The deification is even more pathetic ... (4.00 / 3)

when people know what Ray-gun's real record was .. and one other thing ... I know a lot of Democrats wish we had the second coming of FDR now ... but Democrats don't worship FDR like Republicans/Conservatives do Ray-gun ... it's truly creepy

---

by: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle @ Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 14:02:17 PM CDT

Jealousy? (4.00 / 4)

I think the Republicans are jealous of just how transformative FDR was to the country, so they insist on building up Reagan's reputation to make him larger than life. And they can't worship Lincoln and TR, 'cause they were sissy liberals.

Democrats certainly came close to worshipping FDR in the 20 years after his Presidency. Even JFK talked about how much he was like FDR. Hopefully the Reagan worship will wear off once there are other Republicans in office that the country is proud of.

...Actually, in that case, it may take longer than I thought.

---

by: Kal @ Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 14:22:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

they worship him (4.00 / 3)

because he was the last Republican president to successfully bullshit the American people and get away with it.

Eisenhower was not conservative enough for them. Nixon almost got away clean but his paranoid need for vengeance tripped him up. Bush I was a one-termer. Bush II screwed things up so badly that he brought the GOP down with him.

But Reagan managed to get through two terms with his reputation intact, even though he did so much damage.

That's why they revere him, because they prize the ability to deceive others above all else.

---

by: limpidglass @ Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 14:49:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

While I oppose putting Reagan on anything (0.00 / 0)

except perhaps the capitol washroom, I do wonder why anything is still around to honor Ulysses S. Grant.  He was an incompetent president who ran a corrupt administration.  

---

by: Valatan @ Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 14:07:46 PM CDT

He also won us the Civil War (4.00 / 3)

So, you know, there are some points in his favor.  

---

by: Kal @ Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 14:17:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Then put Ike on the $50 (0.00 / 0)

he won us WWII as a general, and managed to be an average President, rather than a horrifically bad one.

---

by: Valatan @ Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 14:32:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Ike wasn't President yet (0.00 / 0)

when the decision to put grant on the $50 bill was made..In fact he was 22 and still at West Point.  

---

by: DTOzone @ Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 15:05:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Ike got some brief coinage (0.00 / 0)

glory in the 70s when he was put on the silver dollar.  Haven't seen that one circulating in many years.

Agree he was an average president -- attempts to glorify him by fabricating historians like Stephen Ambrose to the contrary notwithstanding.

Someone will have to school me about his generalship abilities.  I see it as a mixed bag but positive overall, what with having to deal with Monty and the bold stroke at Normandy.  On the downside, there was the bloody mess of US troops being shot as they stepped out of their boats at Normandy, then the bogging down in the hedgerows of northern France for many weeks as the invasion forces nearly met with disaster and the Allied generals seemed flummoxed as to what to do.    

---

by: Brodie @ Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 19:48:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Really? (4.00 / 2)

Grant rebuilt a shattered nation that President Johnson had neglected.  The nation was unified by rail and telegraph and he actually had what today we would call an Industrial Policy and the nation moved quickly from its agrarian base into the robust beginnings of the industrialized nation that came to dominate the world's international merchantilist trading regime.   He actually implemented Reconstruction in the South and did more for African-Americans and Native Americans than any President before him, except for Lincoln. Corruption?  Yes, no doubt, but even that needs to be seen in the context of the no-holds-barred industrialization of America.

Read the Jean Edward Smith biography, "Grant", for a full picture of Grant, warts, booze, and all.

---

by: ArthurKC @ Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 14:53:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Grant tried to (4.00 / 1)

implement something approaching what Lincoln might have done in the South, which was definitely sterner stuff than the kids glove treatment accorded treasonous Southerners by the peculiar and racist Andrew Johnson.

Grant generally got an unfair rap from historians for too long, with the corruption of some around him, plus his drinking, driving the narrative into serious negative territory.  Conversely, historians for most of the first half or more of the 20th C tended to give Andy Johnson, a heavy drinker himself, a semi-pass as they wrote of his impeachment as completely unjustified.  This somehow elevated him, though not to greatness for sure, as a decent though flawed president victimized terribly by a highly politicized Congress.  Some recent scholars of this period, however, are beginning to correct the record.

---

by: Brodie @ Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 19:58:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Grant's genius (4.00 / 2)

Grant's genius was to work out a plan and then to carry it out without hesitation with full energy and determination.  If McClellan, for one, had done that, Richmond would have been captured in 1862 rather than 1865.

It was Grant's character, in its largest sense, that brought him victory.  Sherman or Lee were much smarter.  Grant was a man who devoted no energy to defeat or pessimism.  He accomplished much more than Reagan despite those warts.  Interesting (to me anyone) is that Grant was an average man who did amazing things.  The average soldier in the Union army was 5 feet 8 and weighed 145 pounds.  Grant who wore a private's uniform with officer insignia, was 5 feet 8 and 145 pounds.  

Grant was a very popular man in the late 1800s.  He wrote a very good autobiography that compares very favorably to Ike's snooze fest.  He was modest, a hard worker, and a team player.  Putting him on a bill is merited.

