Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Hummmm, sorry to say I would expect nothing less from Black conservatives, after all they still support Bush despite his less then amicable relationship with noted black organizations like the NAACP and the Congressional Black Caucus. I too grew up in the Reagan era, only I was a young sailor in the USN. I and my circle of moderate black friends remember the Reagan years far differently from the members of Project 21. And no offense to Project 21, J.C. Watts and others but I still to this day cannot wrap my mind around being a black conservation; yes I went there and opened that can of worms!

How did blacks fare under Ronald Reagan?

From the end of 1982 to 1989, black unemployment dropped 9 percentage points (from 20.4 percent to 11.4 percent), while white unemployment dropped by only 4 percentage points. Black household income went up 84 percent from 1980 to 1990, versus a white household income increase of 68 percent. The number of black-owned businesses increased from 308,000 in 1982 to 424,000 in 1987, a 38 percent rise versus a 14 percent increase in the total number of firms in the United States. Receipts by black-owned firms more than doubled, from $9.6 billion to $19.8 billion.

Blacks simply do not know that blacks prospered greatly under Reagan.

I’m not an expert in this area, but, I suspect the Democratic Congress, affirmative action, enterprise zones, and Black investment corporations had much to do with that progress, not to mention the South finally getting somewhat comfortable with the idea that civil rights laws were here to stay. Little if any of these sources can be attributed to Ronald Reagan that I can recall.

V. Edward,

You can borrow my can opener anytime you like! You also described my experience during the Reagan years, as I voted against him twice to show my appreciation.

Fisk,

I’d be interested in the source of the stats you supplied, although Project 21 could better use them to bolster their flimsy argument.

So far, they’ve proven to be in the running for the Conservative version of Rev. Al Sharpton. How deep is their indignation, when the only example to counter claims of neglect is that he was pen pals with a Black teacher throughout his term?

Not even in their archives are there essays on the prosperity under Reagan, or Bush #40 and #42, either. However, there are a catalog of negative critiques on Clinton and Liberals.

No list or total count of members. Not even info on the organizers.

This kind of press release is tailored made for Conservative media - long on emphatic tease before the break and by-line subject matter, short on substance.

The way minority conservatives are treated by the left is shameful. For example, I have a friend at school who insists on calling Justice Thomas an “Uncle Tom” because he dares be a conservative jurist (and a damn good one, despite the propoganda against him). There are many good reasons for being a conservative (and many good reasons not to be), and blacks as well as whites can be amenable to these reasons. For example, if you believe in smallar government, if you believe in rights for unborn children ect. ect., you should be a conservative regardless of your shade of skin. People who believe that someone should be a particular party because of their race are just as racist as someone who believes someone is stupid or smart because of their race.

Lets look at why many people loved Reagan: (1) he was strong in the fight against communism; (2) he reduced taxes across the board, slayed inflation (3) he gave america an optimism about itself. None of these reasons are race-related,.

To go one step further-regardless of which way the statistical battle comes out- why should a black person like Reagan or not like Reagan because what he “did” for blacks? When i decide to support a candidate, the last thing from my mind is what he has done for jews or people born in Russia (just to name two groups I happen to be part of). I think about the clarity and correctness of their ideas, regardless of what demographic will be helped the most.

Misha—as always—-well said. You just hit on the biggest problem in our political system: the prevalence of those base their decision not on what is best for the country but what is best for them.

Perhaps JFK should have said, “Ask not what you can do for your country; ask what your country can do for you.”

Another point:
Ronald Reagan has not been president for for almost 2 decades. He has suffered from debilitating Alzheimer’s for years. He recently died. So….why rehash his relationship with black Americans NOW?? Will it make any difference? Of course there is the rewrite of history involved from both sides, but can’t we just let the man rest in peace?

Misha—

No offense but you have no idea what it is like to grow up a black male in America, and until you do you cannot know why the vast majority of black Americans view black conservatives the way we do, or why special vitriol is reserved for Associate Justice Clearance Thomas. I take exception to the notion that he is a fine jurist; his conservative reading of the constitution only serves the cause of those who seek to continue to deny every American the right to live under the promise of its equal protection and liberty for all. Men like Thomas do nothing to up-lift the cause of the black community in America; I witness his brand of self-hatred first hand in the guise of my father who turned his back on me and my siblings out of shame for our color.

