There really couldn't be two more opposite leaders than Reagan and Obama.......Is anyone aware that a Bust of Obama has been transported to Mt. Rushmore???

While yes in policy Obama and Reagan could not be much more opposite they do have some similarities.

Both followed horrible presidents. Reagan of course followed Jimmy Carter and Obama followed Bush II (notice they will conveniently look over the fact I was critical of a democrat just now)

Both are going to end up being transformational figures in politics. I mean the Republican primary pretty much consisted of a Reagan butt kissin contest, and Obama has turned perennial Red states Blue.

Both presidents won their elections big time.

As far as I am concerned that should be the extent of their similarities.

Thanks BDN for pointing out what a loser Reagan was. If you have nothing good to say and only heresay to report, keep it to yourself. Writing this type of garbage in a public forum is hate provoking and wrong. The BDN editorial writers need to grow up and mature.

Please note that Republicans are being asked to "let go" of Reagan as a realization of changing times rather than as a critique of his Presidency.

Sheesh.

I always thought President Reagan brought a lot optimizium and confidence in people that was why we prosperous during that time period. I was under the impression that was man that was fair and reached out to both sides of the aisle and had the wonderful ability to speak to all Americans. To try to compare President Obama to Reagan is like comparing oranges and lemons. Where as President Reagan encouraged people to work hard and start new business help everyone prosper I see President Obama swipe confidence and hope away from anyone who tries to prosper by taxing them poor. I suppose if your poor and don't want to be responsible or work there is hope with this President. Yeah, I guess you can tie in to Reagan's era some how?:(

I see a lot of small business owners on a daily basis and they are very worried about if they are going to be in business in the near future because of the way this country is moving. I see a complete opposite of the Reagan era. As i see this country it is going to be Socialistic with a two tier society the rich and the poor. End of story. Forget about the middle class they are now POOR.....................

LETS FACE IT WE ARE GOING DOWN THE TUBES AND THE DEMOCRATS HAVE THE TUBES SLANTED DOWNHILL AND GREASED. WAKE UP AMERICA!!!!

"Letting Go" of Reagan is the reason the Republicans and conservatism is in the minority as we speak. Too many republicrats have tried to outspend and outdemocrat the demorats and now we are faced with huge deficits with no end in sight.

There will never be another Reagan. He was one of a kind. What Reagan gave us was a LEADER who led instead of taking a poll (Clinton + Obama) every time a decision was needed. Leaders LEAD!

There is NO dispute that tax cuts create a vibrant economy and that government IS the problem. It happens EVERY time it is used. High taxes CRIPPLE the economy EVERY TIME it is done. This country did not become great because of big government, an inconvenient truth that the demorats and liberals seem to ignore. We became great and will remain great only with SMALL government that does not rob the taxpayer of their hard earned money and take away our individual rights.....rights to spend OUR money the way we see fit, not the way some self-appointed, narcissistic, arrogant savior deems suitable.

A shocking aspect of the 1980 election that brought Reagan and Bush I to power was their illegal and covert conspiring - with the connivance of Israel - with the Radical Islamists holding Americans hostage to prevent those prisoners from being released. As Bob Woodward and Walter Pincus have reported in the Washington Post and Alfonso Chardy in the Miami Herald, three Reagan campaign aides met in a Washington DC hotel in early October, 1980, with a self-described "Iranian exile" who offered, on behalf of the Iranian government, to release the hostages to Reagan, not Carter, in order to ensure Carter's defeat in the November 4, 1980 election. Additional reportage is laid out in the an In These Times article by Honegger and Naureckas, dated July 7, 1987, and also in three articles by Christopher Hitchens in the June 20, July 11, and August 8, 1987, issues of The Nation. Several Washington Post articles, and Alfonso Chardy, writing in the Miami Herald, also supply evidence of a deal between Iranian emissaries and future Reagan administration officials. Many of the names cited in these accounts of the 1980 events reappear in the 1987 congressional Iran-contra investigations. They include William Casey, Attorney General Edwin Meese, Undersecretary of Defense Fred Ikle, former Secretary of the Navy John Lehman, former CIA Deputy Director Max Hugel, Richard Secord, Oliver North, and Michael Ledeen.

Both operations involved some of the same characters, the same shadowy connections to Israel, the same secret wheeling and dealing with Iran, and the same extensive investigation by congressmen who then shied away from closing the circle. They pulled back when they realized that, standing with the president in the docket, was not only some of Israel's shadow government in Washington, but the Israeli government itself. Hitchens sums it all up as follows: "Well, the hostages were released at just the right time, and the first shipments of weapons began the very next month. You may wonder if the Reaganites were capable of making such a vile deal. But you don't really wonder that, do you?"

To hold extra-governmental negotiations of this sort is illegal under U.S. law, and to do so to influence an election profoundly un-American. It set up the GOP in the White House for 20 of the next 28 years to act on behalf of powerful corporate interests, and through voodoo economics and radical deregulation, set the stage for our current economic crisis. This is the true legacy of Reagan-Bush.

A former Republican

Pokeyboy wrote: "A shocking aspect of the 1980 election that brought Reagan and Bush I to power was their illegal and covert conspiring - with the connivance of Israel - with the Radical Islamists holding Americans hostage to prevent those prisoners from being released."

And they say only the far right has got a "black helicopter complex." All I can say is "Wow".

