<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Salon.com > Ronald Reagan</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.salon.com/topic/ronald_reagan/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.salon.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Jul 2013 01:14:35 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Obama&#8217;s aversion to leaks channels Reagan</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/06/22/obamas_aversion_to_leaks_channels_reagan/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/06/22/obamas_aversion_to_leaks_channels_reagan/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 22 Jun 2013 21:41:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ronald Reagan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Leaks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NSA whistleblower]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Whistleblowers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Edward Snowden]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bradley Manning]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13334481</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Both presidents vigorously opposed the idea that leaks strengthen America -- and sought to criminalize them]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor who provided documents to <em>The Guardian </em>and blew the whistle on secret surveillance programs collecting the personal data and information of innocent Americans and others from around the world, has been officially charged.</p><p>The <a href="http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/A_U.S.%20news/US-news-PDFs/Snowden-Complaint.pdf">complaint</a>, which was filed on June 14 and leaked to the press yesterday, shows he was charged with “unauthorized communication of national defense information” and “willful communication of classified communications intelligence information to an unauthorized person,” which are both felonies under the Espionage Act.</p><p>As highlighted previously, Snowden is the <a href="http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2013/06/21/snowden-becomes-eighth-person-to-be-indicted-for-espionage-by-the-obama-justice-department/#">eighth person who leaked information</a> to be charged under the Espionage Act under President Barack Obama. The previous seven are: Shamai Leibowitz, Thomas Drake, Stephen Kim, Jeffrey Sterling, Pfc. Bradley Manning, John Kiriakou and James Hitselberger.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/06/22/obamas_aversion_to_leaks_channels_reagan/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/06/22/obamas_aversion_to_leaks_channels_reagan/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>8</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The theme song of the radical right</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/06/16/the_theme_song_of_the_radical_right/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/06/16/the_theme_song_of_the_radical_right/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 16 Jun 2013 17:30:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Music]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[American History]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Battle Hymn of the Republic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ronald Reagan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cold War]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barry Goldwater]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Editor's Pick]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[History]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Books]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13325780</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[How "Battle Hymn of the Republic" -- Reagan's favorite song -- became the background music of the modern GOP]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As conservatives gained power and confidence in the decades after Barry Goldwater’s defeat, each of the three political tributaries whose convergence fueled the movement—anticommunism, antitaxation, and the Religious Right—could claim the “Battle Hymn” as a call to arms. The song resonated with the Manichaean proclivities of cold warriors, who regarded America’s confrontation with the Soviet Union as an ultimate battle, waged in the shadows of nuclear brinksmanship. Even as it addressed contemporary anxieties, the song also conjured up an idyllic American past, one in which traditional values thrived, untroubled by an intrusive federal bureaucracy. Finally, the hymn spoke to the growing electoral clout of evangelical Christians, who had shed the political alienation encouraged by fundamentalism and begun to stride unabashedly into the political arena; it became, for instance, a staple at anti-abortion rallies and was frequently played at protests against the government’s banning of prayer in public schools.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/06/16/the_theme_song_of_the_radical_right/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/06/16/the_theme_song_of_the_radical_right/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>35</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Liberace, gay rights pioneer?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/29/liberace_gay_rights_pioneer_partner/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/29/liberace_gay_rights_pioneer_partner/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 May 2013 21:20:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Entertainment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[LA Review of Books]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[liberace]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AIDS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Behind the Candelabra]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Radio City]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ronald Reagan]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13312183</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[He never came out of the closet, but his act was subtly subversive -- and paved the way for future drag movements]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.lareviewofbooks.org/"><img style="margin: 0 10px 0 0;" src="http://media.salon.com/2013/03/LARB_LOGO_RED_LIGHT1_sm.jpg" alt="Los Angeles Review of Books" align="left" /><br /> </a></p><blockquote><p><em>I find it equally natural to speak of ‘Mr. Showmanship’ Liberace as if he were another person.