As far as loving Reagan: (1) I served on the front lines in the battle against communism; shouldn’t Americans love me?; (2) Reagan first reduced taxes, but then signed a bill raising them again, isn’t that contrary to conservative dogma?; (3) he gave white America optimism, to minorities, and those suffering from AIDS he gave his back.

It is absurd and a bit ignorant to believe that people vote on the basis of what is good for the society and not for themselves. If a member of the KKK were running for President on the platform that he would cut taxes, introduce a common-sense energy policy, and reduce the size of government—all laudable goals mind you—should I, a black man vote for him, despite the fact that in other areas he will most likely do things contrary to my principles?

One more short note: if the Republican Party were to start espousing ideas similar to my own, I would support their cause, but they do not, so I do not. The fact of the matter is the Republican platform reeks of racism and a total disregard for the rights of other Americans, despite the rhetoric. Bush made that crystal clear to me when he decided to visit Bob Jones University, an institution that openly practices miscegenation, but refused to appear in person at the NAACP Convention the same year, and has yet to do so. Nor has he met with the Congressional Black Caucus; despite their many invitations; actions speak louder then words…

> Bob Jones University, an institution that
> openly practices miscegenation

You mean that they openly oppose miscegenation. (Otherwise I am in total agreement with you!)

-Cf

I would like to know what makes Thomas such a good jurist. All he seems to do is side with Rehnquist and Scalia 90% of the time or more.

V Edward Martin-

I dont think we could disagree more on this topic. Let me make a couple of points:

1. One of my biggest pet-peaves is people telling me i cannot comment on subjects because I am not their “race”. It would be like me telling you that cant comment on the impact of Reagan because you never came from the Soviet Union which he helped to bring down. You are a smart man- that is all you need to comment on any subject in my book. You can even comment on what its like to live in the Soviet Union, based on reading that you have done, even if you had never been there yourself.

2. You said “Republican platform reeks of racism.” I will likely not be voting for a Bush this time around, but I dare you you point to even more plank in the Republican party platform that is racist. In fact, the only party that has a racist plank in their platform is the Democratic Party (and I believe the green party), which support affirmative action- which is racist on its face (Even though think its impact is laudable, it is still racist in principle).

3. I do not know anything about Thomas’ father, so I will leave that alone, but justice thomas is the only justice on the supreme court who even attempts to read the constitution in the spirit in which it was written. If you read my thesis which I sent (that was you I sent it to, right?), you would see that the constitution was written in light of natural law principles. Justice Thomas is the ONLY justice on the supreme court who takes natural law seriously. He surely gets a lot of matters wrong (his views on federalism are especially confusing), but in my view he is the only justice in my lifetime that has even tried to grapple with natural law, the true foundation of our constitution.

You say “Men like Thomas do nothing to up-lift the cause of the black community in America.” if I get to the bench, I will do nothing to uplift any community- jewish, russian, whatever. I will try to read the constitution in the spirit and principles that it is written- that is the only thing a responsible jurist should do.

4. Of course you should not vote for a KKK member- but if you believe in small government ect- but you should vote for someone like Bob Dole, who had no racist bone in his body (or Ronald Reagan for that matter). To condemn him and vote for someone who stands for none of the principles you believe in is foolishness. For what its worth, I doubt Bush is racist either, as his closest and most trusted advisor appears to be black woman.

5. My mother and I have this same disagreement often. She always says one should vote with what is “good for jews”, I think that view is not only narrow-minded but ultimately destructive to what it means to be an American. I think this is the case for any approaches that focus on race or ethnity to decide political issues. Ultimately, I think asking “what will this candidate do for my race or ethinity” just perpetuates racism.

Micheal- this is one of the myths that the anti-Thomas propoganda machine has come up with to discredit him. He disagrees with Scalia and especially Renquist more than the left-most justices disagree with each other. He is a great jurist because he (sometimes) tries to tackle issues of constitution importance to their principled roots, something that I see missing from every other justice currently on the court.

Misha—

Being one your “biggest pet peeves” makes the statement no less creditable. You cannot know what it feels like to be a black male in America, you can only empathize and try to understand. You may comment all you wish, but those comments will be shrouded in ignorance, just as my comment on life in Russia would, having never lived there, or my comments on the emotional effects abortion has on women, not being a woman.

My example of Bush’s actions over the last 3.5 years is all the proof you need, or should I say I need.

