Norquist's time is short, anyway. There's a growing scandal involving influence peddling by the Malaysian government that has Grover's number.

There's a certain segment of the Republican base that thinks Norquist is a traitor because he's married to a Muslim and may have converted to Islam himself. That could ignite a firestorm at any time, and the Malaysian scandal could provide a spark.

"With the vast majority of governors honoring Reagan"... I think you meant, "With Norquist's group successfully strong-arming the vast majority of governors".

It's only if you accept the Wacky Right's framing of the issue that this is somehow "standing against" Reagan. Not having a their own day hasn't seemed to dilute the legacy of Jefferson, or Roosevelt, or Franklin, or any of dozens of other giants of American history - is Virginia "standing against" them? Or, do they just not have assholes like Norquist making a stink out of it?

Norquist's strategy is to put people on the spot precisely for the purpose of making a big deal out of it one way or another. Kaine's response was perfect: It's NOT a big deal. Reagan would agree. Get over it.

Oh, I agree that I've got no love for the man, and that my efforts to channel him are probably strained (based as they are on his small-government principles, not his less idealistic reality). But COME ON. You're seriously implying that Kaine's motives are partisan, while Norquist's (who made up the "issue" in the first place) are less so? How long ago do you think he drafted up that little nugget: "Generations of Americans will remember the Reagan legacy, and it's a shame that [insert state here] now stands as one of the few states against him." Puh-leeze. Spare me your indignation.

Or he just thinks Reagan Day and its creator are stupid.

Who is Rosetta Scott King?

If you're talking about Coretta, well, I say that Ronald Reagan's contributions do not at all approach the King family's contributions to American history. Also, if you think that there are more days for Democrats and this is some librul plot to keep down Reagan, you have some funny conspiracy theories going on there.

Isn't having an airport named after him in Virginia enough???

Sorry about the Coretta error, I did a quick yahoo search on Rosetta because it didn't sound right to me, but someone else who made the same mistake "verified" it for me. Lesson: don't trust the Internet.

Anyway, I think a president who brought the Cold War to an end can easily be said to have had as large, if not larger, impact than Mrs. King. But either way, it's debateable, so to have a meaningless day seems justified.

Also, it's not a conspiracy if it's just the decision of one man. I just think it reflects HIS perspective. There's no conspiracy about it.

And frankly I think that Bill Clinton would deserve "Bill Clinton Days" accross the country. All in all, he was a good president and accomplished a lot.

Finally, I don't think having an airport named after someone should prevent people from doing other things to honor his memory. How many freaking buildings (plus at least one airport) in this country are named after JFK, a president that did not really accomplish that much?

In my opinion there is a hell of a lot more of a message is Kaine's decision NOT to sign a proclamation than there would be if he decided to sign it. That says something about his position (hell, even dubya got behind renaming the DOJ building after RFK shortly after the 2000 election).

"Yes. The message is that Grover Norquist's plan to get everything in the country named after Reagan is failing."

Fine you can view it how you choose (although I don't see how a campaign [one that certainly is not trying to get "everything" named after Reagan] that succeeds in almost every state is failing).

Also I did not say Reagan "ended" the cold war, I sad he brought it to an end, i.e. his foreign policy brought about the "end game". Maybe the USSR would have lingered only a decade or so more without him, but maybe not. Who knows. But nonetheless, his policies did not allow that possibility to come about.

Do I suggest making a triumphant arch for the man? No. I don't think he should be honored as greatly as Lincoln or Washington. Honestly I could care less if Virginia does this or not. I just think it would not be inappropriate if it did and I think it reveals that Kaine is nervous that his base would make him regret it if he approved it. Considering the attention "Red State" Democrats like Warner are getting, I think it's interesting to see what calculations someone like Kaine has to make.

But whatever, see what you like.

You're right, CRM, Norquist's group doesn't want to name everything after Reagan. They just just want (so far) to name "at least one notable public landmark in all 3067 counties" after him, to put his face on dimes and $10 bills, to have every state declare February 6 "Reagan Day", to establish his boyhood home as a national historic site, and to lobby legislators to name "an appropriate State building, highway, school, park, bridge, or other public entity" after Reagan. No doubt the list will be extended. They're clearly a very restrained group.

"the fact that Regan was one of the worst presidents this country has ever had"

You're entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts. Few if any respected presidential historians would consider it a "fact" that Reagan was one of the worst presidents this country has ever had.

You are just the sort of white eyed angry Democrat that I am interested in figuring out why Kaine would try to appeal to. Does this mean he thinks that there's no future in "third way" politics? Does he feel vulnerable on the left?

You are just the sort of white eyed angry Democrat that I am interested in figuring out why Kaine would try to appeal to. Does this mean he thinks that there's no future in "third way" politics? Does he feel vulnerable on the left?