</em><br /> <em></em></p></blockquote><p><em>— </em>Wladziu “Lee” Valentino Liberace<br /> THE STORIES LIBERACE TOLD ABOUT HIMSELF were nothing like the one Steven Soderbergh told in HBO’s biopic <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1291580/" target="_blank"><em>Behind The Candelabra</em></a>. The new film, which focuses on the relationship between the flamboyant piano-playing entertainer (Michael Douglas) and his lover and companion of five years, Scott Thorson (Matt Damon), is based on Thorson’s 1988 memoir of the same name. The film adaptation, like the book, is an intimate look at a same-sex relationship, chronicling Liberace’s courtship of the much-younger Thorson, Thorson’s ensuing tenure as Liberace’s live-in lover and right-hand man, and the messy breakup in the early 80’s that resulted in a “palimony” lawsuit and much tabloid fodder before Liberace died of AIDS in February 1987. Thorson wrote his book in the wake of the ex-couple’s long, acrimonious legal battle, and his portrait of Liberace is both tender and unsparing. It reveals details of the aging entertainer’s personal life — his face lifts and penis implant, his appetite for pornography and his AIDS — that Liberace, who was famously obsessed with hiding his sexuality and his cosmetic enhancements, had been determined to keep secret. Thorson’s story is, in other words, a tell-all about an entertainer who was determined to go to the grave telling nothing.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/05/29/liberace_gay_rights_pioneer_partner/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/29/liberace_gay_rights_pioneer_partner/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>7</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Top 5 investigative videos of the week: Some rich people are just jerks</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/12/top_5_investigative_videos_of_the_week_some_rich_people_are_just_jerks_partner/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/12/top_5_investigative_videos_of_the_week_some_rich_people_are_just_jerks_partner/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 12 May 2013 17:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Video]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Top 5 investigative videos]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The I Files]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bangladesh]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Garment Factories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Park Avenue]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[monopoly]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Richard Nixon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ronald Reagan]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13295705</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[From the penthouses of Park Avenue to the sweatshops of Bangladesh, a look at the finest docs YouTube has to offer ]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/theifilestv"><img align="left" style="margin: 0 10px 0 0;" src="http://media.salon.com/2013/03/I-Files-logo_for-light-bkgd-e1362186166136.png" alt="The I Files" /></a> Rigged Monopoly, secret agents, mysterious tattoos and one glum Ghost of Gun Control all make an appearance in this week’s top investigative videos.</p><p>For a first look at the best news stories and documentaries from around the world, please take a moment to <a href="http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdmqkUIfXt2cMBOLQsijMFg?sub_confirmation=1">subscribe to The I Files</a>, a totally free and carefully curated news source. We pore over hundreds of hours of videos so you don’t have to and highlight the best stories you might have missed. We don’t mind – it’s what we do.</p><p>Incidentally, The I Files editorial team totally shares the snacks whenever we play Monopoly, unlike some people we know.</p><p>“Park Avenue: Money, power and the American dream,” Alex Gibney for the “Why Poverty?” series</p><p><iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/6niWzomA_So" frameborder="0" width="560" height="315"></iframe></p><p>“Some rich people are just dicks.”</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/05/12/top_5_investigative_videos_of_the_week_some_rich_people_are_just_jerks_partner/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/12/top_5_investigative_videos_of_the_week_some_rich_people_are_just_jerks_partner/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ex-official: Heritage has betrayed Reagan</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/09/ex_official_heritage_has_betrayed_reagan/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/09/ex_official_heritage_has_betrayed_reagan/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 May 2013 19:40:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Heritage Foundation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Think Tank]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Immigration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Immigration Reform]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ronald Reagan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Burton Pines]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13294016</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Exclusive: The Heritage Foundation's former "commissar of ideology" slams the think tank's immigration report]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>During the Reagan Revolution, the Heritage Foundation was seen as the soul of the free market conservative revival. As senior vice president for research at the think tank from 1981 through 1992, Burton Pines was in charge of its intellectual output -- "If Heritage were General Motors, I ran the factory," he says -- but as Heritage comes under fire this week for a controversial immigration report, Pines says the storied organization has lost its way.