Ronald Reagan? You don't even have to o ack that far. At leas the worship session for St. Ronnie didn't start until after he left office. The fellating many on the right did for GWB was sickening.

I think Rush Limbaugh has been calling him Ronaldus Magnus for some time now.

It is only our great modesty that prevents us from comparing Ronald Reagan, our greatest president ever, to Jesus.

Ronald Reagan's vision of the government is the problem. Some other vision is the solution.

Yeah, I've stewed about this very point quite a bit.

And here's a related one:
They love to ridicule Obama as someone who can "talk well" and who is merely "good at reading the Teleprompter". These claims are, of course, tantamount to claiming that he's all talk and style and no substance. The claims are false, of course, but puzzling coming from people who idolize Reagan, who really *was* dangerously close to being all talk, and who really *didn't* have many skills beyond reading a Teleprompter well.

After this will come "Biggus Dickus I" and "II" - Nixon and Cheney.

"Fortunately, after TPM inquired about the Roman renaming of the former president, the Republican National Committee edited the site and started using Reagan's actual name. That's a good move."

Yeah, good more for them. Now I can't point to the GOP website to refute "The One" crowd. Why don't progressive groups spend a little more time keeping the Dem party in line with the peoples' wishes, and a little less time correcting the GOP's obvious tactical errors?

I was told at a couple of Tea Party folks that we are not a democracy, we are a constitutional republic. maybe we are an empire?

"...the RNC's site wasn't hacked to make the party appear more foolish." Fixed. Nowadays I can't even tell the difference between the GOPers and an Onion article about them.

Right you are, Winston. When Obama's speeches move people, he's a 'rock star.' When Reagan's did, he was "The Great Communicator."

BTW--am I the only one who remembers the giant tax increase Ronaldus Magnus signed to counteract his first-term tax cut??

Maybe if I sell chemical weapons to dictators, fund South American death squads, provide arms to radical Islamic fundamentalists, bankrupt an entire nation, and usher in a new era of economics that has created the largest gap between the haves and have nots in American history, they will begin calling me:

Citizen_Magnus

The only people I know who seem obsessed with Obama are Republicans.

actually, Kim Jong Il followers do exactly this...

Old Eyesore Gone At Last

"Reagan is the only modern Republican president that the party is still proud of"

Think about THAT for a minute.

It seems like every time the GOP does something REALLY STUPID, some progressive site blows it by bringing it to their attention.

C'mon guys, at least let them look like idiots for a few weeks before giving them a clue.

actually, i start my day with "in the name of the father, the son, the holy spirit, and ronaldus magnus."
doesn't everyone?

but when the Republican National Committee seriously starts using phrases like "Ronaldus Magnus," it suggests the cult has started drinking the Kool Aid by the gallon.

They're not using it seriously. I mean, their worship of him is genuine, but this name is clearly the latest in a long line of Republican attempts at wit gone terribly wrong. They're just not humorous or wry people, and they don't do light self-deprecation well at all.

I'm Barackus.

BTW--am I the only one who remembers the giant tax increase Ronaldus Magnus signed to counteract his first-term tax cut??
Posted by: WSP

silly you. it was a tax adjustment. republicans NEVER raise taxes. and 'sides, it was rammed down ronnie's throat by the democratic congress. tip o'neill threatened to kill bonzo if reagan didn't sign the bill.

I have not seen anyone else comment on this but Theodore Roosevelt has been kicked out of the Republican Party.

TR is NOT a Republican hero? Are they going chisel Ronaldus Magnus' face over his on Mount Rushmore?

Can the Democratic Party now reunite the cousins and claim the orphan TR? Now that is bipartisanship I can believe in.

As the date on the epigram shows, this was penned a few years ago. But some things are ever timely.

Plays Well With Others As Long As He Gets His Own Way

“Conservative Republicans angry over an unflattering television movie about Ronald Reagan want to put his image on the dime in place of Democratic icon Franklin Delano Roosevelt..” Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Dec. 6, 2003

When our kids are young we teach
Good sportsmanship in hopes that they,
When full adulthood’s state they reach,
Will get along at work and play.

By and large, we learn the code
And smile if we might lose a game;
But Congressmen in vengeance mode
Would put a three-year-old to shame.

Take one Mark Souder (R-Fort Wayne)
Who had a beef with CBS
And liberals who thought to gain
By making Ronald Reagan less.

Little Mark went for the gut
Of those who might his hero tar:
His bill would kick some left-wing butt
By ridding the dime of FDR

And putting Ronnie there instead,
While blaming Democrats for all
The bogies lurking ‘neath the bed
From Islam’s rise to Saigon’s fall.

