Yet another point in a long list of examples WHY Liberalism IS a Mental Disorder.
Now they mean to assassinate the character of people in the hopes that they can re-write history in some way.
The desire to advance Liberalism is SO Great that it would see a son turn on his own father.
Isn’t this similar to the type of thing that the Reds did in the 50’s when Communists required children to rat out their own parents in China, Cambodia, etc?
Ron’s ONLY disappointment in doing what he’s doing to assassinate his Father’s character today, is that that unlike he could have done in those places back then he’s not able to take his Conservative Father to a wall and watch as a firing squad does its business.
So now the true mark of a loyal Liberal is that they have done all they can to assassinate the character of their own parents, the MSM will lap this up like there’s no tomorrow.
Ron Regan is dependent upon pleasing his liberal masters. The only thing he has to sell to them is the credibility one would normally accord to a son when the son talks about his father. But why would the left be interested in a President who left office nearly a quarter century ago?
Two reasons: First, they have labored like bulldogs to redefine and to reshape Reagan into a moderate and thus to use him as a cudgel to beat genuine conservatives over the head as extremists in comparison to the “avuncular, kindly Gipper” whom they all despised while he was in office. This aspect of their revisionism seeks principally to undermine genuine conservatives within the GOP as “extremists” (one of their favorite pejoratives for Reagan himself)
Second, and even moire important, they are interested in Reagan because he WAS a giant. They would prefer to forget him (and some of the GOP Establishment like Jeb Bush have wrongheadedly agreed with the leftists that it is time to “move past Reagan”). But the country is not going to move past Reagan. He is continually invoked by genuine conservatives (most recently and eloquently by Sarah Palin in response to the blood libel against society in general over the Tuscon murders). So what is to be done about Reagan?
The left could hearken back to its heroes, but this is of limited value to them. None of their Presidents since FDR (who died nearly 70 years ago and has faded from the public consciousness) has been both the transformational AND charismatic leader that Reagan was. Of the four most recent examples, spanning the last 50 years, only two (JFK and Clinton) had superior political skills and might be credibly described as charismatic. Neither had a transformational effect on the nation and the world, however and both possessed deeply flawed characters (The Kennedys are so self conscious that they recently pressured networks not to run a bio of JFK that would remind everyone of his flaws). LBJ had a charisma deficit, a credibility gap the size of the Grand Canyon and more policy disasters, domestically and internationally, than burrs on a Texas burr picker. Ditto Carter. Which leaves us with Obama... Well, you get my point.
Since their own bench is so weak, the only alternative is to try to dismantle the collossus that is Reagan. They simple cannot allow the election of 2012 to be a referendum between Reagan and Obama. So they will try in the first instance to see that the GOP nominates a candidate who is as far from Reagan, both in terms of charisma and in terms of potential to transform the country back into a constitutional republic, as possible. (This is the reason for the full bore assault on Sarah Palin and the the gentle push forward which Romney, Huckabee, etc are getting from the left.).
But they must also try to demolish, or at least tarnish, the great Reagan legacy. They cannot attack his achievements which stand on their own, both domestically and internationally. So they will try to do to Reagan, in death, a species of what they are doing to Palin. They will attack him personally, saying that he was dangerously senile, while he was President, and trotting out his quisling son to provide the affidavit. They hope in some way to limit his usefulness in the event the GOP nominates the one person in the current field who can credibly, and I mean credibly, assume mantle of constitutional governance.