bellowed while signing autographs. "Don't wanna throw up from all the gas."

One youngster chattered at him, in perfect English, about Lenny's earlier career with the Mets - then switched to French. "Sharp dude," smiled Lenny. "Probably gonna cure some incurable disease some day."

Two ham baguettes were rushed into Lenny's hands, along with Volvic water and a Coke. The kids dispersed. He chewed happily and watched the big guys hit in an indoor cage. One cursory glance at the team slugger, and Lenny had sized him up: "That dude's swing is (messed) up. Look how he jumps at the pitch, lifting his front leg. You jump, your head moves. Your head moves, your eye moves. Your eye moves, you can't see the ball."

The athletes were herded into Lenny's presence. He paced the floor, gnawed at the baguette and dispensed wisdom: "You gotta have a plan each time you go to the plate. Look at me, I'm little. But I led the league in (both) walks and hits. Babe Ruth never did that."

Then it was back for one last photo session at the Eiffel Tower. No big deal. He was just happy to be there. So what if France's national amateur league draws crowds of 200 people for big games? So what if he couldn't shop because the best stores were closed on Sunday? Why sweat it? Why not just enjoy being Lenny in the prime of life?

So he barreled out of the Mercedes, chucked the half-filled Volvic bottle into the trash, lit a fresh Salem, eyed a voluptuously nude statue and exclaimed, "Whoa, dude! Take a look at that chick!"
 

