ExcitingAds! Ronald

Michael Reagan: Hollywood should stop lying about my dad

2013-08-31T12:43:00.001-07:00

Tim Graham has a short piece at Newsbusters on Michael Reagan's (I think unquestionably correct) assertion that Hollywood, "want[s] people to remember [Ronald Reagan] the way [they] want to portray him, not the way he really was."

Concerns like this are one of the main reasons this blog was started. As with so many other aspects of American history, those of us who remember the Reagan years must make it our business to pass down our perspective on those years to the next generation. Granted, we may be wrong at times, but are no more susceptible to hero worship or overlooking Reagan's faults than those who write the textbooks are prone to accentuate his faults and celebrate their own chosen heroes (e.g., Wilson, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton, Obama). In the end, we must trust that future generations will be able to weigh the evidence and draw their own faithful conclusions. To do that, however, they must hear from those of us who do not walk in the halls Hollywood, academia, or political power.

News Archive: Sen. Case sees end of "way-out" conservatives

2013-08-03T08:16:00.000-07:00

n. a. (1965, June 27). Sen. Case sees end of way-out conservatives. Sarasota Herald-Tribune, p. 19.

This brief news item records New Jersey Republican Clifford Case's prognostication that anyone advocating the elimination of Social Security, public housing, federal aid to education, et. al. are "the voice of the past." Case named Ronald Reagan specifically as a candidate whose appeal was based solely on nostalgia for an America that had passed.

Leaving aside, for a moment, the point that I don't believe Reagan ever called for the elimination of Society Security or public housing (though he may have once advocated elimination of federal aid to education), it is somewhat ironic that 48 years ago an Establishment New Jersey Republican was critiquing upstarts representing a more Libertarian wing of the party. Not at all like today, right?

For further reading: Jacobs, G. (2013, August 2). Liberty: a dangerous, 'esoteric' idea? The Daily Caller.

From the American Spectator: The GOP: Rabbits or tigers?

2013-07-30T10:02:00.000-07:00

Jeffrey Lord's piece today on the Establishment Republicans' weak-kneed abandoning of Sen. Mike Lee's proposal to defund Obamacare, includes some insightful historical commentary on President Reagan's (sadly failed) attempt to buck up his own party's congressional leadership during the 1984 battle with Democrats over the Clean Water Bill.

Though the post-as-a-whole is rather long (classic Lord), nonetheless I recommend it to readers of the RSS Ronald Reagan both for its overall message, and for its pleasant reminder of what principled, conservative leadership looks like.

Michael Douglas to portray Reagan in "Reykjavik"

2012-11-05T10:44:00.002-08:00

Filming for the Cold War movie will begin in March aims for a 2014 release, focuses on the Reykjavik Summit in 1986 between Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev (played by Christoph Waltz) that, while unsuccessful, ended up establishing a connection between the two world leaders that would ultimately result in the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty the following year... The Times of India

Who else thinks Jon Voight or Clint Eastwood would've been a MUCH better choice?

The Gipper: 45 years ahead of his time...again.

2012-10-30T15:56:00.002-07:00


Source: (1967, January 23). The Robesonian, p. 4.

Democrats hate every kind of oil...well, except snake oil.

2012-10-26T10:52:00.001-07:00

In January 1969, a Union Oil Company well located in a federally-controlled drilling area of the Santa Barbara channel blew out, spilling millions of gallons of crude into the ocean. After a one-week, federally-mandated shut-down of the channel wells, Interior Secretary Walter Hickel lifted the ban allowing other sites to resume drilling. Perhaps the lifting of the federal ban is what initially prompted questions to Governor Reagan regarding a state-initiated ban on drilling off the California coast. Though a lover of nature, Reagan reiterated his conviction that responsible conservation could not be allowed to effectively become a repeal of the Industrial Revolution. Quoth Reagan:

"all of us would be happier if progress didn't require some of the things that take place." But...there must be a happy medium" between the needs of progress, not only in the Santa Barbara channel but in other areas of industrial development, and preservation of natural beauty. n. a. (1969, February 7). Reagan won't act. The Spokesman-Review, p. 1

The irony was that California regulations were already stricter than the federal ones. (Remember, the blow-out occurred at a federally-controlled site).