But why stop there? Why not see
St. Ron upon the sawbuck’s face
Or posed as Lady Liberty,
Or sitting in Abe Lincoln’s place,

Why not? Four Rons on Rushmore’s side;
It’s all Ron Reagan all the time,
Ron’s name on buildings far and wide,
Ron’s portrait on the flag? Sublime!

And just like once I saw abroad*
We’d have a country fine and fair
Where all would Reagan, Reagan laud,
His icon looming everywhere...

Excuse me, I was lost in space
And let my visions run away.
In truth it would be no disgrace
To wait until a later day

Before deciding who to set
Above , just who to dump or crown ---
Above all, take the time to let
Mark Souder’s temper simmer down.

*Guess where. (Clue: the icon was Lenin) As for Roosevelt as “Democratic icon”, I understand that the historical consensus is that FDR was among our greatest Presidents, and one who further, made “bipartisanship” in wartime a reality rather than a rhetorical club with which to beat the loyal opposition into silence. But then these historians are a bunch of left-liberals anyway.

Bwhahahahah!!!!!!!!!! The RNC aren't the only losers out there. Regarding Redstate.org's new site. right now, from Redstate:

Standby . . .
By Erick

Cue the new site. Less than 50 minutes to go.

Consider this your final open thread on the present site.

[UPDATE 11:00] Momentary delay. We'll be transitioned very shortly. Keep standing by. . .

[UPDATE 12:13] We ran into a slight problem with a last minute compatibility issue. One more hour now.

[UPDATE 1:22 am] Had a glitch in program that doesn't affect any of you, but does affect all the front page contributors. IT is fixing that before launching the site, because it will affect server issues. Once that is done, the site goes live. I think I'm calling it a night.

I'm Ronaldus, and so is my wife!

There was a Mississippi legislator I once met, one of Newt's up and comers, and I would swear on a stack of Bibles that if he had to choose between Ronald Reagan and Jesus Christ, he would definitely choose Ronald Reagan.

I think that's true of a lot of these guys.

The Right sure loves their revisionist history, don't they?

WTF is a "Reagan Conservative" anyway?

Some years back I was leafing through the memoirs (a collection of his diaries and correspondence, actually) of Adolf Berle, a White House staffer and later Assistant Secretary of State under Franklin Roosevelt, and noted that it was apparently common practice for FDR's circle to refer to him among themselves as "Augustus." I don't think they'd have dreamed of taking it public, though.

I think Rush Limbaugh has been calling him Ronaldus Magnus for some time now.

That is correct. Rush has been calling him that for years. Just more evidence of the Limbaughification of the Republican party.

Anyone who's read Bob Altemeyer shouldn't find the Ronaldus Magnus stuff surprising. (And if you haven't read him, you ought to. Click here for free pdf.)

The short version is that the modern GOP is a party of authoritarian followers. Authoritarian followers are a specific sociological type:

According to research by Altemeyer, right-wing authoritarians tend to exhibit cognitive errors and symptoms of faulty reasoning. Specifically, they are more likely to make incorrect inferences from evidence and to hold contradictory ideas that result from compartmentalized thinking. They are also more likely to uncritically accept insufficient evidence that supports their beliefs, and they are less likely to acknowledge their own limitations.

And they have a predilection for uncritically worshiping authoritarian leaders.

If you aren't familiar with Altemeyer, at least skim the Wikipedia article. It explains a lot.

Every time I hear this phrase I have to wonder if they are comparing him to Gnaeus Pompeius or Erik Lenscher.

As a point of interest, no Roman emperor ever used the cognomen 'Magnus'. There was a pretender after the death of Severus who contested with Maximinus Thrax for the imperium, but he lost.

One of the all time great Simpsons moments:

At the Republican headquarters: "How is the movement to have everything named after Ronald Reagan going?" "Very well. The Mississippi River is now the Mississippi Reagan."

Just brilliant on so many levels.

I have always preferred St. Ronnie, it has a more down to earth, man of the people feel to it.

I realize that Reagan is the only modern Republican president that the party is still proud of...

They are proud of the image of Reagan they created. They'd probably consider the real Reagan a DFH by their standards today.

Lucky for them, they're all allergic to history.

Ronaldus Magnus/Ronald McDonald, whatever!

They'd probably consider the real Reagan a DFH by their standards today.

Only a matter of time. Now that Jesus has been shown to have failed conservatism, all bets are off on Ronnie.

It's not projection, it's deflection.

If they accuse Democrats of tax-and-spend policies...
If they accuse Democrats of embracing fascism, slavery, enabling vicitmhood, robbing from the middle class to reward another class (in the Dems' case, the poor and immigrants)...
If they can accuse Democrats of trying to kill grandma, and plotting to build concentration camps to silence dissent...
If they accuse Democrats or revering their leaders to such an insane degree that they can't be taken seriously, so blinded are they by hero worship...

