Will you guide me now for I can't see a reason

Right-wing bloggers often display a surprising lack of irony, lack of sense of self, when they criticize the Left:

Try as I might, I found it hard to rant and rail against liberals for their incredibly stupid, delibertately dishonest caterwauling about interrupting the Tom Lantos memorial service with a procedural motion on FISA when it was the Speaker’s admitted fault that the motion was unavoidable under the rules and that a scheduling snafu had occurred to boot.

Did that stop the “Republicans polticize the dead” crowd from throwing a tantrum worthy of any two year old? Of course not. And to make the criticism ascend to the level of sublime irony, it seems our lefty friends forget that Google has gone public and is actually making a little money now. If I typed in the name “Paul Wellstone” and added “Memorial Service” to the search, you would come across a story so profoundly disturbing that you would be forgiven for wretching while reading it.

. . . There have been other examples of the left using dead people like political clubs. Accusing the GOP of doing so when a simple reading of the rules would have given the lie to that meme propelled the left wingosphere beyond contempt and into the stratosphere of malicious mischief.

Well, that’s too many words wasted on this Right-wing pundit, but I wanted you to see and feel the depths of his idiocy.

First, the alleged debauchery of the Wellstone memorial has been thoroughly debunked; this guy wasn’t there, he merely believed Hannity, Limbaugh, et al.

But more importantly, regarding "politicizing the dead", I give you: Reagan:

Lifeguard, athlete, movie star, governor, president -- there wasn't much that Ronald
Reagan did not do in his lifetime.

Reagan.

Romney said Reagan in 2006:

The day after the midterm elections, Gov. Mitt Romney, reflecting on the GOP's punishing losses, issued a clarion call to conservatives: "We must return to the common-sense Reagan Republican ideals."

Three days later, at a State House Veterans Day ceremony, Romney invoked the former president again, saying, "As Ronald Reagan once said, 'I have seen four wars during my lifetime and none of them began because America was too strong."'

McCain said Reagan:

So when John McCain said, after his victory in South Carolina, that he was a foot soldier in the Reagan revolution and is running for president "not to be something, but to do something" he was making clear that on a range of issues -- from defending the nation to reducing the size of government -- he would bring a new vitality to the Reagan revolution.

Thompson said Reagan:

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee on Friday said he’s more of a Reagan Republican than former Sen. Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.).

Huckabee said Reagan:

“I appreciate his conversion, but some of us were with Ronald Reagan in the early years,” Huckabee said.

It’s Reagan TV: All Reagan, All The Time.

Look, the McCain link above, from the delusional R. Emmett Tyrrell's American Spectator, shows what a farce the Reagan idolatry is. Read this:

Many conservatives fail to understand that Reagan's tax cuts had two objectives -- to promote economic recovery, of course, but also to "starve the beast," by reducing the funds available for government growth. Although Reagan did in fact successfully cut domestic discretionary spending, later Republican presidents and congressional majorities spoiled the brand that Reagan had created for his party. They did it, however, over the strong objections of John McCain, who has been the most consistent advocate in Congress for Reagan's original vision of a smaller and less intrusive government.

The Reagan coalition is still out there, a majority of Americans -- Republicans, Democrats, and Independents -- who believe that the size of government and its role in the economy should be reduced.

Yeah, except that most Americans believe that government can solve problems, without generating massive cash infusions to the private sector to go into Donald Trump's and Halliburton's checking account.

And that tax cuts you yearn for? Reagan had no real part in that:

Reagan's people shoved his program through the Congress during the early Reagan years. James A. Baker, David Stockman and other Reaganites ran roughshod over Tip O'Neill and the divided Democrats in the House and Senate, and won every critical vote. This is because of the GOP majority in the Senate and the GOP-"Boll Weevil" (or "Dixiecrat") coalition in the House. Phil Gramm was a House Democrat at the time, and he even sponsored the most important Reagan budgets.

Only after the huge Reagan recession -- made worse by utterly failed Reagan "Voodoo Economics" - did Democrats regain some control in Congress. They halted some Reagan initiatives, but couldn't do much on their own. That was a time of gridlock.

Six years into Reagan's presidency, Democrats retook the Senate, and began to reverse some of Reagan's horrendous policies. By that time, Reaganomics had "accomplished" quite a bit: doubled the national debt, caused the S&L crisis, and nearly wrecked the financial system.

So politicize the dead, who didn't do what you claimed they did, and worship at their altar.

Seems like a new religion has been founded.

If I gave you the truth, would it keep you alive?

Ronald Reagan was the greatest American President ever. Even Christopher Hitchens says so:

Reagan sold heavy weapons to the Iranian mullahs and lied about it, saying that all the weapons he hadn't sold them (and hadn't traded for hostages in any case) would, all the same, have fit on a small truck. Reagan then diverted the profits of this criminal trade to an illegal war in Nicaragua and lied unceasingly about that, too. Reagan then modestly let his underlings maintain that he was too dense to understand the connection between the two impeachable crimes. He then switched without any apparent strain to a policy of backing Saddam Hussein against Iran. (If Margaret Thatcher's intelligence services had not bugged Oliver North in London and become infuriated because all European nations were boycotting Iran at Reagan's request, we might still not know about this.)

Oopsies.

