Posted on 10/19/2010 3:56:22 PM PDT by Maggie Maggie Maggie
At the weekend, I fulfilled a long-standing ambition and visited Ronald Reagan’s ranch, now held in trust by the wonderful Young America’s Foundation. It was here that the Gipper would withdraw whenever he could, to ride around the estate with Nancy. “The best thing for the inside of a man is the outside of a horse”, he used to say.
In other politicians’ homes, you find constant reminders of status: photographs with popes and monarchs, gifts from visiting statesmen, piles of books by famous contemporaries, cases of trophies and awards. But Reagan’s one-bedroom bolt-hole couldn’t be simpler. He painted and furnished it with his own hands, and enclosed it with a fence which he sawed from old telegraph poles.
The casual visitor wouldn’t guess that this had been the home of the leader of the free world, this the table where the greatest tax cut in America’s history was signed into law, this the telephone used to call the families of fallen American soldiers. Other than one or two historical works among the cowboy novels, the only political touch is the shower-head, which is in the shape of the Liberty Bell. Here, plainly, lived a man who was bien dans sa peau; a man who, unlike so many politicians, had nothing to prove. Mikhail Gorbachev, visiting the ranch, was distressed by how basic it was; Margaret Thatcher, by contrast, loved it, intuiting that it reflected the character of its inhabitant.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.telegraph.co.uk ...
We won't see another like him, I'm afraid.
You know what this reminds me of? A few months ago Oprah had Laura Bush, and gave a virtual tour of the Bushes’ home.
It was SO plain. White walls, lots of books. No froufrou anywhere, no ostentatious money, just a lot of emphasis on the simple beauty of nature outside.
I couldn't take my eyes off O’s face. She looked sandbagged. Sort of confused and quiet. I kept thinking, she's bought into the liberal meme that the Bushes are silly people, and this humble elegance is upsetting her template.
I couldn't figure out if she was just shocked (her home I'm sure is quite ostentatious) or angry.
I think we will see this map again soon.
It’s a shame that Daniel Hannan is British....we sure could use a couple hundred of his ilk here.
What a wonderful evening that was! (Although red was blue and blue was red.)
Lack of pretention is the mark of a Confident Leader, and thusly confuses Liberals and Progressives who believe those in Leadership should be similar to themselves.
When that difference is highlighted, they have no response.
Angry.
“A Time for Choosing” by Ronald Reagan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXBswFfh6AY&feature=player_embedded
Greetings, I if wonder anyone here would care to counter-point this argument I am having with someone on twitter.
RT @ri4dc: @AntiWacko I think you also fail to recognize the economic mess that Carter left for Reagan. #tcot / READ > http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-carterreagan.htm
Myth: Carter ruined the economy; Reagan saved it.
Fact: The Federal Reserve Board was responsible for the events of the late 70s and 80s.
I’d never seen this point of view, and in my mind, it’s way off on facts and liberally interprets the data.
In my view, Tres Sec Volcker did what both Carter and Reagan policies required ... Tres Sec sets the policies of his boss ... would this be factual ?
Any assistance would be appreciated.
Ri4DC/
He won the cold war without firing a shot.
He freed the Iranian hostages without firing a shot.
He lowered taxes.
He ushered in decades of peace and prosperity after Carter's stagflation.
He broke the air traffic controllers union with the stroke of a pen.
He cut the Cubans out of Grenada.
He developed star wars weapons systems in use today.
His vice president was elected when his term was over. In effect, he chose his successor. Reagan didn't campaign for him, he didn't have to.
He scared the commies straight, without firing a shot.
That's leadership.
Here is one person’s analysis of it:
@rehabable
There’s a lot wrong with that article, it’s hard to know where to start. Perhaps the most fundamental flaw is the idea that inflation is caused by price increases. Price increases are the result not the cause of inflation.
Inflation results from the federal reserve expanding the money supply. The Fed literally creates money that did not exist before by loaning it to banks. The banks create even more money. But that’s another topic.
America has had almost continuous inflation since the federal reserve was created in 1913. Usually the rate of inflation is “low” or less than 2% per year. but in the 70s it was much greater.
In a non inflationary environment some prices go up, some go down, due to the market forces of supply and demand.
It’s true that Jimmy Carter more or less inherited high, ruinous inflation, but before appointing Volker he made it worse. Volker set out to reduce the rate of expansion of the money supply, or even shrink the money supply. As a result or reaction, the continuous increase in prices also stopped, or rather fell back to the “low rate of 2% +or-.
The oil shock, a reduction in the supply of oil imposed by OPEC caused oil prices and gasoline prices to rise. But in a non-inflationary environment, that is if the fed was not deliberately expanding the money supply, other prices would not have risen. In fact, other prices would have gone down because consumers, having spent extra for fuel would have less to spend on everything else. The sellers of everything else would have had to reduce prices due to reduced demand.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.