I have to admit that compared to today's republican leaders Reagan is missed. As flawed as the real Ronald Reagan was there are no contemporary republicans yet emerged with his appeal. That says a lot more about the lack of quality at the top in the GOP than how good Reagan was. It is the same problem with Bachmann and Palin. All of these people are better suited as characters in a Simpson's cartoon than residents of the White House.
Ronnie's presentation as "the great communicator" is apparently too high a bar for the GOP hopefuls in 2012. They must give him some phony God status as an admittedly and rightfully unachievable standard.
Reagan did have the general appeal of a movie star. Try in your own mind to cast one of the wannabees in national republican politics in some Hollywood hero's role. They all fail. Who would YOU cast as the hero? Some of them might get bit supporting parts as villains or quirky whacky sidekicks but nary a one can wear the white hat. Sadly that was Ronnies only claim to fame. A second rate hero capable of wearing the white hat ...that is until a real hero enters the scene...when Brando or Wayne show up ...someone with appeal and depth...even precious Ronnie must exit the set leaving the hat for a better head.
I don't think it is a 'God status' at all. Most of us who appreciated Reagan know all the flaws and foibles and mistakes that are part and parcel of his Administration. But one does not have to assign godlike status to a person to appreciate qualities that we admire. And Reagan had them. It is what he stood for, what he believed in, what he helped us to believe in ourselves, and the fact that it was largely due to his conviction that hundreds of millions of people should not have to live under totalitarian communism, that we admire him for. If he wasn't perfect.....well, nobody is.
There's a flip side too. There are those who can't stand for anyone to admire those qualities that at least some of us admire in Reagan--they have so little charity they can't allow somebody like him to be commemorated on what would have been his 100th birthday--so they presume to tear him down in the ugliest and most hateful manner.
So what's worse? Idolizing a man a little despite imperfections? Or demonizing all that he was/is?
Have people been tearing him down?? I wasn't aware of that. I think he was a good man and had many great qualities. I just didn't like his politics. And I think the right treats him in the way they accuse the left of treating Obama.
Just read the acidic posts of several who have yet to find ANY redeeming quality in Ronald Reagan. They enthusiastically recite his sins and sneer at those of us who appreciated him. I wish they had started their own thread to do that out of respect for those of us who did want to show appreciation we think is due. But oh well. The thread now seems to have become an evaluation of him and his presidency instead of the recognition thread it was intended to be. So lets go with that.
About that birthday cake. Any way you slice it, Nancy Reagan, though always a patriot, always an unfailing supporter of her husband, and always a 100% class act, was herself a bit off the beaten path. I'll not use the term wierd but she definitely then and now marched to her own drum. The cake was her idea--her tribute to a man she obviously loved, admired, and respected as much as any wife can.
I'm not going to begrudge her that.