Then Dems' charges of the same when the Republicans are back in charge don't have as much impact. When the Republicans embrace spying on Americans, politicizing Justice, worshiping their next Reagan or Bush, silencing dissent and accusing anyone who isn't on board with these policies to be traitors, then anyone who calls them out will be dismissed as, "eh, they're just trying to get back at us for pointing out how awful Obama was." Tit for tat. They all do it. You won't know who to trust. So you'll stay home. And not pay attention. And not vote.

And that's how Republicans win.

Anyone looking to peek behind the curtain of Republican distortions about Reagan should check out the book Tear Down This Myth by Will Bunch. It's a 2009 book that was available in my library, and sadly, unlike the 2009 copy of Glenn Beck's new book, there was no wait list.

"I realize that Reagan is the only modern Republican president that the party is still proud of,..."

That's what you get for speaking out against the military-industrial complex, Ike.

Bill Clinton is still Canis Magnus to his admirers, as he should be.

And what about good old Georgius Caesar?

To quote--as nearly as I can from memory--a recent episode of the Simpsons (as Homer watches arena "gladiators"): "It's just like ancient Rome, except our empire isn't declining!"

(d'oh!)

TR is NOT a Republican hero?

Oh, hell no. TR supported the estate taz, progresssive income tax, and universal health care. In other words, by the standards of today's Republicans, he was a communist.

Reagan told a great story. As an actor, he embodied story. The Presidency was a stage, with him in the lead role of myth-maker. His job was to be popular and admired. In less kind terms, a tool. And it more or less worked, because unlike today, Republicans back then still had ideas. Right or wrong, there was dialogue, consensus, and moderates.

But in time, the wax on the wings began to melt. No one could do Reagan as well as Reagan, though GWB tried, and when the inevitable failures piled up and got them kicked out of power, there was no choice but to reinvent themselves or become yet more extreme. This is the split you currently see. The responsible ones are leaving the party or laying low, the rest are circling the drain.

Meanwhile the American people are suffering in ever greater numbers. When the middle class is hollowed out and standards living dropping rapidly, something has gone very wrong in the halls of power. It isn't just the Republicans. They are shamelessly corrupt, but there's plenty of malfeasance to go around. *All politicians must be held accountable. Steve, even TPM is writing about Rangle.

t, congratulations are in order. I could offer no better demonstration of the power of myth. Check out Joseph Campbell sometime.

It comes from Rush Limbaugh. When I listened to him pretty regularly (gullible youth + delivery job) in the early 90's, he would refer to Reagan that way all the time. Maybe he still does.

Here's a T-shirt:

http://www.grandoldtees.com/Pages/Reagan.asp

I must say, I like the idea of "promoting the values of our founding fathers" by depicting Reagan as a Roman emperor. I didn't realize our founding fathers valued monarchy and imperialism so highly.

Ronald Reagan was a great president, the best of the post-WW II era by far, but let's face it, the RNC has jumped the shark. Steele is a dope and ought to be replaced pronto.

As for the adoration of The One, well, all you had to do was read the various columns and postings praising the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to him to get a sense for that.

Presidents are best judged at least 25 years after they've left office, with the benefit of some historical perspective. Views change. Today, with the benefit of perspective, we think that Wilson wasn't so great, Truman was excellent and Eisenhower greatly underrated. We'll see how Mr. Obama fares.

Ronald Reagan was a great president, the best of the post-WW II era by far

Not sure how you measure greatness, but I tend to set my standards a bit higher.

Reagan funded and armed death squads in Central America, gave chemical and biological weapons to Saddam Hussein, sold advanced missile technology to Iran, presided over the S&L Crisis (up to that point, the worse banking crisis since the Great Depression), and created economic policies that raped the middle and lower class to enrich the top 1%.

In other words, one can only consider Reagan "the best of the post WW II era" by ignoring every single shred of reality. Of course, the right seems to think doing that is an Olympic event, but still ...

As for the adoration of The One ...

The only people who call Obama that are right wing dipshits who created a myth so that they can tear it down (otherwise known as a "strawman").

As far as those articles you mention go, use The Google to take a look at some of the articles right after 9/11 -- the ones going on and on about how great Dubya was and how he was going to keep us all safe (despite, you know, utterly and tragically failing to do so when it actually counted) and how tough he was, etc.

I sear, if you clowns projected any more you'd be hooked up to a Powerpoint presentation ...

Presidents are best judged at least 25 years after they've left office, with the benefit of some historical perspective.

Sorry, but your boy Dubya's record of miserable failure couldn't be any less obvious 25 years from now as it is today.