A major concern to state and local officials is strengthening of federal rules to meet those of state regulations governing drilling for oil under the ocean. Gov. Ronald Reagan had said that the federal standards are only a third as strict as the state's. He has called on the federal government to adopt the state's tougher minimum regulations. n. a. (1969, February 18). Company officials asked to explain causes of oil leak. The Bulletin, p. 12.

By early March, Sec. Hickel announced that the Reagan administration had been cooperative with efforts to execute an "across the board" review of offshore drilling regulations. n. a. (1969, March 6). Hickel allows Union Oil Co. to start drilling. St. Petersburg Times, p. 14-A.

In contrast, to Reagan's rather even-handed approach to balancing ecology with economic development, Speaker of the California Assembly Jesse Unruh (D.) introduced a bill describing oil production itself as an "ultra hazardous" activity entailing "extreme danger to property." Unruh sought to force companies to accept 100% liability for any property damages suffered by individuals or governments in the case of runaway off-shore drilling. As if this were not draconian enough, as the bill made its way through committee its original focus on off-shore drilling was deemed insufficient, and the language was changed to apply to all drilling activities. n.a. (1969, April 30). Californians move to place drillers liable for damage. The Bulletin, p. 11.

Aside from the obviously questionable assertion that drilling for oil was a extreme threat to California homeowners, a Richard Roddin article from July of 1969 belies what I suspect was Unruh's real target--getting the State's hands on the wealth of oil companies. In reporting on the gridlock surrounding state budget negotiations, Roddin said that "demands by the [Democrats] for tax reform and increased school financing were are the bottom of the controversy." Roddin, R. (1969, July 1). Dispute leaves state dangling minus budget. The Modesto Bee, p. A-1. Now the language of "tax reform" is frequently used by politicians to obfuscate their real intentions. All "tax reform" means, is that a change is sought; But what is really important to citizens is what specific changes are being sought, and what are the likely effects of such changes? Roddin went on to note that a proposed compromise bill, which came to the Assembly floor in the was rejected by the Democrats. What's revealing is the reason given for the rejection:

The main feature...was an increase in state aid for schools from $105 million, the amount proposed by the governor to $198.2 million. It seemed that this met one of the principal demands of the Democrats, more school money. But tax reform was missing...In urging defeat of the report, Unruh...said one thing the Democrats are concerned about is that six major oil companies take in $6.6 billion and pay only 6 per cent on their profits...Roddin, R. (1969, July 1). Dispute leaves state dangling minus budget. The Modesto Bee, p. A-6.

And so--I would suggest-- the benignly-phrased "tax reform" the Democrats wanted, really boiled down to, "We want to get our hands on the oil companies profits." This is really nothing more than the Left-wing canard we've heard so frequently from President Obama that the wealthy are not "paying their fair share"

So, to review, we had a private company oil leak on a federally-leased strip of land, while the feds' drilling regulations were more lax than the state regulations in effect under Governor Reagan; And in the immediate aftermath of the spill, the Reagan administration was (apparently) in full-cooperation with the Interior Department to review and revise existing drilling regulations. The overall picture, then, is one of Governor Reagan doing all he can to help the feds clean up their own mess.

Meanwhile, Unruh and the Democrats were attempting to effectively prohibit all drilling in California--hence, eliminating all the energy-sector jobs that that came with drilling. When his bill failed (by a single vote) to pass the Assembly, charges were made (conveniently enough, by unnamed accusers) that Reagan was somehow responsible for its defeat. In response, Reagan drew attention to the fact that Unruh himself wasn't even present during the vote. At the time, Unruh was out campaigning for governor. Apparently, the Democrat considered his leadership so important, that he simply couldn't be bothered to come off the campaign trail and actually exercise some of it. But then, that would never happen today, right?

Who was to blame for California's controversial Social Welfare cuts in the summer of 1970? (Part II)

2012-09-14T18:00:00.000-07:00

Fourkas, T. (1970, July 28). Welfare official says haste, budget crisis prompted cuts. The Modesto Bee, p. B5.