61 comments
Comments  (61)
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 12:12 PM, 06/24/2009
    tom: it wasn't the numbers I was taking issue with. It was your characterization of them. "the CBO already said a government run option will cause 22 million people to lose their current health care and be forced into the gov't plan". You now acknowledge "True this is without any government option". How do you reconcile the two statements? Which is it? ... As to the numbers, if an analysis states that 20 million will lose employer coverage but five million will gain it, isn't it disingenuous at best to state that 20 million will lose coverage under the plan? Can I pick one day the stock market goes up and say "The stock market has gone up under the Obama administration?"
    still_independent
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 12:06 PM, 06/24/2009
    tom: as to the polling, the Gallup poll had 22% of democrats calling themselves conservative, and more calling themselves moderate than liberal (40% to 38%). So yes, there are a lot of conservative democrats. Among Republicans, 73% self identified as conservative, only 24% as moderate, and only 3% as liberal. In this you can see the Republican demographic issue - 35% of those polled self identified as moderate. The democrats captured the majority of these, along with a not insignificant percentage of conservatives.
    still_independent
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 11:49 AM, 06/24/2009
    <==== Raise my hand to the "Conservative Democrat" label.
    Phrossty
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 11:32 AM, 06/24/2009
    Funny how Polman writes about how few registered voters are Republican (down around 23% I believe), but ignored the poll showing the electorate is made up of 40% Conservatives, 35% Moderates, and only 21% Liberals. I guess there are a lot of Conservative Democrats out there, huh guys and gals?
    tom - wilmington, de
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 11:30 AM, 06/24/2009
    Did Barney Frank really write a letter to Fannie & Freddie asking them to loosen their requirements for condo mortgages? Isn't that what started the housing crisis in the first place....loose credit requirements for mortgages? I thought F&F did not originate mortgage lending...as has been stated on this site several times. So why is Barney writing the GSE's asking them to loosen restrictions?
    tom - wilmington, de
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 11:28 AM, 06/24/2009
    Still...do you read the links? The 15 million figure, as pointed out in Elmendorf's blog, is a NET number. He assumes some 20 million will lose employer provided coverage, and another 5 million will gain it...and still another 8 million will lose coverage through other means. So, the 20 million figure is good....although mitigated by the 5 million he expects to gain employer provided coverage. True this is without any government option, but I believe that is a dead issue. I am amazed how people actually believe providing insurance to 47 million people, with nobody losing coverage, and those 47 million now accessing doctors, testing facilities and utilizing medicine they previously eschewed, will reduce costs...and there will be no rationing, no longer waits for tests or doctor appointments, and we will have enough doctors etc to care for all these folks. As for abortion....I, personally believe, that when the heartbeat can be heard life begins. How someone can sit in an ultrasound room, listen to a beating heart, and think that is just a mass of tissue is beyond my comprehension. From where do they believe the heartbeat originates?
    tom - wilmington, de
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 11:11 AM, 06/24/2009
    "I believe in personal accountability. So long as we willingly decide to take part in certain activities, we should be willing to deal with the consequences." Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Still. I agree about personal accountability and accepting the consequences, not only as it applies to abortion, but also to unsuitable mortgages for houses one can't afford and bailouts for those who hardly deserve it; we'll turn you into a Republican yet! :)
    Vandy
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 10:56 AM, 06/24/2009
    Vandy: I wrote my last before reading yours. The "moral repugnance" comes from several areas. First, after some fuzzy point, I do find a fetus to be a human being. Some percentage of abortion is performed after this point. Second, there's personal responsibility. Some large percentage of abortion is, I assume, just used as a method of birth control. I believe in personal accountability. So long as we willingly decide to take part in certain activities, we should be willing to deal with the consequences. Even if I don't feel that a four week old embryo is a human baing yet, I would still prefer that the mother keep the child, or at least carry it to term and let it be adopted.
    still_independent
  • Comment removed.
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 10:30 AM, 06/24/2009
    Vandy: and sorry, I realized that I didn't address the fetus as a human being part of your question. I, speaking for myself and only myself, do not feel that a three week old embryo is a human being. A twenty five week old fetus is. I have no idea where the line is. Until medical technology renders a womb unnecessary, I'll stick with viability (after fourth month).
    still_independent
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 10:12 AM, 06/24/2009