I was not speaking of Thomas’ father, but of my own, making the point that Thomas basically hate himself because of the color of his skin; a malady that is not uncommon in the black community.

And Justice Thomas is not alone in his strict interpretation of the Constitution; Scalia and to a lesser extend Rehnquist also share his viewpoint. There have been longed and pointed debates on this issue in law school, in fact Scalia is famous, or shall I same infamous among jurist for his strict interpretation of the Constitution and I have listened to and read speeches where he outlines his views. Where did you get the nation that Thomas was alone in his foolishness? In fact more often then not Thomas, Scalia, and Rehnquist vote as a block.

“For what its worth, I doubt Bush is racist either, as his closest and most trusted advisor appears to be black woman.” (Small chuckle), I’ll leave that one alone.

I am all for doing what is good for the country Misha, in fact I will hold that banner high, but at the end of the day if a policy is bad for my family, and undermines my way of life, then I’m against it.

I said nothing about a strict reading of the constitution, I was talking about natural rights and natural law. Scalia has repeatedly said he would not use natural rights in his reasoning and would rely only on texualism- Thomas is far more sympathetic to natural rights (which would actually involve a broader reading of the constitution and offers the only sensible alternative to strict texualism that isnt based upon made up notions that liberal jurisprudence has perverted the constitution into to invent absurd notions like abortion being masgically protected by the constitution).

Also renquist, scalia and thomas always vote together, but the truth is there is much more disagreement between them then with the liberal on the court.

On the broader subject. You can speak to YOUR experience, which is informed by your race, but you cannot speak to experiences of some abstract class of human beings who happen to have the same shade of skin as you. I think I have more in common with people who hold my beliefs about right and wrong than I do with people who happen to be born in a particular country in the world or have a certain shade of skin. I have more in common with a black libertarian than a russian-jewish socialist any day of the week. I do not credit notions like the “black community” or the “russian community”, I believe that each individual person lives their own lives and to the extent that they focus on their race rather than their individuality, they undermine themselves. I respect justice thomas because his beliefs about the law show deap insight, and he would be a much more respected jurist if people would focus more on his ideas than on his race. Focusing on race rather than ideas is one of the things that makes racism so wrong.

let me try that again-

“Also you can continue to claim that renquist, scalia and thomas always vote together but the truth is there is much more disagreement between them then between the liberal on the court.”

there, thats better.

Misha:

While I may appear to be cheerleading, my hat is off to you. What you write makes so much sense. Its hard for me to even fathom that others dont see the sense in it.

To take V.Edward’s position, one would have to also conclude that we are not fit in this blog to comment on politics, UNLESS we happen to be politicians. A man cannot comment on women’s issues, nor a woman on men’s issues. Since you are of Russisn Jewish descent, you may speak only on matters that pertain directly to Russian/Jewish policy. How silly.

We do not simply learn by experiencing, otherwise a raper counselor could never do their job unless they had been raped. An alcoholic would be the only one able to counsel alcoholics.

As humans, we have the capacity to read, learn and reason. It certainly is true that experiencing something can teach us a lot, but to consider it the ONLY means of attaining knowledge is simply wrong.

Misha, keep up the good work.

Misha, I respectfully disagree with you on your position that Black Americans cannot or should not speak for being Black in America and for very large groups of Black Americans in America.

I disagree, because, as Mr. Martin indirectly points out, no one in America can speak from the historical and cultural upbringing that is uniquely Black American. No other persons in America can speak from a history of slavery in their own country. No other American can speak from being Marked for not getting a decent education, a decent job, decent housing, or even decent treatment at commercial establishments. Only Black Americans can speak from and speak for this vantage point of being Marked by their skin color as alien, subordinate, and unequal for their almost entire history of life in America.

It is too easy for others to forget that black children were bombed in their church for no other reason than they were Black Americans, within our lifetimes along with a litany of other atrocities all in living memory of about half of Americans alive today. And discrimination still exists, and is very alive and well here in Texas.

So while the 21 club may speak from their perspective of being well off, well educated, and young enough to have not lived through the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s Civil Rights struggle, Mr. Martin can and does speak for a great many Americans who have lived through that period and have experienced the effects being Marked by their skin color in the eyes of millions of other non-black Americans.