Another editorial of trash on Regan. Whatever happened to Rick Warren? His dad would be rolling over, as would other editorial writers of the past at the BDN. This paper cannot say anything good about today's republicans, nor can they write anything good about one of the best Presidents in our times. They have to try and dig up whatever they can to diminish President Regan. It must be quite painful for today's editorial writers at the News, to have to cope with reality. Hence, they trash whatever republicans they can, and do plenty of it..Is it to sell newspapers to all those Obama supporters? It must be. Only to think back of the days when the BDN had a much more favorable opinions of real leaders. One wonders if Rick Warren ever clears these anti editorials, or just says to hell with it, we need to sell these papers. It wasn't too long ago when the NEWS circulation was hovering in the 90,000 figure, and today, guess what, it is in the 50's and dropping like flies.. .Larry T. Doughty, South Brewer, Maine, larrytdoughty@yahoo.com, www.ourstory.com/larrytdoughty/

I like how this is a "staff" story. This is what happens when a group of like minded poeple sit in a room wishing to support a particular agenda or view. No doubt these poeple are all card carrying members of the DNC. This editorial is more "staff infection" than staff editorial. The last time I looked Congress had budgetory powers...who was in charge of Congress during the "enormous increase" of national debt under Reagan? The BDN is blatently involed in dumbing down the population of this state. What ever it takes to win, right BDN? Good brief. You should all be ashamed of yourselves for the role you play in making poeple as gallatically ignorant as you are. The difference is, you are paid to be better than this.

LarryT39, you nailed it. The BDN is no longer in the business of journalism. They are strictly in it for the circulation and revenue. It is a sad state of affairs when a newspaper not only through its editorial content but throughout its entire publication goes out of its way to put either a sensationalized or political slant on every piece written. It is clear that this organization spends more money on marketing than it does actually going out and reporting the news.

I come here strictly for its entertainment value. Every article written that I have ever had first hand knowledge of, is either misleading, or flat out innaccurate. It is actually the BDN that taught me that before I believe what is written in the news, I had better verify it against other sources before basing any conclusion or decision on it.

BDN - Now that one of your staff writers has dissed the greatest President in recent history, why don't you do the right thing and write something to honor his legacy? Would it be asking too much to try something without a left leaning bias? Shameful journalism.

"Did he really end the Cold War? When he told the East Germans: “Tear down this wall,” they and other satellite nations were already restive under Soviet mastery, and the Soviet Union itself was nearing collapse."

Really, oh grand poobah's of the BDN...and why was that?

Because the greatest president of the 20th century had no compunction about calling the Soviet Union what it was - the "Evil Empire" and stared down the Soviet machine.

If we had re-elected Jimmy Carter, or any of the recent liberal Democrat sorry excuses (including our current Teleprompter reader), we would have been locked into the cold war for years and years to come...probably until this day.

Reagan bankrupted the Soviet Union and effectively eliminated the threat of Russian communism by understanding that his primary role was that of defending the American people, our Constitution and our nation's sovereignty.

He understood what makes America great. Faith in God, individual liberty, support for Israel and an unwavering commitment to our troops...not an exhaustive list, but you get the picture...

cm1113...you are not the first to say "Both presidents won their elections big time" which is simply not true.

In 1980 President Reagan carried 44 states and 50.7% of the popular vote to 41% for President Carter.

In 1984 President Reagan carried 49 states and 58.8% of the popular vote to 40.6% for VP Walter Mondale.

In 2008 President Obama carried 28 states and 52.9% of the popular vote to 45.7% for Senator McCain.

JD2008: It sure seemed like President Obama carried more thatn 28....just saying it seemed like it. ...when I think of all he won. Fla, Va, Mich, Penn, Ohio, etc,etc....places some did not think he would do that well in. McCain did not win Missouri by much at all (and Missouri is a bellwether state) But, as you would say, what does it really matter now. The President who won, won. And let me say....those of us who wanted Obama, were quite thrilled with the results on election night.....we thought he did very well.....when those states such as Penn, Fla, Ohio and Va, went his way.....well, I know you cannot understand but it was a good and fine showing to many of us. Oh well.....I do notice that some Republicans get some kind of "satisfaction" in , it seems, trying to diminish his win. Not saying you are (you always state facts and data, which as I have said, is a good thing.) Once again.....for many of us, it does not diminish the win.

OK JD. the election between Obama and McCain was a real nail bitter - give me a break.

Thank you for this much needed correction to the Reagan myth. However, you got one point wrong, as most everyone does. There was a large segment of the population whose taxes were raised not lowered by Reagan: those making at or near minimum wage, that is those of us who were poor. Reagan raised the FICA (social security/medicare tax) to 15%. Of course only people who were poor or earning a middling wage were taxed 15%. The wealthiest people, because of the cap on earnings, paid only a miniscule percent of their income, some paying the entire tax during the first hour or so of the year. Those of us who earned very little paid that tax all year long. For us there was an increase in taxes not a tax cut. I do wish that more than only those of us who are poor knew this.

JD, thanks for the 10:41 post. I'm not trying to take anything away from President Obama. He won a really tough primary that I personally didn't think he could win. Then he won a historic Presidential election, which I assumed any Democrat candidate would win, but a win is a win. I just think that in a story where the writer is trying to say the many successes of Reagan were just a myth, is a fair place to point out the myth that the 2008 election was a landslide. No it wasn't a nail bitter and compared to more recent elections it was a really solid victory; but this myth that it was some historic landslide isn't true. It was historic because President Obama walked a tough road to be the first non- white president, not because of a Reagan type landslide. Maybe President Obamma can pull that off in the 2012 election. First though he will have to come up with some progress to show for all this money being spent. I agree that you still have to give him some time to get that done. It is disappointing though that when pressed many times this week just 6 months in to his term, he is already refusing to say he will keep his promise not to raise taxes on the middle class. He knew all about the health care situation when he made that campaign promise over and over again not to raise taxes. Its a little disingenuous to now use it as a excuse to break a promise made so many times.

This puts the "Deadly" in the "Bangor Deadly".