    No, Still, I'm not asking about capital punishment, I'm asking about your stance on abortion: Here it is again. The question I would respectfully ask after reading your post is that why do you find abortion "morally repugnant" if, as you say earlier, pro-choicers such as yourself "don't view a fetus as a human"? If you don't believe it's a human, what's so morally repugnant about getting rid of a lump of cells from your perspective?"
    Vandy
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 10:11 AM, 06/24/2009
    CD - Every foreign policy move or lack thereof has to be viewed in the prism of Iraq !!! How the hell are we going to come up with the men needed to back up our words ??? You surely are not advocating nuking them which would be a worse mistake than Bush's Iraq !!!
    ModerateMarge
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 10:05 AM, 06/24/2009
    Vandy - I was speculating as to why some pro-lifers are against capital punishment. If you are asking me in particular, I'm against capital punishment for practical reasons. Morally, I'm slightly-uncomfortably OK with it. While it serves no deterrent purpose (other than upon the executed), there is something to be said for "justice", and to eliminating the possibility that some governor twenty years from now could pardon someone with a "life" sentence. However, as a practical matter, we seem to scr*w it up far too often. Waaaay to many people get exonerated after they're on death row. In many states, it's nearly impossible to go back and get DNA testing that was not available at the time of the trial. We have a Supreme Court that believes that "mere factual innocence" is no reason for a new trial. Go read Grisham's (non-fiction) "The Innocent Man". So in summation - I am personally against capital punishment, but not based upon moral grounds. It's cliche, but I'd rather see 500 men rot in prison for life knowing that we didn't accidentally execute one innocent person.
    still_independent
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 9:54 AM, 06/24/2009
    "many of us personally oppose abortion, could never condone it, find it morally repugnant" Good morning, Still. The question I would respectfully ask after reading your post is that why do you find it "morally repugnant" if, as you say earlier, pro-choicers such as yourself "don't view a fetus as a human"? If you don't believe it's a human, what's so morally repugnant about it from your perspective?
    Vandy
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 9:45 AM, 06/24/2009
    tom: as for the abortion/capital punishment thing - there's inconsistency on both sides. I would argue that pro-choicers don't view a fetus as a human, so capital punishment is the taking of a human life, abortion isn't. Pro-lifers distinguish between the two usually on the basis of "innocent life" (although if their positions are Christianity based, good luck finding that concept in the New Testament). As an aside, many "pro-choicers" are actually anti-abortion (sometimes with certain limited exceptions) - many of us personally oppose abortion, could never condone it, find it morally repugnant, but acknowledge from a legal perspective that the final choice is and should be the mother's. Even more "pro-choicers" are vehemently against late term and partial birth abortions (again with VERY limited exceptions), and can support legislation banning/restricting it so long as the legislation is not written solely to attempt to undermine the underlying right to choose.
    still_independent
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 9:36 AM, 06/24/2009
    tom: do you read what you link to? In defending your statement "the CBO already said a government run option will cause 22 million people to lose their current health care and be forced into the gov't plan", you posted the link to the NYTimes. From your link: "And this estimate ... doesn’t deal with a public insurance option that has become a focal point of considerable debate". In their analysis, THERE IS NO NEW GOVERNMENT RUN OPTION - it wasn't a part of the legislation at the time. And from the same analysis "When fully implemented, about 39 million individuals would obtain coverage through the new insurance exchanges. At the same time, the number of people who had coverage through an employer would decline by about 15 million (or roughly 10 percent), and coverage from other sources would fall by about 8 million, so the net decrease in the number of people uninsured would be about 16 million or 17 million.". I'm not saying this is good legislation, but as usual, you're taking a part of an a quote, using it out of context, applying it to a different situation, and completely changing the point.
    still_independent
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 8:40 AM, 06/24/2009
    For those criticing Reagan for leaving Beirut, he was right to get out. We weren't protecting anyone because no one wanted us there. We were just target practice. Which is why Obama is right not to bellow for democracy in Iran. Mousavi isn't Welesa. And neither elected official has any real control over the country. Why choose sides over who will be the puppet when the puppetmaster is the same?
    etotheb
  • Comment removed.
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 1:02 AM, 06/24/2009