My own family (all white of course) remains divided with many of them choosing to not live with, befriend, or otherwise engage with Black Americans in their lives, and a few still hold adamant beliefs that Black Americans are what is wrong with the economy, the government deficits, and absence of good paying jobs in Detroit, Saginaw and Flint, Michigan.

I was watching some biographic comments about Ronald Reagan a week or so ago. I don’t recall the exact details of when this happened but the person was telling a story about Reagan talking with people near a swimming pool.
He’d notices a little girl had dived in and not surfaced…the old life guard took over and fully clothed he jumped in to save he.
They showed a photograph of him still standing in the pool and the little girl with her parents.

The thing that really caught my attention was the photo clearly showing the girl, and family, were black.

The hateful spirit that exists these days in the poliical culture will always leave detractors slinging whatever slander that comes to mind. For me, the above incident speaks volumes about how Ronald Reagan truly felt when it comes to race.

Marshall, no one’s claming that Reagan would have let a child drown because she was black. Your anecode, while charming, is hardly relevant.

Like most things, when it comes to Reagen, HE was probably not racist, but his policies weren’t the greatest for minorities.

seperating the man and the president is an important thing to differentiate.

martinwitz, Kirk Anderson, the cartoonist said it best said it best in his cartoon Remembering Reagan:

He tripled the National Debt, but had such CHARISMA.

He supported Apartheid, but he was ALWAYS personable.

He backed Saddam, but he made us feel GOOD about ourselves.

He crushed worker’s rights, but he was a man you could sit down and have a beer with.

Starwars turned out to be an expensive fantasy, but he had that INFECTIOUS OPTIMISM!

He backed death squads throughout Central America, but he always looked for the best in everyone.

He lloked the other way when Salvadoran allies raped American nuns, but he had that SELF-DEPRECATING HUMOR!

He confused old movies with foreign policy, but he was always QUICK WITH A JOKE!

He traded arms for hostages and diverted money to drug-running death squads, be he never lost his SUNNY DISPOSITION!

Misha,

As a Black man and a Liberal, I’d have more respect and would welcome Black Conservatives like those in Project 21, if only they stood outfront and openly, and visibly defended their ideals they supposedly hold so dearly.

From what I’ve read and seen, it is only those of us on the Left who should be wary of cyber attacks, a proven tactic by ‘freepers’ on the Right.

Why the obvious anonymous nature of the Project 21? Wouldn’t highly visible members, able to articulate the groups principles, greatly enhance their influence?

Wouldn’t more substanitive writing available on their website, detailing the volume of evidence of how the Republican Party has improved the lives of Black Americans, be more constructive than the diatribes against Bill Clinton that are posted instead?

Misha—

No matter what label you put on it, the Three Conservative Amigo’s always seem to come to the same conclusions and vote as a block, period! To me that means that Thomas holds near and dear to his heart the same strict interpretation of our founding document that Scalia does, and I have no use and very little respect for such narrow views, for they are informed by ignorance and a lack of true understanding of American society, past or present. And it totally ignores the lofty words of the Declaration of Independence, which go a long way in affirming the importance of human rights and dignity over government tyranny.

In the final analysis Misha, it would be nice if people would focus—to quote Martin Luther King—on the content of a persons character and not the color of their skin, but in America I grew up in as a black child this was not so. And still today though much has change, much hasn’t and my children to the last were made to feel inferior by their classmates and in two cases by their teachers, because of their skin color. That is a heavy cross for a child to bear, being hated because of the irremovable color of their skin, and a heart breaking trial for the parent who have to try and explain to the child that brown skin is not a sin, and nothing to be ashamed of. So please tell me not how I should ignore my skin color, other will not let me and mine! Imagine how you would feel if your child came home from school and announced they wanted to be Black!

My life is informed by these and many, many more experiences in my life that convince me that conservatism with its zealous championship of the individual over the collective, business over human dignity and worth, is not the philosophy I wish to be associated with. And jurisprudence that ignores the past, and seeks to deny the rights of human beings and interpret the constitution as if it were the law and not a blue print from which our laws are derived, is not a body of law I wish to be governed by. And I will call anyone to task, black or white, who seeks to foist this narrow vision of existence on me and mine.

And while I agree with you that concentrating of race rather then principle is wrong and gives racism a foothold, it is not I and other blacks who sought to deny others their “natural” and constitutional rights, it was whites, and that above all else is what informed my position.

