"LOL--I'm not trying to "tie NAFTA around Reagan's neck." And so far, the only counter-argument I've seen on this thread is that he was "senile." LOLOLI'll vote for Trump if he gets the nomination, even if he is a bonehead on tariffs, and his supporters misrepresent Reagan's legacy to my face."
Okay, there's a bit of a communication breakdown, but with all due respect it is mostly your fault because of your mostly terse and enigmatic comments. For example I still don't really understand what you meant in #42 ...
"But Perot gets a pass. LOL"
... I think you are assuming your comments are crystal clear but they really are not.
Your characterization of Reagan as the father of NAFTA isn't jiving with what others like myself recall. I remember him battling Communism and free trade was little more than a fraction of the conversation. It was the 10 pound lemur in a room full of 800 pound Gorillas.
Due to that quote from his 1988 State Of The Union I conceded he was clearly onboard, well, at least his 2nd term team which consisted of lots of malcontents. The more I think about it, we had Milton Friedman and his followers getting lots of face time in those years, and these guys all were uber free traders. But we can't forget the context of Reagan having an extremely hostile Congress, perhaps the most Communist ever except for the Redi-Pelosi era. Each and every budget was a fight, and they even managed to roll back some of the tax cuts.
I didn't like how things were going in the 2nd term at all. It sure looked to me like Reagan became more of a puppet as the administration rolled towards the end. I mentioned before that I was mortified that he let North, Poindexter, and Secord fend for themselves, and let Bork die on the vine. So that 1988 SOTU speech kind of fits the pattern.
I personally didn't think the Alzheimer's had set in yet because he would do speeches and appear fine, but you just never know. We've all encountered similar in our own lives with loved ones and we all know the good day / bad day thingie. Hence, these folks in this thread that mentioned it as a possibility cannot be categorically dismissed.
Your last comment implies, as I suspected, that you are for some reason worried about "free trade", as was I for a very long time. Maybe I'm getting senile as well because I am finding myself asking just what the heck was it about "free trade" that I used to find so important? With all this clear recent history of the destruction of the Reagan economy, and offshoring of jobs, and crushing of native manufacturing, employment and wages in the rear view mirror, I really have to face the fact that I was mesmerized by the Friedman theology to the detriment of our nation.
This is not to say that some crazy protectionist tariff scheme is the magic bullet. More like a targeted attack on those who are raping us, which in turn will force the others to behave. But you have to admit, "free trade" between 1st world and 3rd world is a lie. It is only going to benefit them and never us, unless by "us" you mean a handful of companies that play the game well, pleasing their shareholders at the expense of their country. The United States wasn't founded in order to spread the wealth and to give a helping hand to destitute countries. Nor is it here to be pilfered and picked clean by foreign buzzards and domestic robber barons. We are not suckers, well, at least not all of us.
What say you?
And I am an unabashed free-trader. And I'm not worried a bit. The market, free or not, wins every time. No government official can do a darn thing about it.
In passing, I will leave you with this:
In 1985, Roger [Milliken] had come to the White House to persuade me to convince [President Reagan] to sign a bill to slow the flood of textiles into the country. No way, I told Mr. Milliken. I’m the biggest free-trader in the building, except for the fellow down the hall, who was Ronald Reagan. Roger went away disappointed. Reagan vetoed the bill. And I supervised the writing of the veto message.
Patrick J. Buchanan, Requiem for a Patriot, January 4, 2011.