National Public Reagan

So, thees last week, while working on sometheeng else, I was unable to avoid hearing a comentary from one Merrill Matthews, a rightweengnut apologista who has worked for more than one conservative thinktank, and contributes not just at NPR, but also at the wonderfully unbiased news source Human Events.

A quick glance at his offerings on the IPI's "policy bites" page reveals that Mr Matthews has advocated for the cause of large Pharmaceutical companies and large HMO's, and een '98 the IPI supported big tobacco companies, in their fight weeth Congress over reform legislation.

Here ees a typical example of one of Matthews "policy bites"

IPI SoundBytes #62: Is There a Solution to Global Warming? November 8th, 2006 Merrill Matthews Jr. SoundBytes Is There a Solution to Global Warming?     The Institute for Policy Innovation’s Dr. Merrill Matthews says one scientist has an interesting plan.      Most climate scientists believe the earth is getting warmer. The more controversial question is whether or not humans are causing it.     Now a Nobel Prize-winning scientist has proposed a solution to global warming—an answer taken from nature itself.    Professor Paul Crutzen noticed that when Mt. Pinatubo erupted in 1991, it spewed sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere, which lowered global temperatures by 0.5 degrees Celsius for a year, with no negative environmental effects.         The professor says that by artificially injecting sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, it would deflect some solar radiation, thus cooling the earth      Not everyone likes the proposal, of course. After years of complaining that humans are causing global warming, it appears some wouldn’t be any happier with human-caused global cooling. For more SoundBytes, go to ipi.org

Now that ees the kind of innovative policy making that our country needs more of, no?

So, Matthews ees pretty conservative, and eef joo go to NPR's site to listen to the story from yesterday, thees ees how mentioned in the intro to the piece:

All Things Considered, October 10, 2007 · In light of Fred Thompson entering the presidential race, our conservative, Reagan-loving commentator wonders whether even President Reagan could live up to his own reputation, because the conservative movement has changed a lot in the past 20 years.

Of course, yesterday, live on-air, when pipples were listening, Matthews was not described as "conservative" or "Reagan loving", just as "commentator Merrill Matthews".

The task of determining why NPR saw fit to mention thees een their online version of the story, but not live when eet aired, I weel leave as an exercise for the reader.

Fred Thompson's decision to run for president has raised the question of whether he will be the next Reagan Conservative. Like Reagan, Thompson is an actor, exudes a likeable charm, and possesses good communication skills. But could the real Ronald Reagan live up to what's become "The Reagan Legacy"? Don't misunderstand me, I think Reagan was a good conservative, and a great president. I have a large bust of Reagan in my office, and I wear Reagan cufflinks.

Matthews also sports Reagan ties, Reagan socks, Reagan boxers, and an original pair of Bedtime for Bonzo™ Dr. Dentons weeth Smilin' Ron's face plastered right across the coal-chute.

I'm a Reagan man.

¡And how!

But Reagan took steps in his eight years as Governor of California, and eight years as president, that would be slammed by many of today's conservatives, including me! When I look back, it's hard to believe some of his actions on issues like taxes, social security, abortion and immigration. What's the most important issue for conservatives today?

Sliming brain damaged 12 year olds, and their leetle seesters.

It's probably their opposition to raising taxes. Yet Reagan approved tax increases as governor, along with spending cuts, in an effort to balance the state budget.

By contrast, today's conservatives know that balanced budgets are just a plot by godless socialistas to turn our children eento limousine-liberal, welfare-queen-o-fascists. After all, as our modern conservative Vice President, El Cyborgo, famously stated: "Reagan proved deficits don't matter"

As president, Reagan cut the top income tax rates, which had a huge positive impact on the economy, but he raised other ones, and he dramatically increased government spending, primarily on defense.

¿Increased defense spending?  Modern conservatives would never countenance that.

What about reforming social security so that people deposit their payroll tax in their own personal accounts?

Talking point alert- "Social Security: Just Like a Bank Account."

President Reagan talked about such accounts, but he followed the recommendations of his advisory commission, led by Alan Greenspan

¡That communist!

which raised payroll taxes and ignored personal accounts.

Now, truly, we are through the looking-glass. Greenspan, under Reagan, started the biggest scam ever pulled on the poor and middle class een thees country. Reagan raised the payroll tax, wheech disproportionately affects poor and middle class Americans, een the name of saving Social Security.
The money from the payroll tax increase was put eento a fund that was supposed to ensure Social Security's continued solvency.

A generation later, Greenspan, thees time under El Chimperador, gave the entire fund away as tax-breaks for the rich, wheech (surprise) once again imperiled Social Security.