</p><p>"It's a new Heritage and it's one that's not standing by the principles of Ronald Reagan," he told Salon Thursday. "I'm puzzled why they came out with this study and I'm more puzzled why they seem to be against immigration."</p><p>The foundation's new report, which estimates that immigration reform will cost taxpayers $6 trillion, has touched off <a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/05/09/how_heritage_jettisoned_the_think_in_think_tank/">a civil war on the right</a>.</p><p>"If Jack Kemp were alive today there's no question where he would stand, and he probably wouldn't even be afraid to use the word 'amnesty,'" Pines said of the late congressman who helped developed supply-side economics and mentored Paul Ryan.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/05/09/ex_official_heritage_has_betrayed_reagan/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/09/ex_official_heritage_has_betrayed_reagan/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>27</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>What Darrell Issa really wants out of Benghazi hearing</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/09/darrell_issa_the_man_behind_the_benghazi_hearings/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/09/darrell_issa_the_man_behind_the_benghazi_hearings/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 May 2013 16:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Darrell Issa]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. House of Representatives]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Benghazi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hillary Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Editor's Picks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Oversight]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Operation Fast and Furious]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Solyndra]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ronald Reagan]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13293393</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I worked on the GOP lawmaker's House oversight committee. He wasn't exactly known for his zest for oversight]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>According to Darrell Issa, the chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, his hearing on Benghazi Wednesday was designed to reveal, among other potentially “explosive” points, that he has evidence of the administration’s “premeditated lying to the American people.” Issa previously said that there’s “no question” that someone from Hillary Clinton’s “circle” was involved in a “cover-up” following the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.</p><p>How seriously should Americans take Issa’s hearing and claims?</p><p>For almost four years, I worked in close proximity to him, first on the Democratic staff of the Oversight Committee (when he was ranking member) and then as legislative director for a senior member of the committee, when he was chairman. Here’s what I learned: If Darrell Issa says something – based on the record, his statements and my personal observations of him up-close – there is a strong likelihood it will be baseless and easily disproven.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/05/09/darrell_issa_the_man_behind_the_benghazi_hearings/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/05/09/darrell_issa_the_man_behind_the_benghazi_hearings/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>63</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Reagan daughter says mom Nancy supports gay marriage</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/17/reagan_daughter_says_mom_nancy_supports_gay_marriage/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/17/reagan_daughter_says_mom_nancy_supports_gay_marriage/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Apr 2013 17:28:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Video]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gay Marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[marriage equaliy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ronald Reagan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nancy reagan]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13273894</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[After speculating about a posthumous gay marriage endorsement from the Gipper, Patti Davis addressed mom's views ]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Patti Davis, the daughter of former President Ronald Reagan and First Lady Nancy Reagan, announced in a radio interview this week that her mother supports marriage equality.</p><p>This is the second proxy Reagan endorsement for gay marriage to come from Davis in recent weeks. In an <a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/04/04/reagan_daughter_my_dad_would_have_backed_gay_marriage/" target="_blank">interview</a> with The New York Times earlier this month, Davis said that her father would have supported marriage equality because he explained to her as a child that “some men are born wanting to love another man," and counted a lesbian couple among his closest family friends. Davis also cited Reagan's opposition to a ballot measure that would have barred gays and lesbians from working in public schools during his time as governor of California as more gay marriage credentialing.</p><p>When asked if her mother supported gay marriage, Davis responded "she does," adding that her mother likely agreed with her about the Gipper's stance on equal marriage:</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/04/17/reagan_daughter_says_mom_nancy_supports_gay_marriage/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/17/reagan_daughter_says_mom_nancy_supports_gay_marriage/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Social Security cuts are inexcusable</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/16/social_security_cuts_inexcusable_partner/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/16/social_security_cuts_inexcusable_partner/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Apr 2013 15:15:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Next New Deal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Social Security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Deficit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Goldman Sachs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ronald Reagan]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13272479</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The deficit is shrinking. How can Obama defend dismantling one of the country's most popular government programs?