Reagan on the dime? It could happen.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-12-05 05:31pm

Linky
Conservatives want Reagan on dimes
Associated Press

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. Democrats are just as determined to keep FDR's profile in coin purses.

"IF THEY WANT to find another way to honor Ronald Reagan, I'm happy to join with them, but leave the dime alone," said Rep. James McGovern, D-Mass.
Supporters of the "Ronald Reagan Dime Act" said Roosevelt and his government-expanding New Deal represented decades past, while Reagan's conservative, anti-communist administration ushered in society as it exists today.

Triggering the dispute is a TV movie that depicts a doddering Reagan dominated by his wife, Nancy. The movie is being aired by Showtime after CBS canceled its plans to show it last month in response to pressure by Reagan supporters.

"It's what precipitated me introducing the bill at that time and why it was a lot easier to get a lot of support," said Rep. Mark Souder, R-Ind.

Souder said he has collected 89 co-sponsors for his bill to mint a new dime featuring Reagan. Among them are more than a dozen House members from California, where the former president lives secluded and suffering from Alzheimer's disease in his Los Angeles home.

"I believe he represents conservative values as we would see them implemented through a president better than anybody else we've had in American history," Souder said. "He, to conservatives, represents kind of the reverse of FDR, who is kind of the liberal icon. Ronald Reagan is the conservative icon."

KEEPING FDR
McGovern claims 80 co-sponsors on his opposing bill affirming Congress' support for keeping Roosevelt on the dime. The lone Republican among them is New York Rep. John Sweeney, who represents the Hyde Park area that was Roosevelt's home.

Reagan has "already been honored in many ways -- he's got an airport named after him, and a building, and there are schools and roads and bridges and other things," McGovern said.

"While it's important to honor President Reagan, I think it's also important that we do so in a way that doesn't dishonor the memory and the legacy of Franklin Delano Roosevelt," he said.

It isn't uncommon to change images on currency, but the custom has been to wait until the person being memorialized is dead.

"I certainly would not look at it in any way as dishonoring FDR. He's also one of my favorite presidents," said Rep. Wally Herger, R-Calif. "He was also interestingly enough a personal hero of President Reagan's, but frankly I feel more connection with Reagan. He's a Californian, also closer to us now in history."

Souder rounded up support from colleagues for his bill with a letter, headed "Win One for the Gipper," that lambasted CBS for its "vile miniseries."

The dime has borne Roosevelt's profile since 1946, a year after his death, in part commemorating his support for the March of Dimes campaign to fight polio.

© 2003 Associated Press.

Hmm...I've never been a big FDR fan, so go for it.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-12-05 05:33pm

Not going to happen.

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2003-12-05 05:36pm

Hell fucking no. I know the man is worshipped as a god by conservatives, but we're talking about a guy that sold weapons to terrorists. And illegally funded murderous contras. And got lovey-dovey with Hussein. Etc.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-12-05 05:38pm

Hamel wrote:Hell fucking no. I know the man is worshipped as a god by conservatives, but we're talking about a guy that sold weapons to terrorists. And illegally funded murderous contras. And got lovey-dovey with Hussein. Etc.

And FDR was buddy buddy with Stalin, who killed more people than Hitler.

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2003-12-05 05:38pm

Hamel wrote:Hell fucking no. I know the man is worshipped as a god by conservatives, but we're talking about a guy that sold weapons to terrorists. And illegally funded murderous contras. And got lovey-dovey with Hussein. Etc.

How many fucking airports and buildings, streets, and structures does the gipper have named after him anyway?

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-12-05 05:39pm

Nathan F wrote:
Hamel wrote:Hell fucking no. I know the man is worshipped as a god by conservatives, but we're talking about a guy that sold weapons to terrorists. And illegally funded murderous contras. And got lovey-dovey with Hussein. Etc.
And FDR was buddy buddy with Stalin, who killed more people than Hitler.

Oh, forgot to add, and kept Americans prisoner.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-12-05 05:39pm

Hamel wrote:
Hamel wrote:Hell fucking no. I know the man is worshipped as a god by conservatives, but we're talking about a guy that sold weapons to terrorists. And illegally funded murderous contras. And got lovey-dovey with Hussein. Etc.
How many fucking airports and buildings, streets, and structures does the gipper have named after him anyway?