Is it that hard for you to admit that Kaine declined to "honor" Reagan because he thinks that Norquist is, to mince words, a tool?

I think KCinDC offered a nice succinct summary of Norquist's over-the-top efforts to immortalize a so-so president.

This "so-so" president last year won a Discovery Channel contest for "Greatest American" and a Gallup poll for most popular president in history. Unless you are arguing that Norquist has the vast majority of the country fooled... it doesn't look like efforts to preserve his legacy are so over the top considering he has only 68 dedications while JFK has over 600 and MLK has over 800...

I mean MB.

So a popularity contest conducted shortly after Reagan died found him to be the most popular president in history. Considering that people are biased to current times and that Bush I/Clinton/Bush II aren't winning nationwide popularity contests, that's hardly a surprise. He was still a so-so president. But anyway, Rstandin, what part of his legacy would you like to preserver other than his popularity in a Gallup poll? His Iran-Contra problems? Dismantling the Great Society? The rise of AIDS? A bad recession?

This conversation has become a bit ridiculous for me. It is a matter of personal opinion, but the Reagan love is in my view over the top.

According to a study by by William A. Niskanen and Stephen Moore:
On 8 of the 10 key economic variables examined, the American economy performed better during the Reagan years than during the pre- and post-Reagan years.
· Real economic growth averaged 3.2 percent during the Reagan years versus 2.8 percent during the Ford-Carter years and 2.1 percent during the Bush-Clinton years.
· Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years.
· Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency.
· The only economic variable that was worse in the Reagan period than in both the pre- and post-Reagan years was the savings rate, which fell rapidly in the 1980s. The productivity rate was higher in the pre-Reagan years but much lower in the post-Reagan years.

Whatever Kaine's motives, it had nothing to do with his base. If you had any concept at all over Virginia politics, you'd realize that accepting Norquist's idea would have, at best, received a nice round of golf course applause from most of the state's voters. If there is a risk associated with making a choice, Kaine chose the riskier.

But you need to understand something that's probably even more obvious. Virginia has produced EIGHT presidents, people. And the state works tirelessly to honor them because it makes good economic sense--the state makes mad coin bringing in the history minded tourist. It's a major selling point for the state. Reagan will never mean as much to Virginians as the Presidents on the home team. Sorry!

Hey Reagan Lovers, I have one thing to say to you:
IRAN--CONTRA

Oh, and Raygun was not the WORST prez ever - that definitely goes to the Smirking Chimp currently in residence.

Raygun's not even the 2nd worst prez - that goes to Nixon

Raygun's the 3rd worst, and most of his life he was obsessed about the "commies."
And he did NOT all by "hisself" bring an end to the Cold War - GIMME A BREAK !!

Wow, I left this thread just as it was getting hilarious. CRM really has let loose some great arguments: My favorites are "I didn't say he ended the Cold War, I said he brought it to an end!" and the whole Rosetta Scott King bit.

But seriously, CRM, can't you just accept that this whole thing is GOP Operative Standard Operating Procedure - put your opponent on record on an issue where's there's no winning side. Either he says "sure, Mr. Norquist, whatever you say, you're right," and Norquist says that he's a sell-out trying to pander to Republicans whose values he doesn't agree with, or he says no and get accused of "standing against" Reagan. (Man, I still love that. What an f**king drama queen.)

Kudos to Kaine for not just avoiding the bait, but for giving the entire situation exactly the contempt it deserves.

Historians haven't the perspective yet to fully appreciate President Reagan. Should the paradigm shift from mandating savings to accepting debt that occurred in the US culture during Reagan's tenure, the arming and funding of unstable and unfriendly terrorist regimes, and the recklessly accelerated collapse of the nuclear-weapon-rich USSR combine to fracture the United States in an orgy of devalued currency and black-market Russian uranium, the sight of the silver "Ronald Reagan National Airport" sign sticking out of the glowing swamp that once was the Potomac might be eerily appropriate, like an artist's signature. Of course, if that doesn't happen, he might end up just being a footnote.

Forgive us for thinking you were a Reagan lover, CRM, but when you suggest that anyone opposed to Norquist's bizarre idolatry project is "white-eyed" with anger, you've got to expect people to draw some conclusions.

Hey KT,
Can you give us the results of that study without skewing it by combining Bush and Clinton in the post Reagan years? The 4 years of Bush I would be much more fairly linked with Reagan than Clinton. What are Clinton's growth numbers without Bush I yanking them down?

http://yandex.ru

I wish Norquist (whose money laundering operation/ disgraced "think" tank is based on L Street, btw) would ask the DC Council for a Reagan day. Hilarity and hijinks would ensue.