    As for the drivel Polman posted today (no wonder he barely gets 50 posts anymore), of course it is easy to mention Reagan as he did. However, most comparisons to Reagan/Communism v. Obama/Iran is to how Reagan came out strongly supportive of Lech Walesa and his solidarity movement when Russia declared martial law in Poland. Let's take that trip down memory lane, as uttered by Ronny himself..."...We view the current situation in Poland in the gravest of terms, particularly the increasing use of force against an unarmed population and violations of the basic civil rights of the Polish people....We call upon all free people to join in urging the Government of Poland to reestablish conditions that will make constructive negotiations and compromise possible...... The people of Poland are giving us an imperishable example of courage and devotion to the values of freedom in the face of relentless opposition. Left to themselves, the Polish people would enjoy a new birth of freedom. But there are those who oppose the idea of freedom, who are intolerant of national independence, and hostile to the European values of democracy and the rule of law....But the torch of liberty is hot. It warms those who hold it high. It burns those who try to extinguish it." That was in December, 1981....Reagan's first year in office. Compare that to Obama, and his "not our place to meddle" comment. Stark difference.
    tom - wilmington, de
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 12:52 AM, 06/24/2009
    Some more house cleaning....to still_independent, of course states regulate abortion, and every attempt to do so is met with lawsuits challenging their constitutionality. Take parental notification and partial birth abortion....both of which are hotly contested every time a state attempts to regulate them. I never said abortion was not regulated...just why the pro-choice side does not allow states and their citizenry make those choices without all the legal wrangling. As to the not answered question posed by Vandy as to why pro-abortion people can be against the death penalty...I guess that answer lies in the fact the pro-abortion side does not see a fetus as human being. To them, a mass murderer is a human being worth of life, but a 6+ month fetus (possibly viable outside the womb) is just a mass of tissue until it breathes and cries.
    tom - wilmington, de
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 12:40 AM, 06/24/2009
    First, some house cleaning. To still_independent, the figures were in the link I posted, you just had to do some math. Elmendorf, the director of the CBO, stated that 20 million people would lose employer health insurance, some by choice and some because the employer stopped offering it. Another 5 million would gain employer health insurance because of government mandates that they have to offer it. That is a net loss of 15 million. Another 8 million would lose their coverage for other reasons. That is 23 million people that would lose their coverage under the Kennedy-Dodd bill. I know it is a tough concept to grasp, especially the 20 million that would lose employer coverage, but what the hey....we need reform. Besides the link I had already provided, here is another, courtesy of that conservative rag the New York Times...http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/15/cbo-releases-estimates-on-kennedy-dodd-health-care-bill/....
    tom - wilmington, de
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 10:54 PM, 06/23/2009
    I also remember Reagan walking away from the negotiating table with Gorbachev & the left going nuts. Reagan talked to the enemy on his terms, & he won. We allied ourselves with Iraq because they were at war with Iran, who had held several of our citizens for 444 days. The USA has allied itself with "bad" people over the years, but there were reasons - ex: Stalin during WWII to defeat Hitler. The Iran/Contra episode was well publicized. You may chose to look at it as simply a back door deal, but Reagan was right to support the Contras over the Sandinistas & Congress simply would not do it. I agree that our response was weak after the Beirut bombing. There was much media pressure & pressure from Congress to pull out. I remember (I was in high school at the time) him being praised for not leaving our troops exposed in the Middle East. I didn't agree then & I don't now.
    stvdog
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 10:39 PM, 06/23/2009
    Reagan, acting on the principle that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," supported the mujaheddin that were fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan. After driving the Soviets out, the mujaheddin morphed into the Taliban. Need I say more?
    Mike Kline
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 10:36 PM, 06/23/2009
    it's so good we didn't elect john mccain.
    JACK V
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 10:34 PM, 06/23/2009
    TARE DOWN THE WALL. ROGER WATERS.
    JACK V
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 10:33 PM, 06/23/2009
    "TEAR DOWN THE WALL" REGAN OR PINK FLOYD ! OH, WHAT THE HELL, THEY WERE BOTH ENTERTAINERS.
    JACK V
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 10:33 PM, 06/23/2009
    wayneone, Kennedy was tough. Maybe you weren't around during the Cuban Missile Crisis, but I was. Kennedy played a game of chicken with Kruschev and Kruschev blinked. This wasn't a photo-op at the Berlin Wall. This was nuclear war if the Reds got their panties in a twist. If the Russian ships ran the blockade, we were to use all necessary means to stop them. Unbeknownst at the time, the missiles in Cuba were functional. Miami, Atlanta, and some other Southern cities would be just a memory had Kennedy listened to some of his hardcore advisors and invaded Cuba. So if the Democrats want to canonize a president, I'll take the one that stood up to a real threat, not the one looking to make a splash on the 6 o'clock news. B TW,how did that invasion of Grenada turn out, the one after 280 Marines got blown up in Lebanon? Took us two weeks to put down a couple of Cuban workers with shotguns. The operation that awarded more medals than there were participants.