Chief deputy director of the CA Department of Social Welfare, Charles Hobbs, reported that the short-lived budget cuts which caused such a brouhaha were the result of his office being "hurried." Hobbs stopped short of painting Reagan as the bad guy, though it is possible that he intended to imply ignorance on the governor's part. It is clear that certain "unnamed sources" sought to promote this view--a desire which the Bee may have shared, as evidenced by its inclusion of the opinions of these "unnamed sources" that:

...the changes were made because the Reagan administration did not understand how the program was handled in the past.

When told that Reagan denied being too hasty, Hobbs replied:

From the governor's view, things moved with logic and calculated speed. But from our point of view, they moved too hastily, because we couldn't measure what would happen, what the counties would do with the changes.

Hobbs argued that problems stemmed from the fact that authority to translate the initial cost-cutting goals into specific cuts was handled not by the Social Welfare Department, but rather by Director of Finance, Verne Orr. County officials (presumably Welfare Department officials) claimed that the Orr cuts were written in such a way that it left them "little room for interpretation."

Governor Reagan did not buy this argument, and accused the county welfare workers of intentionally trying to sabotage the budget-cutting process by "following the letter, but not the intent of the regulations." Presumably, this meant that Governor Reagan felt the county welfare workers did have adequate discretionary powers, but that they simply chose to exercise those powers in a way likely to be most politically-damaging to the administration's push to trim the size of government.

One may dispute whether Reagan's or Hobb's interpretation of the "bind" in which county welfare workers found themselves was most accurate; But it is clear that Hobb's notion of what needed to be done was decidedly different from Reagan's. Reagan wanted the budgets cut to address the state's financial crisis. Hobb's, alternatively, merely spoke in terms of "improving" the Social Welfare Department:

The important thing is we make some changes in a system that is pretty bad, and that we make them not in terms of saving money but in terms of improving the system and involving more welfare recipients in the process

The Bee article ends with a report of the aforementioned unnamed sources' speculations regarding why the Reagan administration "decided" the Social Welfare program was out of control.

Hopefully, as my research advances I'll find ever more discussion and explanation of just what happened here. As always, I welcome informed and verifiable comments!

Update: 7/30/2013 It seems that the Modesto Bee issue cited above is no longer available through Google News. I leave the citation in the event that anyone wishes to locate the hard copy and consider the original article for themselves.

On the 'arrogant social workers' of California

2012-08-27T10:48:00.000-07:00

n. a. (1970, July 26). Reagan: 'Arrogant social workers'. Boca Raton News, p. 2A.

It's very curious to me that I've never before heard of this dust-up between Governor Reagan and the unionized social workers of California--either from Reagan's fans or foes. Apparently, $10 million in state funds were scheduled to be cut from California's social services budget. Coupled with the consequent loss of $15 million in federal matching funds, this would have led to an overall reduction of $25 million in social services.

Reagan came across as uncharacteristically harsh when he labelled the social workers "arrogant."

...the governor charged social workers with "terrorizing" the most needy recipients by ordering their aid stopped. He [Reagan] insisted the cutbacks which had been scheduled to take effect Aug. 1 were not intended to force any truly deserving recipient out of his home and into a county hospital or nursing institution..."Apparently, the regulation was worded in such a way that they (social workers) could claim they were adhering to the letter while they violated the spirit...This is a clear subversion of our intent and can only be interpreted as an attempt to sabotage our efforts toward responsible administration of the program."

Admittedly, I'm a Reagan fan--one can't dismiss the influence of that--but the very strength of Reagan's rebuke (combined with the curious subsequent silence on this historical episode) lead me to seriously suspect that his language was more than warranted.

I hope to devote some time in the future to learning more about this budget fight. Any knowledgeable and documented input from my readers would be greatly appreciated.

Modesto Bee editorialist stung by Reagan

2012-08-24T10:44:00.003-07:00

n. a. (1970, July 22). Delayed reaction of budget cuts. The Modesto Bee, p. A12.

In this editorial The Modesto Bee warned against dire future consequences that could fall upon California like a biblical plague due to: wait for it...Reagan-led budget cuts! That's right. Future Californians could look forward to rampant ignorance, not due to bad pedagogies and educational philsophies, but rather as a direct result of the fact that in 1970 the eeeevil Ronald Reagan championed a budget that refused "cost of living raises" to the university professoriate (elementary and secondary school teachers, by the way, received raises).