---

by: David Kowalski @ Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 20:20:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I agree that Grant doesn't really belong on the $50 (4.00 / 1)

All the other bills (except perhaps the $1) have a reverse that corresponds to the person on the obverse.  Lincoln gets the Lincoln Memorial, Hamilton the Treasury, Jackson the WH, Franklin the Independence Hall.

Grant is paired with the U.S. Capitol, which makes no sense as he never served in Congress. (Of course, neither did Reagan.)

I think we should replace Grant with someone significant who made his name in Congress.  Someone like... Ted Kennedy?

---

by: liberalmaverick @ Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 17:29:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm picturing this (0.00 / 0)

I love thinking about all of the right-wing heads exploding.

"Ted Kennedy what?"

Thanks for the image!

Karl in Drexel Hill, PA

---

by: KB @ Fri Apr 23, 2010 at 12:04:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Reagan: Largest Peacetime Tax Increase Ever (4.00 / 1)

and it stimulated the economy:

http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/...

---

by: ArthurKC @ Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 14:57:10 PM CDT

What I was gonna say (0.00 / 0)

---

by: liberalmaverick @ Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 17:26:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thanks (0.00 / 0)

I'm glad this conservative wet dream is finally running out of juice.  I needed to hear a bit of public sanity today after reading about chicken lady Sue Lowden in Nevada - another GOP airhead.

I had to double check that the Reagan Pyramid article was from the Onion - such are the times we live in, and the nutty conservatives that anything is believable with them.

---

by: alyosha @ Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 16:30:39 PM CDT

Don't even get me started on (4.00 / 2)

ReaganWashington National Airport.


Me on Facebook
Me on Twitter

---

by: Adam Bink @ Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 16:43:47 PM CDT

The Protestant equivalent of the Latin Mass (0.00 / 0)

Right-wingers have an instinctive distrust of anything that messes with either their guns or their money. (I'm actually surprised that tea-baggers haven't weighed in on our pink ten-dollar bills.) They may believe that Reagan was anointed by God Almighty Hisself, but cash is really sacred.

---

by: William Timberman @ Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 16:50:40 PM CDT

Put him on the 1$ coin (0.00 / 0)

nobody but collectors will see it and because the coin has a history of change it will be short-lived. Make it huge and heavy so it feels like an albatross in your pocket or purse.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 17:27:14 PM CDT

Reagan will probably (0.00 / 0)

make it on to the $1 coin, but that's because there's been since 2007 a Presidential Dollar Coin Series in place that seeks to commemorate all of the deceased ones in a continual release format like the States Quarter Series we've all seen.

Problem is, I haven't seen any of these presidential circulating coins.  They haven't seemed to circulate my way even though, according to what I read, millions have been minted and the series is all the way up to Millard Fillmore (#13).

Supposed to be some First Ladies Coin also out there.  Anyone seen these?

Maybe I need to get out there and spend more and I'd get some of these nifty-looking coins that are supposed to be available.  As it is, I only see the occasional Sacagawea or Susan B. Anthony $1 coin from the Post Office.

---

by: Brodie @ Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 19:41:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

My point exactly (0.00 / 0)

give RR an honor that befits his status: a coin no one will ever, or rarely, use.

I was not aware of the Presidential coin series, however.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Fri Apr 23, 2010 at 09:01:16 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

American Public (4.00 / 1)

This is one instance where the ignorance (for lack of a better word) of the American public is a net plus. Most Americans couldn't name anything that happened during Grant's presidency, and most probably have no idea about some of the things Reagan did. But every American does at least remember learning about the Civil War, and that Grant was the victorious general. The fact that he became president just proves to Americans that he was a great man.

I happen to like Grant, and think he was a vastly underrated man and president. His Reconstruction record was pretty good (especially on Civil Rights). His administration was wracked by scandal, but I don't really blame him as the spoils system was in full force in this period. I will say that the country changed enormously in his eight years, as by 1876 the United States was the top industrial power in the world. It wasn't his achievement, but at least he didn't stop it from happening.

Washington (and Hamilton), Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, FDR and Kennedy are all on money and represent the various ages of our country. The industrialization period of the late 1800s-early 1900s is not represented, and if Teddy Roosevelt cannot be on some money, then Grant is a decent enough man to represent that time period on currency. He's better than Woodrow Wilson, at least.

---

by: ctman @ Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 21:54:34 PM CDT

I don't understand why we don't push back harder on this... (0.00 / 0)

It's become route to accept W. Bush as "the worst ever" but truthfully, that legacy began with Reagan.  

It's Reagan who actively turned his back on manufacturing and transformed our economy into the debt-based, financial roulette wheel that exclusively funnels money upwards at the expense of everyone else...  It was Reagan that embraced any and all brown-skinned boogie men to throw buckets of money at the Pentagon...  And it was Reagan that openly mocked President Carter's shrewd realization that we can no longer go on relying on fossil fuels to feed our energy needs.

Thanks for that, President HERO!!!

Worst ever. Bush just copied this guy's play book.  We allow the continued deification of Reagan at our own peril.  

---

by: dirtycrumbs @ Fri Apr 23, 2010 at 20:01:02 PM CDT