¿Modern conservatives are suppose to despise Reagan for thees?

On social issues, Reagan signed legislation shortly after becoming governor that dramatically increased abortions in California. He later came to deeply regret that action and turned pro-life, similar to some current Republican candidates.

Si, the Republiculos always seem to have thees come-to-bebé chuy moments just when they are seeking election to national office. Remarkable that they always seem to happen only to Republiculos who hold office een Democratic states. Oh, well, i am certain eet ees just a coincidence, adelante:

Finally, Reagan supported the 1986 immigration reform that that granted amnesty to nearly three million illegal immigrants. Similar legislation recently got President Bush in conservative hot water.

Of course, Reagan's Republiculo Party had not just spent the last six years throwing red meat to eets slavering "nativist"* base een the form of demonizing the brown pipples to our south.

So if Reagan compromised on several conservative issues, why is he so popular today?

"Mr. Burns: your campaign seems to have the momentum of a runaway freight train. Why are you so popular?''

First, Reagan did a lot of things right, but the conservative movement has changed. Conservatives feel more strongly about some issues today than they did twenty years ago.

¿Thees ees a reason?

Second, he truly was "the great communicator"

(Heroically resists urge to textually represent slurping noises.)

who conveyed the conservative message with humor and optimism,in a way that appealed to the average person, including some democrats.

Because no democrat would ever align weeth a modern conservative president, right?

With Reagan, conservatism didn't sound harsh, it sounded reasonable.

¿Like thees?:

...one problem that we've had, even in the best of times, and that is the people who are sleeping on the grates, the homeless, you might say, by choice.

And finally, Reagan, like Harry Truman, and John Kennedy

...and he wonders where Reagan's fluffed-up legacy comes from.

...looks better in hindsight.

I'll say. I remember when that superannuated hair-dye repository finally toddled off eento the sunset. Most pipples I knew couldn't wait to view hees presidency een hindsight.

Reagan had lots of critics in his day, including conservative heavweights, but the public has a way of forgetting the bad, and magnifying the good with certain leaders.

I like the way he emphasized "certain" leaders on the air, as eef he was rolling hees eyes just theenking about the legacy of joo-know-who.

As for those who must follow Reagan, like the current slate of republican candidates, they are facing an almost impossible task, because they are asked not to be just the leader Reagan was, but the legend conservatives have created and remember. Merrill Matthews is a resident scholar with the Institute for Policy Innovation, in Dallas

Here we have an ultra-conservative exhorting other conservatives to give their conservative leaders a break for not acting as conservative as a supposedly not-all-that-conservative president acted. All because "the conservative movement has changed", though their leaders have not. Apparently, they're just as conservative as they never were een the first place, or sometheeng.

My question: ¿Why ees thees on NPR?

¿Are there now lots of conservatives who listen to NPR because their leaders and current Republiculo presidential candidates are not conservative enough?

That must be some targeted demographic.

As for the nomination of someone to be the next Reagan, I have thees nagging suspicion that the first Republiculo candidate who can sit on a horse weethout falling off weel be annointed as the new Gipper.

And I am certain that Merrill Matthews weel squeal een delight and piddle hees pants over his newest oh-so-macho cowboy hero.

And NPR weel put Matthews on the air, so we can all share een the squealing and the pants-piddling.

Pfui, I theenk that I weel stop listening to NPR.

*strangely, thees term does no mean what joo theenk eet means.

Comments

[cd]

npr is evil. in fact, i bet you could probably do a whole blog on the daily offenses of NPR. you know, like a media themed blog, or something. heck, i bet someone already has. i officially stopped listening to the Nice Polite Republicans when norquist told gross that taxation of the rich was like "the holocaust." that they tolerated that statement of his and broadcast it (without much rejoinder, mind you) is unforgivable to me, and hopefully many formerly donating jewish folks too. heh, i threw my poor lil portable radio across my apartment, that day.

raygun will always be a god to these people. never mind the facts, he's reached icon status and will stay there. just be glad you weren't old enough to suffer the worst of that era directly.

[¡El Gato Negro!]

I bet you could probably do a whole blog on the daily offenses of NPR.

cd, I realized much the same theeng as I wrote thees post, eet ees too beeg a job for one lone blogero, unless she/he was another was Sommerby, or sometheeng similar.

I am toying weeth the idea of taking the money that would go to NPR, and donating eet towards stronger community radio stations, but not everyone has community radio availlable.

Yet, eet would be a start.

[ed kriner]

NPR! What a joke. This is nothing but Fox-Lite for "liberals"