Similarly, the roads of California were doomed to be littered with bodies like some post-apocalyptic Mad Max horrorscape, as the direct consequence of Darth Reagan's cutting of $1.4 million from the budget of a conspicuously unnamed, "long-standing improvement program for negligent drivers." To bolster it's case, the Bee cited a report in the wholly-unpartisan-utterly-objective-and-disinterested L.A. Times that this short-sighted budget-hawkery:

...could result in about 35,000 negligent drivers remaining on the road this year who otherwise would have been removed...[I]n producing a budget cut, the public's interest in improving the safety of drivers on the state's crowded highways is damaged.

Update: 7/ 28/2013 -- It seems that many of the Modesto Bee issues heretofore available through Google News have disappeared. I have tried to locate another digital copy of the original editorial, but have been unable to do so.

Reagan and (2/5 of) the Rat Pack

2012-08-22T10:39:00.000-07:00

n. a. (1970, July 16). Dean Martin backs Reagan. The Bulletin, p. 25.

n. a. (1970, July 16). Dean Martin may support Reagan. The Free Lance-Star, p. 8.

n. a. (1970, July 16). Dean Martin falls in behind Frank Sinatra. The Modesto Bee, p. A3.

The above three articles all link to the announcement that long-time Democratic entertainer Dean Martin (of "Rat Pack" fame) would be joining Frank Sinatra in supporting Reagan's reelection campaign for California Governor. For some reason, the Modesto Bee felt it newsworthy to point out that Governor Reagan flubbed and all-but-unveiled the Martin endorsement a bit early.

Nancy Reagan: A prophet in her time

2012-08-20T10:40:00.000-07:00

Lederer, E. (1970, July 12). Country needs a romantic movie, says foe of hippies, drugs, feminists. The Eugene Register-Guard, p. 2E.

In this article, Lederer chronicles the then-California First Lady's blunt opposition to a whole host of societal changes that were heralded by many in the late '60s as part of the inexorable march toward justice. Among this august list were: pornography, sexual libertinism, abortion, drug use, the feminist movement (as expressed by champions of the ultimately failed Equal Rights Amendment, fashion, etc. A few of her choice quotes:

Over forty years later, Mrs. Reagan's remarks would likely incite just as much virulent opposition (perhaps more) than they did in 1970; Yet one wonders whether there might not be another collection of women who grew up under the influence of a society that rejected Mrs. Reagan's advice all those years ago. What might they tell us? I suspect there would be many more people who affirm the legitimacy of her prophetic warnings, than our major media outlets would admit.

I would love to hear from RSS Ronald Reagan readers on this question. What say you?

Reagan and the 1970-1971 California budget battle

2012-08-17T10:49:00.001-07:00

n. a. (1970, July 6). Reagan signs record high state budget. Lodi News-Sentinel, p. 2.

This article reports on how a small group of California Senate Democrats finally cracked to pass the state budget for 1970-1971. Prior to this, Assembly Democrats had successfully blocked the legislation and were essentially forcing a state government shut down unless Reagan acquiesced to their demands for an additional $180 million dollars in state aid to local schools. While the article--somewhat suspiciously--noted that the approved budget "included $15,000 in rent for Reagan's private leased residence in Sacramento" [emphasis added], the piece did acknowledge that Reagan's refusal to sign off on yet another expansion of state aid to schools came after he had, in fact, caved to Democratic demands for more school funding in the previous budget year (1969).

Though acknowledging that seven senate Democrats ultimately voted for passage, the article makes special note of the "pressure" applied to Sens. Larry Walsh and Walter W. Stiern. It is unclear why these two legislators merited this "special" journalistic treatment.

Wicker on Reagan as a looming threat in the 1972 presidential election

2012-08-16T09:38:00.000-07:00

Wicker, T. (1970, July 1). News behind the news: The specter of Ronald Reagan. The Modesto Bee, p. A14.

In this article, Wicker explains why he felt the instability in Cambodia (specifically, the ambiguous nature of the Nixon administration's commitments to assist the Lon Nol government), combined with general war-weariness of the American public placed President Nixon in a precarious political situation. The lack of certainty even prompted Oregon Senator Mark Hatfield to opine that the Republican party might "dump" President Nixon in 1972, and nominate Ronald Reagan in his stead.