1 Airport, don't know of any buildings, and probably a few streets and structures. As does FDR.

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2003-12-05 05:43pm

And FDR was buddy buddy with Stalin, who killed more people than Hitler.

Was Iran in a position to take over Europe and devestate the entire world? No. The communists took the full force of the Nazi attacks, and without them we would have taken it up the butt like none other.

Worlds Spanner · Post by **Worlds Spanner** » 2003-12-05 05:52pm

Four terms, Great Depressions, World War II.

All while secretly suffering from a terrible disease.

You can bitch about Stalin all you want, but FDR was the man!

Worlds Spanner · Post by **Worlds Spanner** » 2003-12-05 05:53pm

Nathan F wrote:
Hamel wrote:
Hamel wrote:Hell fucking no. I know the man is worshipped as a god by conservatives, but we're talking about a guy that sold weapons to terrorists. And illegally funded murderous contras. And got lovey-dovey with Hussein. Etc.
How many fucking airports and buildings, streets, and structures does the gipper have named after him anyway?
1 Airport, don't know of any buildings, and probably a few streets and structures. As does FDR.

And a brand spanking new CVN.

Mayabird · Post by **Mayabird** » 2003-12-05 05:54pm

How many fucking airports and buildings, streets, and structures does the gipper have named after him anyway?

Wasn't there also a movement to get his face on Mt. Rushmore?

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2003-12-05 05:58pm

i can think of other presidents that'd be good on american currency. none of the past 4 are any of them.

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2003-12-05 06:00pm

Mayabird wrote:
How many fucking airports and buildings, streets, and structures does the gipper have named after him anyway?
Wasn't there also a movement to get his face on Mt. Rushmore?

You got it

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-12-05 06:01pm

This is a pure power grab, no more, no less. It has nothing to do with honoring Reagan and everything to do with hurting the Democratic party.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-12-05 06:24pm

Hamel wrote:
And FDR was buddy buddy with Stalin, who killed more people than Hitler.
Was Iran in a position to take over Europe and devestate the entire world? No. The communists took the full force of the Nazi attacks, and without them we would have taken it up the butt like none other.

And our support we gave to Stalin, it really helped us after the war, lemme tell ya...

And then there is the fact that the Russians were already fighting the Germans whether or not we were behind them or not. And they weren't the best of allies, either. (refusing to let us use their air strips, keeping US airmen in POW camps, etc.). Russia could have done without our support, easily.

See, using your logic, Regan isn't any worse than FDR, seeing as though siding with Iran and Hussein was the lesser of two evils, in case you didn't remember that we were in the cold war with the Soviet Union.

(not to say that we should have sided with Hitler, we shouldn't have, don't get me wrong)

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2003-12-05 06:26pm

I don't think it's going to happen anytime soon. How long did it take other presidents to get on to coins?

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2003-12-05 06:27pm

Iceberg wrote:This is a pure power grab, no more, no less. It has nothing to do with honoring Reagan and everything to do with hurting the Democratic party.

I agree. Reagan never really did anything but fuck church and state separation sideways. And increase military spending.

"I believe he represents conservative values as we would see them implemented through a president better than anybody else we've had in American history," Souder said. "He, to conservatives, represents kind of the reverse of FDR, who is kind of the liberal icon. Ronald Reagan is the conservative icon."

Ah, yes... rape the establishment clause, put legal controls on our privat lives, and shift the tax burden onto the middle class... *shudder*

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-12-05 06:28pm

Worlds Spanner wrote:Four terms
Yeah, he was re-elected 4 times, big deal.

Great Depressions
He didn't do a whole lot really to help the Depression that wouldn't have been done anyways, and if anything all alot of his policies did was make people dependant on the government, something that is ALWAYS bad.

World War II.
Meh, Truman ended the war. And FDR could have done alot more to make the war alot shorter (started the rebuilding of the military once war broke out in Europe and the Japanese started taking over the Pacific).

All while secretly suffering from a terrible disease.
Good for him.

You can bitch about Stalin all you want, but FDR was the man!

So...you don't mind at all that FDR was Uncle Joe's little buddy?

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2003-12-05 06:48pm

Come on Nathan, give FDR a little more credit here. The American people were NOT willing to enter the war unless directly attacked by the Axis. FDR knew that if Britain fell, then Europe would belong to Hitler. They needed to keep Churchill alive and he was able to do so with the brilliant lend-lease and cash-carry initiatives, while appearing neutral to the American people.