“No matter what label you put on it, the Three Conservative Amigo’s always seem to come to the same conclusions and vote as a block, period! “

As I have pointed out twice on this thread, that is not only factual untrue (as compared to the left-wing of the court, which is a far more consistent voting block), but oversimplifies the issue. The Decleration of Indepedence is, above all, a natural rights document. If you seriously believe that the Supreme Court should rule in its light, I think you should read Thomas’ writings more carefully, because they are the only ones of the 9 justices today that actually attempt to tackle natural rights in more than scathered opinions. Moreover, you should completely abhor liberal jurisprudence, which has abandoned any attempts to judge in light of the Decleration since about the 1930s. The emergence of the critical legal studies movement, critical race movement, critical feminist theory ect. are all in complete opposition to the Decleration by their own terms. They could quote the line of famous pro-slavery advocates that the Decleration of Indepedence is a “self-evident lie.” If you believe the Decleraiton actually states an absolute truth (As I do), then there is no place for you among liberal jurisprudence of the last 70 years.

You said: “So please tell me not how I should ignore my skin color, other will not let me and mine!”

I think that is actually why you should ignore your skin color. I will bring this back to my own experience, so that maybe you will think I speak with more authority. There are two approaches, in general, taken by russian jews who have managed to escape to America. one is to demand their rights AS jews, entrench themselves in the jewish community and define themselves based on their jewishness. As you can probably tell, i completely reject this school and go along with those that realize that the reason that anti-semitism in the USSR was wrong was because it focused on an irrelavent characteristic. My family suffered a great deal because of a meaningless characteristic it could not control, but I think the healthier choice is to reject the very distinction thats made that prejudice possible. I know many people of all races disagree with this judgement, but I think as long as the other approach is taken, racism will never end (and I think this is shown by the prevalent racist statements made by those in the strongly jewish-pride community about arabs and among the many in the black-pride community about whites. That is not to say that many or most of those who focus on their own race are racist, but constantly focusing on one’s own race can easily lead to putting down other’s races, and often does).

Finally, you said: “zealous championship of the individual over the collective, business over human dignity and worth, is not the philosophy I wish to be associated with.”

If you believe the collective is more important than the individual, then you are indeed the right camp and you shouldnt be a conservative or libertarian. But if a black man or woman believe, like me (and like the authors of the decleration of indepedence, by the way), that government is established to protect the rights of individuals rather than some amporphouse collective, then he SHOULD be a conservative or libertarian and should not be subjected to worse treatement from ANY community because of the shade of his skin. Treating someone different because of the shade of their skin is the very defition of racism.

Misha,
I just wanted you to know that there are a lot of Black Men out there who agree with you on many of the issues. I too am a conservative, probably one of only ones in my entire family. I also feel we do too much finger pointing at everyone else, along with blameshifting. When was the last time our Black leaders actually called for calm when our people were rioting in the streets? When was the last time we heard Jessie Jackson talk about personal responsibility and accountability when it comes to teen pregnancy, parental neglect, dropping out of school or actively seeking employment? I grew up on public assistance, still constantly endure racism, suffered through a job layoff and struggled to get my education, in spite of being a Black male. I am struggling to keep my family intact with 2 parents and just recently built a new home during a bankruptcy and being laid off at the same time. So we all have our stories to tell, but it still all comes down to personal responsiblilty and accountability.

You keep on keeping on!

Kevin from Kansas City

Hahahhahahahahha…This is the most they could come up with:

“As an example of Reagan’s connection to black America, President Reagan corresponded with Ruddy Hines, a black elementary school student in Washington, D.C., throughout his presidency.”

Dear Ruddy:

I hope you are enjoying ketchup in your school lunchroom. It’s a wholesome vegetable, you know! I remember when I was the first soldier to set foot on Iwo Jima. In those dark days, it was the thought of getting home for ketchup that kept me going! Well, I need to go hold a shotgun to my gay son’s head at his wedding.

Your bud,
Gip

Reagan was a right wing-racist who wore the mask of a Religious Conservative, manipulated millions with his seemingly real yet greatly disjointed and pragmatically distant religious optimism and the ingeniously charismatic leadership crafted by his years on the big screen.