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.nextnewdeal.net/"><img align="left" style="margin: 0 10px 0 0;" src="http://media.salon.com/2013/04/next-new-deal-logo_resize.png" alt="Next New Deal" /></a> The reason President Obama's proposal to cut Social Security benefits is tragic is that it is simply not necessary. His plan is to use a different method to compute how much benefits are raised to offset inflation. But Social Security will add very little to federal spending over the next 30 to 40 years. As a proportion of national income (GDP), It will rise from 5 percent to 6 percent. At the same time, retirees are set to get much less money from their pensions because so many were forced to depend on 401(k)s and defined contribution plans rather than traditional pensions with defined benefits.</p><p>But a new report from Goldman Sachs economists puts the Obama decision in an even harsher light. The federal deficit is coming down rapidly on its own. In a piece entitled, “<a href="http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2013/04/the-rapidly-shrinking-federal-deficit.html" target="_blank">The Rapidly Shrinking Federal Deficit</a>,” Goldman notes that the deficit averaged 4.5 percent of GDP in the first calendar quarter, compared to 10.1 percent in fiscal year 2009. The reasons are faster economic growth, higher taxes, and reduced government spending.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/04/16/social_security_cuts_inexcusable_partner/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/16/social_security_cuts_inexcusable_partner/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>49</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Could Obama really learn something from Reagan?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/11/believe_it_or_not_obama_can_learn_from_reagan/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/11/believe_it_or_not_obama_can_learn_from_reagan/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Apr 2013 13:18:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Video]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ronald Reagan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chained CPI]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Social Security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cutting social security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[MSNBC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rachel Maddow]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[David Axelrod]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Deficit]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13267885</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A stunning, old quote reveals the Gipper understood that Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Between <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2005/02/02/retirement/stofunion_socsec/">2005</a> and today, a series of elections took place that fully rejected the Republican economic worldview that says America must cut successful programs like Social Security. Yet, eight years after President Bush first proposed <a href="http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/news/2005/05/05/1462/primer-on-president-bushs-plan-for-social-security-privatization/">cutting Social Security</a>, we have somehow <a href="http://www.thenation.com/blog/173771/will-voters-forgive-obama-cutting-social-security">arrived back where we started</a> - only instead of a Republican president championing Social Security reductions it is a Democratic president.</p><p>This bizarre repetition of presidential history was the subject of Rachel Maddow's <a href="http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-rachel-maddow-show/51500389">MSNBC interview</a> last night of President Obama's top political consigliere David Axelrod. The discussion was significant for how Axelrod tried to avoid answering why, when it comes to Social Security, President Obama is now positioning himself to the right of Ronald Reagan. He is doing this by invoking deficits and debt as the reason to propose cutting Social Security, even though that program that has <a href="http://www.epi.org/publication/social_security_and_the_federal_deficit/">almost nothing to do with the national deficit and debt</a>.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/04/11/believe_it_or_not_obama_can_learn_from_reagan/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/11/believe_it_or_not_obama_can_learn_from_reagan/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>38</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Reagan Revolution is over</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/09/the_reagan_revolution_is_over/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/09/the_reagan_revolution_is_over/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Apr 2013 15:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ronald Reagan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Thatcher]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republican Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[GOP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[1980s]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13265146</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Why the GOP has failed to capitalize on nostalgia for the ex-president: The nation has changed and so has the party]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The reason the Onion's <a href="http://www.theonion.com/video/zombie-reagan-raised-from-grave-to-lead-gop,14385/?r44b=no">spoof</a> about Ronald Reagan being raised from the grave to lead today's Republican Party still remains one of the funniest political satires in recent memory is because it rings so true. With the GOP in such disarray, you get the sense that the only thing that unifies the conservative movement is a visceral hatred of America's first African-American president and a cultlike worship of the Gipper. You also get the sense that if Republican leaders could have, they would have done exactly what that Onion spoof suggested --  reanimate the corpse of Ronald Reagan and run him for president in 2012 -- and for good reason. According to a stunning <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/08/1980s-poll-nostalgic/2065095/">new national poll</a> released today by the National Geographic Channel, Reagan would have demolished Obama in a head-to-head match-up.