    mike l
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 10:24 PM, 06/23/2009
    How true...Reagan was a disaster yet the Repubs have rewritten history to make him a hero. He hated the working man when talking in private. He was a hateful horrible human being.
    JonKap
  • Comment removed.
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 10:11 PM, 06/23/2009
    Why is this obvious OPINION piece headline a supposed NEWS site? Dick Polman's all entitled to his jaded and spiteful opinion, but not at the preference over legitimate news stories: national, local and international.
    bdm155
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 10:07 PM, 06/23/2009
    Of all the drivel I have read here, hejira33312 has the most braindead,absurd comment of the lot. Please tell me how not speaking the word AIDS infected anyone? I don't believe he was having promiscuous unprotected sex. He wasn't frequenting bathhouses, or sharing drug paraphenalia. Probably the most idiotic comment ever written. Congratulations for that.
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 10:04 PM, 06/23/2009
    CD25... You want up to date arguments? Well financial crisis' like we are in now are NOT built overnight. It takes years and decades to do something this massive. And I believe it was Ronald Reagan's administration that led us down this path. His concept for improving the then slumping economy was to get people to spend more money thereby "growing" the economy. And it worked. People spend money. Businesses spent money. The government spent money. A lot of it and everyone went broke! We are in this financial crisis for the most part because EVERYONE---republicans, democrats, whites, blacks, etc---spent too much money they couldn't afford and finally it all exploded in our face. (And as a conservative Rep, please don't start yelling about the congressional change of the housing/mortgage industry a few years ago that caused this...it was just one cause, perhaps the straw the broke the camel's back, but not the full cause as I've hard spewed.) Ronald Reagan's policies got us here...a Great President? Maybe...maybe not!
    Eilex826
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 10:04 PM, 06/23/2009
    It figures the comments section would mostly ignore the Dykstra column. It's clear cut evidence why Dick Polman is a professional writer who gets paid to play in the big leagues. Some of the self appointed columnists who's comments show up here like crabgrass should take note of what separates a pro from lame amateurs.
    brs50
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 9:53 PM, 06/23/2009
    CD75: Your so tough, why don't you fly over to Iran and fight them yourself. You are a mealy-mouthed coward, Why didn't Reagan stand up to the terrorists when they killed 300+ of our Marines in Lebanon. What is your answer to that you coward. And for the record, the Wall came down with Bush I in office not Reagan. Once again, if your so anxious to send our brave young men off to fight a war that is an Iranian affair, I recommend you go first and lead the way. If you are not ready to take that step then shut up. WaynoNE: How about FDR who along with Stalin and Churchhill had the stuff to stand up to Hitler. Reagan invaded Grenada - real tough stuff. Reagan the worse President ever....
    Danny55
  • Comment removed.
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 9:49 PM, 06/23/2009
    Republicans always rewrite history. How else could Oliver North be considered a hero...... neocons aren't that bright.
    Think for myself
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 9:39 PM, 06/23/2009
    Reagan should get about as much credit for ending the Cold War as Nixon should get for the Moon Landing. Lots of people did the work ahead of him, he just happened to be there when it came to a head.
    atp2007
  • Comment removed.
  • Comment removed.
  • Comment removed.
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 9:19 PM, 06/23/2009
    You'd think lefties like Dick Polman would have something else to write about when his party has complete run of the country. Maybe one or two of the "journalists" at this newspaper could think about critiquing--oh, i dunno--the people that are actually in government now and not 25 years ago. So Reagan was delusional? Check the White House's budget estimates: that's delusional. I now return you to the Inquirer echo chamber of liberals.
    ChrisInConshy
  • Comment removed.
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 9:16 PM, 06/23/2009
    Ronny Reggae did his thing from a position of strength, Obama trots the globe bowing like a lap dog. Reagan scared the Russians to the bargaining table, Obama wants to be the waiter at the bargaining table. Bad time in history to appear weak.
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 9:07 PM, 06/23/2009
    BLAH BLAH BLAH
    MBFlyerfan
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 8:23 PM, 06/23/2009
    Comrade Polman loves revisionist history. A big omission by Polman is that Reagan engaged the enemy through a position of strength, while Obama thinks your enemies will fold from mere talk and apologies. All Obama is doing is making America weaker.
    Comrade Noodlehead
  • Comment removed.
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 2:56 PM, 06/23/2009