Why does this matter now? A couple of reasons. First, there are many who bow down and worship even unto his glory, never mind that his patriotism was informed by watching wartime news reels while he was a small-time contract player.

And second, that today is the anniversary of his greatest impeachable offense:

Washington, Nov. 25--President Reagan said today that he had not been in full control of his Administration's Iran policy, and the White House said that as a consequence up to $30 million intended to pay for American arms had been secretly diverted to rebel forces in Nicaragua.

At the same time, the President announced that two men he held responsible--Vice Adm. John M. Poindexter, the national security adviser, and Lieut. Col. Oliver L. North, a member of the admiral's staff--had left their posts.

With the Administration already in turmoil over the earlier disclosure of clandestine arms shipments to Iran, and with speculation rampant about a major overhaul of the White House staff, the President's statement seemed to deepen a sense of disarray. By all accounts, Mr. Reagan now faces the most serious crisis in his six-year Presidency.

That's right. Corruption, sloganeering, and lying were his stock in trade. And yet, did he 'man up' and take credit for his duplicity? Did he own the story he had spun to the American public like a true hero? No, he blamed his subordinates like the chickenshit he was. Full of scorn for those who criticized him, he steadfastly swore that he and he alone held the vision forward for America in his hands.

I'm pretty sure that was something else in his hands, a little closer to his heart.

I remember you, you're the one who made my dreams come true

The current Right-wing position vis-a-vis the crop of Presidential wannabees is that they need another Reagan. Because he was so, you know, big and tough and strong and the Daddy some of them never had.

The continual deification of this flawed man amazes me. While I'm sure he was a nice Daddy (not sure what Patti Davis thinks about this), he was a simple-minded man who saw things as pretty black and white. And while that may be a good trait for a school crossing guard, a President needs more nuanced thinking.

Young Ezra Klein has a pretty good take on this topic:

You can't denigrate Reagan because he no longer exists. There's only Robo-Reagan, the better, stronger, faster, more conservative president that the Right has retroactively constructed and forced into the history books. But Reagan's flaws and shortcomings weren't necessarily his fault: You have to do something about immigration, and that will require some sort of earned amnesty for the 12 million undocumented immigrants living in the states. You can't outlaw abortion. You can't outlaw tax increases, of which Reagan passed many. You can't gut Social Security, which he tried, and failed, to do. Hardline conservatism just isn't very popular. Policy problems have their own logic, and their own demands. The Republican Base is demanding fealty to a platform that even Reagan, for all his formidable political gifts and advantages, couldn't hew to. His would-be successors, in office, will do no better.

(Emphasis mine)

Indeed.

Keep in mind that this Champion of Liberty™ spoke in favor of repealing the 22nd Amendment:

Reagan himself seemed to warm up to the idea in 1987, telling an interviewer that he’d support an effort to repeal the 22nd Amendment for his successors so Americans would be free to “vote for someone as often as they want to do.” Though the Iran-Contra scandal had already damaged Reagan’s reputation, and Alzheimer’s symptoms were slowly becoming apparent, a group called Project ‘88 formed to try and change the law to allow for Reagan’s second re-election effort.

Swell. There's some great leadership to remember. The man whose brain was already becoming Swiss cheese by the end of his 2nd term of office supported the ability to run for a 3rd term.

Another case of Right-wing idolatry and revisionist history: If the past wasn't good enough, try it again.

Dream yourself a dream come true

The Right-wing pundits sure know how to pour gas onto their own funeral pyre:

Of course, the big difference is that the Democrats don’t have a Ronald Reagan to take advantage of the situation. Nobody will ever confuse Hilliary’s (sic) shrill denunciations with the twinkle in the Gipper’s eye when he zinged an opponent. Nor will anyone fail to see the difference between the inspirational yet empty platitudes of Obama with Reagan’s soaring rhetoric that touched something so American in people’s souls.

Hillary is shrill. Dude, how do you react when your wife asks you to take out the garbage, do you call her shrill?

And the twinkle in the . . . dammit! Stop calling Reagan that movie name! He was an actor, a bad one at that. He did absolutely nothing to connect himself with anyone tough or brave, he was a f***ing actor!

The twinkle was acting, reading words written by Peggy Noonan, while he tried to feed school kids ketchup and erect a big umbrella to prevent the awful Ruskies from sending missles to attack us. Stop it, just stop it! Soaring rhetoric my ass.

I don't know about Obama yet, but he has a college education, has written books, and actually has thoughts that are deeper than "tear down this wall".

Look here at Democracy Now for some insight into Reagan's effect on California and working people while he was Governor, but that's not important right now.

Seriously, the Right's pining for another Reagan is just sad; a fantasy about a guy who can bankrupt the country, raise taxes with no benefit to the middle class, and spout slogans written by the woman who wrote this crap about poor Elian Gonzales:

a miracle that when he tired and began to slip, the dolphins who surrounded him like a contingent of angels pushed him upward;

There's Reagan's brain: a science-fiction fantasy that has the Righties yearning for Jack Bauer to take over their world and save them, and take away their Constitutional rights at the same time.

After all, they weren't using them.

And our pundit ends with this:

A Guiliani or Romney candidacy would alter the face of the party at least temporarily and give hope to some of the more moderate elements in the GOP.

From your mouth to God's ears. But not for the reasons you believe.