</p><p>As the coverage of Margaret Thatcher's death this week reminds us, the 1980s still define us in so many ways. The National Geographic Channel poll, timed to the Sunday premiere of <a href="http://www.natgeotv.com/the80s">the channel's three-night "The '80s: The Decade That Made Us,"</a> is chock-full of revealing findings about why exactly that is.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/04/09/the_reagan_revolution_is_over/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/09/the_reagan_revolution_is_over/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>114</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Sarah Palin thinks she&#8217;s Margaret Thatcher</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/08/sarah_palin_thinks_shes_margaret_thatcher/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/08/sarah_palin_thinks_shes_margaret_thatcher/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Apr 2013 21:26:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sarah Palin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Margaret Thatcher]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conservatism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[England]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Britain]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.K.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tea Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ronald Reagan]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13265186</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[For the former Alaska governor, describing the former prime minister is like looking in a mirror]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Here's how a former half-term governor described Margaret Thatcher in <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/345014/grocer-s-daughter-sarah-palin">National Review</a> today. Sound familiar?</p><blockquote><p>She was at heart a populist taking on the Conservative party’s old guard, who disdainfully referred to her as “That Woman.” The disdain was mutual. She referred to them as “the not so grand grandees.” As Thatcher later said, “It didn’t matter what they called me as long as I got the job done. I mean, to me they were ‘Those Grandees.’ They just don’t know what life is like. They haven’t been through it. And eventually if they didn’t help our cause, they had to go. But it didn’t bother me too much that they were patronizing like that. Frankly, the people, who are the true gentlemen, deal with others for what they are, not who their father was. Let’s face it: Maybe it took ‘That Woman’ to get things done, and the real reason why they said it was because they knew they just hadn’t got it within them to see things through.”</p></blockquote><p>As she continues:</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/04/08/sarah_palin_thinks_shes_margaret_thatcher/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/08/sarah_palin_thinks_shes_margaret_thatcher/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>93</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Judge overrules Obama to protect women&#8217;s health</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/05/judge_overrules_obama_to_protect_womens_health/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/05/judge_overrules_obama_to_protect_womens_health/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Apr 2013 18:50:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ronald Reagan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judges]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Contraception]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Kathleen Sebelius]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FDA]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13262751</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Crucial victory had to come from GOP-appointed judge -- not cowardly Obama or Sebelius]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Today, a federal judge appointed by Ronald Reagan did for women's health what the Obama administration was too <a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/12/07/obama_says_no_to_plan_b_for_teens/">politically cowardly</a> to do: Make safe, time-sensitive emergency contraception available to everyone, regardless of age. The shameful thing is that it had to come to this.</p><p>The administration, said 2nd Circuit District Judge Edward Korman, acted in "bad faith" -- a phrase that arises again and again in the stinging decision. And Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius acted in a fashion that "was politically motivated, scientifically unjustified, and contrary to agency precedent."</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/04/05/judge_overrules_obama_to_protect_womens_health/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/05/judge_overrules_obama_to_protect_womens_health/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>63</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Reagan daughter: My dad would have backed gay marriage</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/04/reagan_daughter_my_dad_would_have_backed_gay_marriage/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/04/reagan_daughter_my_dad_would_have_backed_gay_marriage/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Apr 2013 13:04:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gay Marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marriage equality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Same-sex marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gay Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ronald Reagan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[GOP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republicans]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13261330</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Patti Davis cites gay friends and small government bonafides to back her theory. Phyllis Schlafly is not impressed]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For the party faithful, Ronald Reagan is the gold standard in Republican agenda setting. And with "What Would Reagan Do?" serving as a GOP mantra (however superficially) during primary campaigns and on matters of governance large and small, a posthumous marriage equality endorsement from the Gipper could be big news for a party trying to find its footing on the issue.