    What did Reagan do in response to 200+ American Marines being killed in Lebanon? He tucked his hairless ballz between his legs and ran home to "Mommy."
    chasing history
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 2:22 PM, 06/23/2009
    Who the Hay can Dems canonize? Kennedy? Mr. Cuban Missile Crisis? You already threw Bill Clinton under as being a racist.
    waynoNE
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 2:10 PM, 06/23/2009
    Yes, the Reagan folklore grows by the year, he's the Paul Bunyan of conservatives. That Lenny Dykstra column was hillarious, he was like sending Jeff Spicoli as ambassador. (Fast Times)
    fence
  • Comment removed.
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 1:39 PM, 06/23/2009
    "tear down this wall" typical movie - propaganda type posturing from an actor posing as someone who was vmaking backroom deals with iran and supporting thugs like saddam hussein
    snarque
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 1:30 PM, 06/23/2009
    I have 3 words for the would-be Reagan canonizers: Beirut Marine Barracks.
    Yersinia Pestis
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 1:24 PM, 06/23/2009
    CD75: your first comment is a childish taunt, your second comment is inaccurate, since Mr. Obama did condemn the murder of peacefully assembling Iranian citizens on Saturday, and your third point is, surprise, also inaccurate: Mr. Polman does actually "focus() on the current events of the world," i.e., Mr. Obama's handling of the Iran crisis and the Republican response. If only the words "Evil Empire" had passed your lips, you might have had a leg to stand on. So stop throwing mud around and start constructing actual arguments.
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 1:01 PM, 06/23/2009
    Oh yes CD, uttering the phrase "tear down this wall" was what brought down the Soviet Union. The whole system was running smoothly until 1987, then Reagan made a speech, and the entire Eastern bloc crumbled as a result. You know, just like Nancy Reagan's appearance on Diff'rent Strokes ("Just Say No") single-handedly solved the country's drug problem. Idiot.
    Augs
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 12:55 PM, 06/23/2009
    Reagan ignored the AIDs crisis only speaking the words AIDs in his last months in office, thus condemning men, women and childern alike to a certain death from a misunderstood plague. That wall he referred to was coming down before the actor spoke his now shallow but fanous lines, he was a puppet, no-brain figurehead, the best the Republicans will ever have to offer ever!
    hejira33312
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 12:34 PM, 06/23/2009
    Typical liberal partisan drivel. Typical Polman. Typical media guard dog of Obama "journalsim". Instead of focusing on the current affairs of the world, attack republicans for things that allegedly occured 25 to 60 years ago. Call it a smokecreen. The sad thing is that when all of this geopolical strife explodes in Obama's face, none of this "American Debate" discusses the real issues.
    CD75
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 12:28 PM, 06/23/2009
    Obama's (lack of) response to Iran says this: America can be intimated into silence by governments who abuse and murder their own people and have no respect for human rights. Obama is saying to the world that America is a paper tiger.
    CD75
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 12:24 PM, 06/23/2009
    Could anyone see President Barack the Jellyfish having enough guts to stand up to the Soviets like Reagan did by telling them to "tear down this wall"? Under Obama's logic this would be "meddling". Obama has no guts.
    CD75
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 12:14 PM, 06/23/2009
    Speaking of amnesia -- weren't these the same clowns who were warning us all last year that electing Obama would be dangerous and hearten our enemies? How many of them thought Ahmadinejad would be on the run five months after Obama's election? I don't see any of them attributing the Iran situation to "The Obama Effect". Reagan, however, gets the entire credit for ending the Cold War.
    anonymous
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 12:14 PM, 06/23/2009
    Further reminiscing about Reagan, I can't look at a packet of ketchup without remembering that the Reagan administration, for the purposes of cutting back on the school lunch programs, wanted to qualify it as a vegetable.
    Freerojo
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 12:12 PM, 06/23/2009
    Another interesting aspect of the Reagan presidency is the dementia that he started to develop during the last 1-2 years of his presidency. Reagan ultimately developed clinically diagnosed Alzheimer's Disease after he stepped down from office. However, most likely he had symptoms prior to that as the usual clinical course of Alzheimer's Disease occurs over many years. There are some interesting interviews with Donald Regan (Reagan's former Chief of Staff) in which he discusses the need to remove Reagan from office due to his progressive cognitive impairment. Reviews of Reagan's diaries also show numerous factual errors, as well as the well-known Reagan claim that he was physically present for the liberation of several Nazi concentration camp survivors (when in fact he was not). It is an interesting testament to the strength of the US government that it managed to function during this time.
    Nalaka


1
About this blog

Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.

ARCHIVES

All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.

Dick Polman Inquirer National Political Columnist