Maybe you say that calling him a racist is mean. But hey, he WAS a nice guy. Most racists I meet are very nice people. An incorrect definition of racism (which is what most whites operate on because they do not widely experience it and thus miss half the definition) will cause one to assume that you couldn’t possibly label Reagan, or Bush (Dad or Son) or anyone claiming to agree on whatever social positions I happen to share a racist. But Reagan was a nice, right-wing racist with an awesome smile who was gave great Leadership to those whom he felt were important and held great distant from those whom, he as far as he was concerned, didn’t (or shouldn’t) exist.

Can’t deny his incredibly ability to make people feel better—even the conservative Blacks that he did help—and Help them he did! He helped them move into the suburbs away from those whom he and his racist strategists perceived to be the real Black people…the urban poor—making urban areas poorer—which created a domino affect: Suddenly, prime urban land became cheap. Many of the Blacks left in the cities either killed each other or ended up in jail—just as they’d planned! Now we take back the urban areas and push what’s left of the poor Black folks out to the suburbs with the Blacks we pulled out years ago! Genious leadership! Great Charisma! I can make Black people think we’re they’re friends and do with them what we’ve always wanted to do…own them and move them!

Reagan was a great actor and thus redefined the presidency—he convinced us that we didn’t need to be a great country as long as we could put up a great front. And front he did. But let’s not look at it too negatively. Perhaps at that point, that’s what America needed in the White House—a good actor. He acted well, indeed-made people feel like things were great when things were really crap. Behind the scenes, in real politics, whether you want to admit it or not, those of us who lived (and survived) his era really know who Reagan really was.

But Ronald Reagan has been out of the White House for nearly two decades. And He is dead. God rest his soul. Leave him alone.

Bush however, is still alive…along with Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Ashcroft—all products of the Great Gipper. Let’s talk about him and get HIM out…See, I could tolerate Reagan actually…because he was an actor. He was smart enough to fool me. But Bush-his leadership is flawed, and to add insult to American injury, he’s a terrible actor.

Moreover:

A) Black people DO NOT HAVE ONE LEADER. We have leaders who happen to be Black and speak their minds on the issues and are free (and should be free) to do so. In fact, one could argue that having Jesse Jackson is just as good as having J.C. Watts, because Black people should never be limited to one category of anything.

Further:

B) I am morally conservative (I am Pro-Life and believe that MARRIAGE is an institution of the church and cannot be regulated OR deregulated by the government per the constitutional separation of church and state and as such believe that marriage should be shared only between a man and a woman); a social progressive (PRO affirmative action when administered CORRECTLY and UNASHAMED OF IT; Pro-gun control—particularly since my cousin was killed by a gun—and yet ANTI death penalty because I don’t see being killed by the government as being any better) and a fiscal moderate (believe in smaller government, juxtaposed with a belief that smaller government does NOT mean a government without a responsibility for the systematically disenfranchised).

This is my political identity in America and I thus dislike the legacy of the Conservative 20th century because I am INTELLIGENT. Not because I am an ignorant Black person who votes the way somebody told him, but because I am educated and have, since birth, been educated on the power of my choice. Knowing the power of my choice makes me aware of personal responsibility, makes me aware of what is my fault and what is systematic disenfranchisement, helps me understand how much of my limitations in America are the result of my own decisions and how much are the result of policies that are prejudiced.

It is with all of these understandings that I vote for each individual, not based upon how my family votes, or based upon what ideals people claim to represent. Because of that, I am able to look each candidate and party up and down and conclude that it is presently somewhat problematic for me to be a Democrat because I dislike the idea of my vote being taken for granted. Equally, I definitely find it problematic to be a Republican because I dislike the idea of my experience as a Black man being invalidated.

I conclude then that I have to be an independent, and perhaps, that’s the best resolution because in situations like the upcoming presidential election, people like me force Bush and Kerry to declare whom they really are and for what they truly stand.

That, my friends, is ACTUALLY what Reagan has done for ME…he has made it impossible for ME to take anyone or anything at face value—but to be analytical, unassuming, always attentive, always listening.

I don’t want to keep bringing up Reagan, because I truly want to let him rest. But if Black Conservatives want to thank Reagan for anything, and if Black liberals want to claim Reagan guilty for anything, let’s end the conversation by agreeing that I am a better man because of Reagan, in that because of his era and his legacy, I am not readily accepting of anyone standing in front of the American flag, whether he represent the party of the fat ass or the party of the jackass.