Update 8/3/2013: The cited issue of the Modesto Bee seems to have been removed from Google News.

Reagan: The Great Coalition Builder

2012-07-27T11:15:00.000-07:00

John Heubusch has a good reminder at the Daily Caller of just how Ronald Reagan got his economic program through a Democratic House, and so inaugurated a turbo-charged peacetime economy.

Donovan on Republican prospects in the wake of the Goldwater defeat

2012-07-17T13:29:00.000-07:00

Donovan, R. (1965, February 14). Republicans overcoming ’64 defeat. The Spokesman-Review, p. 4.

In this article discussing the broad outlines of how the GOP sought to rebuild itself following the Goldwater defeat of November 1964, Robert Donovan mentioned Ronald Reagan in passing as a leader—alongside William F. Knowland, Walter Knott, and Joseph Shell--of “a new right wing group called Citizens for Constructive Action”

News Archive: Politics is bustin' out all over

2012-07-16T10:26:00.001-07:00

Bell,J. (1965, February 15). Politics is bustin’ out all over. The Owosso Argus-Press, p. 18.

While taking a larger look at political trends across the nation in early 1965, Jack Bell reported on what may be interpreted as an early bit of evidence for the Republican Establishment’s attempts to marginalize Ronald Reagan.

Bell’s take was that then-House Republican leader (and future presidential primary opponent, Gerald Ford) was essentially telling Reagan to stay in California if he had any serious political aspirations of his own. While acknowledging that Reagan’s national speaking tour on behalf of 1964 GOP presidential nominee Barry Goldwater made a great impact in states such as Michigan and Illinois, Ford nevertheless told an assembled news conference, “We Republicans don’t’ believe in carpet-bagging like the Democrats do.”

Could this be the first recorded instance of national-level "Reagan envy"?

News Archive: Goldwater returns Reagan's favor(s)

2012-07-15T10:11:00.000-07:00

n.a. (1965, February 23). Barry boosts actor Reagan, asks Viet win. The Modesto Bee, p. A-12.

This brief reports on Barry Goldwater’s early support of a Reagan gubernatorial candidacy. Goldwater told attendees of the Americanism Education League, “I’ve tried to beguile [Reagan] to run for office before and now the time is getting ripe. You folks keep the pressure on him.”

Update: As of 8/31/2013, the link above returns a 404 error message (like all the Modesto Bee material hyperlinked on this blog). It is unknown if the Bee ever plans to restore access to its archived papers.

UROC's Nagel backs Reagan

2012-07-14T09:31:00.001-07:00

n. a. (1965, May 3). Reagan favored by United GOP leader. LodiNews-Sentinel, p. 1.

This short article covers the announcement by Sunsville, CA rancher, two-time Republican candidate for Congress, and chairman of the United Republicans of California, Frederic H. Nagel Jr., that Ronald Reagan would be “his choice for governor next year.”

Nagel reflected his opinion that UROC had gone through “a settling period” which would result in the organization being a “solid, practical, common-sense, realistic, unhyphenated Republican organization. But we’re not going to be a liberal organization.”

Remarks at a Rally Supporting the Proposed Constitutional Amendment for a Balanced Federal Budget

2012-06-16T11:32:00.000-07:00

July 19, 1982...

Chamberlain, J. (1966, August 11). GOP conservatism rides rising tide. The Evening Independent, p. 12-A.

2012-06-14T10:40:00.000-07:00

Chamberlain, J. (1966, August 11). GOP conservatism rides rising tide. TheEvening Independent, p. 12-A.

In a quote that sounds as if it could be pulled from the headlines in 2012, John Chamberlain noted in 1966 that:

The self-styled moderate Republicans who as often as not are characterized by the immoderation with which they denounce their opponents, keep on contending that their supporters constitute the mainstream of Republicanism. But what they can’t explain is why the mainstream isn’t flowing through the voting booths in their direction in the primaries.

The article goes on to cite the primary defeats of incumbent Idaho governor Robert Smylie, as well as alleged shenanigans on the part of a Smylie protégé, Hope Kadling, with regards to the conservative Young Republicans.