</p><p>Well, Reagan's daughter Patti Davis has a theory about where her dad would have stood on gay rights and same-sex marriage.</p><p>In an <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/04/us/politics/reagan-daughter-says-hed-have-backed-gay-marriage.html?ref=todayspaper" target="_blank">interview</a> with the New York Times on Thursday, Davis pointed to her father's belief in limited government, his Hollywood history and a lesbian couple -- Davis' "aunt and aunt" -- who were close family friends as reasons Reagan would have backed marriage equality: "I grew up in this era where your parents’ friends were all called aunt and uncle. And then I had an aunt and an aunt. We saw them on holidays and other times. We never talked about it, but I just understood that they were a couple."</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/04/04/reagan_daughter_my_dad_would_have_backed_gay_marriage/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/04/reagan_daughter_my_dad_would_have_backed_gay_marriage/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Five questions that will decide the gun debate</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/03/our_gun_policy_debate_is_getting_weird/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/03/our_gun_policy_debate_is_getting_weird/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Apr 2013 14:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Guns]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gun Control]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NRA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Colorado]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Universal background checks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[background checks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ronald Reagan]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13259455</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The fight for gun safety reform has complications and hurdles. Here's what will determine who ultimately wins]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>President Obama's visit to Colorado today to press his case for modest gun control comes as the fight over firearm policy becomes more complicated -- and in some cases, more oxymoronic -- than ever. In advance of his visit, the National Rifle Association released a <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/nra-funded-proposal-calls-armed-personnel-schools-170423486.html">rehash</a> of its earlier ridiculed proposal to supposedly solve the scourge of gun violence by arming teachers. However, as expected, the proposal did not endorse universal background checks for gun purchases.</p><p>In a CNN interview discussing the plan, NRA official Asa Hutchinson claimed he is "open to expanding background checks," but the Huffington Post notes "he stopped far short of endorsing the type of universal background checks for all gun sales that have been proposed" in major legislation before the U.S. Senate.</p><p>All of this points to five key questions at the heart of today's increasingly bizarre gun debate - and their not-so-satisfying answers:</p><p><strong>1. Why does the NRA oppose the universal background check policy it once championed?</strong></p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/04/03/our_gun_policy_debate_is_getting_weird/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/03/our_gun_policy_debate_is_getting_weird/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>56</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Do Americans still not get Reaganomics?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/02/do_americans_still_not_get_reaganomics/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/02/do_americans_still_not_get_reaganomics/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Apr 2013 19:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ronald Reagan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supply-side economics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republican Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Liberals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fiscal policy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13259061</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A new poll shows Americans laud Republicans' economic management. Facts show they're being way too generous]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/161573/americans-top-critique-gop-unwilling-compromise.aspx" target="_blank">results </a>of a new Gallup poll released Monday reveal an unfortunate yet wholly unsurprising fact: The most commonly offered <em>positive</em> statement about the Republican Party continues to be its capacity for “better fiscal management.”</p><p>While not unexpected, it’s an absolutely baffling, incredible position, noteworthy even when held by an admittedly slim plurality of the public. Considering the enormous damage the Republican brand has taken recently, it’s significant that voters still reflexively assume conservatives are “better at” or more “serious about” the economy than liberals. (At the same time, voters reflexively assume that liberals care more about “people like me.”)