While some might argue that his embargo on the Japanese sparked their attack on Pearl Harbor, it was all part of a larger plan to apply pressure on the Axis, while trying to bring the isolationist American public around to the fact that the US needed to take a side in the conflict.

As for his relationship with Stalin, FDR had a lot more to worry about then pissing off an ally by arguing over his internal policies. There was a war going on, and Stalin wasn't an immediate threat to the United States.

BTW, Truman may have clinched the victory in WWII, but FDR died in the Spring of 1945, after the German's defeat. The war wasn't over, but the vast majority of the conflict was helmed by FDR. Truman took office as the Japanese were on their last legs and he made the decision to use the atomic bomb. Though he is famous for this choice, it was hardly the act that won the war in itself.

Enigma · Post by **Enigma** » 2003-12-05 07:13pm

Wrong. They are going to replace the dollar bill with the "Ronnie" or the dollar coin.

It true! It was on the RoboCop series!

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2003-12-05 07:18pm

Alyrium Denryle wrote:
Iceberg wrote:This is a pure power grab, no more, no less. It has nothing to do with honoring Reagan and everything to do with hurting the Democratic party.
I agree. Reagan never really did anything but fuck church and state separation sideways. And increase military spending.

And doing more to win the Cold War than any other western leader. Little things like that.

Alyrium Denryle wrote:
"I believe he represents conservative values as we would see them implemented through a president better than anybody else we've had in American history," Souder said. "He, to conservatives, represents kind of the reverse of FDR, who is kind of the liberal icon. Ronald Reagan is the conservative icon."
Ah, yes... rape the establishment clause, put legal controls on our privat lives, and shift the tax burden onto the middle class... *shudder*

Which is worse than FDR how? FDR wasn't just allied with Stalin out of necessity, he wasn't even just naively trusting of the Soviets. He had an administration shot through with Soviet spies, and he deliberately snubbed Churchill at Yalta in order to cozy up to Stalin. He liked the Russians, and trusted them, at times better than he trusted the British - which, in the most generous interpretation one may put on it, indicates seriously faulty judgement.

FDR also locked up, en masse, Japanese Americans who had committed no crime. Was what Reagan did with the establishment clause in any way worse that what FDR did to the Nisei? Roosevelt also needlessly prolonged the war with his ringing "uncondidtional surrender" declaration, which everyone, from Churchill to Eisenhower, to even Stalin thought was a bad idea. There is good evidence to suggest that Roosevelt's New Deal policies prolonged the depression, instead of ameliorating its effects.

Don't get me wrong. I am not blind to Roosevelt's accomplishments. But hagiographic biographies and his status as a wartime leader have blinded most people to his very real faults. If you study his life, you will find he has every bit as many skeletons in his closet as Rreagan.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-12-05 07:26pm

I don't think FDR should be removed from dimes, but I would have no problem with releasing multiple types of dimes, sort of like we have with quarters.

This is a pure power grab, no more, no less. It has nothing to do with honoring Reagan and everything to do with hurting the Democratic party.

Jesus, that's the dumbest shit I've ever heard. How are the Republicans going to become more powerful just by having Reagan on dimes?

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-12-05 07:29pm

Durran Korr wrote:
This is a pure power grab, no more, no less. It has nothing to do with honoring Reagan and everything to do with hurting the Democratic party.
Jesus, that's the dumbest shit I've ever heard. How are the Republicans going to become more powerful just by having Reagan on dimes?

Constantly irritating the whiny liberals inferiority complex?

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-12-05 11:18pm

Hamel wrote:Hell fucking no. I know the man is worshipped as a god by conservatives, but we're talking about a guy that sold weapons to terrorists. And illegally funded murderous contras. And got lovey-dovey with Hussein. Etc.

FDR, a man who put American citizens in racist concentration camps and started the World's Greatest Ponzi Scheme.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-12-05 11:25pm

Iceberg wrote:This is a pure power grab, no more, no less. It has nothing to do with honoring Reagan and everything to do with hurting the Democratic party.

Oh I agree. Some mathematicians want a .17 piece or something. Put Ronnie Raygun on it instead.