Chamberlain goes on to note:

The Republican tide, in virtually all states west of the Alleghenies and south of the Potomac, continues to flow in a conservative direction.

Chamberlain perceived Ronald Reagan’s impressive showing in the CA Republican primary as, “part of a general groundswell.”

In contrast to our current tendency to envision a bicameral Republican Party (i.e., conservatives and moderates/liberals, or Tea Party types and “establishment Republicans”), in his day Chamberlain saw an authentic middle between the factions represented by Reagan and Goldwater, and that led by Smylie, Scott, et al. Chamberlain considered the middle ground to be occupied by the likes of Richard Nixon and George Romney.

In an excellent illustration of history’s cyclical nature, Chamberlain closed with comments that could be applied (with some minor tweaks) to our current presidential election:

Will all the little disaffections (strikes, the high cost of living, the failure of antipoverty programs, violence in the slums, the disappearance of investment capital, the collapse of the housing industry, and the uncertainties of the Vietnamese war) combining to plague the Democrats, 1966 could be a Republican year.

Ya think?

Building the Infrastructure of Democracy: Reagan's Legacy 30 Years Later

2012-06-13T10:33:00.000-07:00

John Sullivan of the Center for International Private Enterprise has a nice homage to President Reagan's Westminster Address and it's role in fostering the expansion of democracy around the world.

During the last 30 years, totalitarian regimes have fallen and democracies have risen in all corners of the world, proving that people do strive, inexorably and eventually, toward freedom. At the end of his speech at Westminster, President Reagan harkened back to Sir Winston Churchill, who so masterfully led the British people through the Blitz, "So let us ask ourselves, 'What kind of people do we think we are?' And let us answer, 'Free people, worthy of freedom and determined not only to remain so but to help others gain their freedom as well.'" This is a generational task, one (as the president pointed out) that will not be accomplished in the span of a single generation. But it is a legacy not only for President Ronald Reagan but for all of those involved. It is a legacy well worth pursuing.

News Archives: "Reagan writes us off"

2012-06-11T19:55:00.001-07:00

n. a. (1966, August 9). Reagan writes us off. Washington Afro-American, p. 4.

This article, appearing in the Washington edition of the Afro-American, charged Reagan with “[writing] off the support of colored Californians.” In tones reminiscent of contemporary accusations that conservatives use "code language," the paper charged Reagan with failing to:

…come out candidly and state that he is aiming his appeal to the white backlash vote…Instead he keeps up a constant drumbeat about “a segment of our citizens who makes welfare a profession” thus planting in the minds of white suburbanites the false idea that it is their tax money which keeps people like ghetto residents of Watts living in idleness.

He also slyly insinuates the state’s increasing crime rate, illegitimacy and promiscuity must be charged to these same lazy, unproductive elements, leaving an impression that none of them have white skins…

Noticeably absent, is an explanation of precisely how decrying those who would make welfare a profession is tantamount to suggesting that the only people who abuse the welfare system are black.

On the 30th Anniversary of Reagan's Westminster Address

2012-06-08T10:41:00.000-07:00

John Heubusch, Executive Director of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation, has written an excellent piece on Reagan's 1982 Westminster Address in which he proclaimed that Marxism-Leninism would be left on the "ash heap of history."

On the continuing saga of Reagan's blood vial

2012-06-04T11:43:00.000-07:00

Alex Dobuzinskis has written a piece for Reuters on threats of legal action from the Reagan Foundation against PFC Auctions if it turns out that the ballyhooed vial does, indeed, contain the blood of former President Reagan.

Tale of 1984 Irish assassination attempt on Reagan is told

2012-06-01T08:05:00.000-07:00

I ran across an interesting story by Kerry O'Shea of the Irish Central about President Reagan's visit to his ancestral home of Ballyporeen in 1984. Apparently a man attempted to shake Reagan's hand while concealing a piece of broken glass in his hand. The attempt was, of course, thwarted.

Disappointingly, both O'Shea's piece and a post he cites by Barry Duggan and Ralph Riegel fail to elaborate on the reason for the assassination attempt beyond the phrase, "The man...wanted to confront Mr Reagan over US foreign policy controversies."