In article <81hgc0ln4p8nv68q3m3monjlsmj9ocpcdv@4ax.com>, Michael Cash
<buggeroff@fake.com> wrote:

> >I've never known a time when a sitting president wasn't lambasted by
> >the opposition. By our avoiding discussing his record while president,
> >Reagan has became some kind of mythic martyr to all things good and
> >right and holy. Of course George Bush signing a presidential order to
> >keep such records "temporarily" classified as long as they have living
> >relatives will certainly help in bolstering the legacy of the "great
> >communicator".
> 
> I don't mind people having different views of his record. Nor do I
> mind people discussing them. I just think that it's common decency to
> refrain from doing so from the time of death until the time of burial.

The original poster mentioned that Reagan was lambasted for stupidity
during his tenure.  That's not my memory.  I don't think my memory was
a political snipe. Of course one shouldn't speak ill of a man as he's
being buried, but I think hot-wiring his legacy to Bush so that we
can't discuss Bush's stupidity is a bit much.

> And I'd feel the same were it a politician about whom I held negative
> views.

I think it's commonly viewed that while he had a lingering disease,
these past 14 years, was also a period during which a realistic
assessment of his career was in poor taste.  I assume it will always be
common decency to morph his career to suit Republican political 
purpose, and any facts will be considered reprehensible politics.

Nevertheless my criticisms above and before were about Bush. How long
after Reagan's season of honorment can we begin discussing Bush again?

-- 
First they gerrymander us into one-party fiefs. Then they tell us they only
care about the swing districts. Then they complain about voter apathy.
 -- Gail Collins