</p><p>Still, the notion that our economy would be healthier if it were managed by Republicans — <a href="http://budget.house.gov/uploadedfiles/pathtoprosperity2013.pdf" target="_blank">who advocate implementing a ludicrous, crippling austerity package that falls disproportionately on the shoulders of the poor and middle class</a> — the damning <a href="http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2013/01/austeritys-irrationality-the-age-of-economic-anorexia.html" target="_blank">evidence</a> notwithstanding, is left completely unexamined everywhere, the focus falling instead on the poll finding that showed bipartisan distaste for Republican intransigence.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/04/02/do_americans_still_not_get_reaganomics/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/02/do_americans_still_not_get_reaganomics/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>52</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Republicans love poor people now</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/23/republicans_%e2%9d%a4_welfare_queens/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/23/republicans_%e2%9d%a4_welfare_queens/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 23 Mar 2013 13:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republican Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ronald Reagan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[George W. Bush]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bill Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Welfare]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Newt Gingrich]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Welfare reform]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hunger]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Poverty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reince Priebus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Editor's Picks]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13249792</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The party that forever demonized struggling Americans now realizes it needs them, in order to survive. Oops]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It's safe to say that the Republican Party's recent decision to “<a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/130999130/RNC-Growth-Opportunity-Book-2013">relaunch</a>” itself and suddenly <a href="http://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/compassionate-conservatism-is-back">reach out to poor people</a> is motivated more by a naked desire to win votes, than by some Gandhi-like benevolence. If the party's policy platforms -- highlighted by an Edward Scissorhands-like budget that slices <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/03/21/house-ryan-budget-balance-medicare/2005613/">programs for the indigent</a> -- weren't a dead giveaway, the RNC's new ballyhooed <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/130999130/RNC-Growth-Opportunity-Book-2013">strategy plan</a> comes right out and says it.</p><p>And yet, despite its dubious origins, the party's new approach is a striking statement regarding the political power — and numbers — of lower-income people in this country: Rather than dismiss, slur or divide poorer Americans (as in prior elections), Republicans have now made the political calculation that they've no choice but to talk directly to them and win their votes.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/03/23/republicans_%e2%9d%a4_welfare_queens/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/23/republicans_%e2%9d%a4_welfare_queens/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>87</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ben Carson: Latest GOP savior!</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/22/ben_carson_new_gop_savior/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/22/ben_carson_new_gop_savior/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Mar 2013 14:02:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[George W. Bush]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ronald Reagan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Presidential Race]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[White House]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Herman Cain]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[political campaigns]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republican Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ben Carson]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13248950</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A neonatal surgeon with no political experience has Republicans going gaga. When will they ever learn? ]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Remember way back to when Ted Cruz was the next savior of the Republican Party? That was, what, last week, right? And before that it was Marco Rubio, or Paul Ryan, or Bobby Jindal … and before that, before Sandy, it was going to be Chris Christie. And it’s not so long ago that Herman Cain was the next big thing. Or Michele Bachmann. Or, heaven help us, Newt Gingrich. And there’s always the Sage of Wasilla herself. That’s a lot of saviors over four years.</p><p>At any rate, forget all that: the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/21/us/politics/dr-benjamin-carson-obama-critic-have-conservatives-dreaming-of-2016.html?ref=politics">new fantasy candidate for conservatives is Dr. Benjamin Carson</a>, a neonatal surgeon, with no political experience, who achieved the status of dream presidential nominee by virtue of giving a good speech at the conservative conference CPAC last week. By late Thursday afternoon, he was <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/03/22/ben-carson-incredibly-small-chance-ill-run-for-office/">explaining</a> to CNN's Jake Tapper the circumstances under which he'd consider a bid for the White House in 2016.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/03/22/ben_carson_new_gop_savior/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/22/ben_carson_new_gop_savior/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>112</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>GOP&#8217;s presidential front-runner: Not who you think</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/16/gops_presidential_front_runner_not_who_you_think/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/16/gops_presidential_front_runner_not_who_you_think/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 16 Mar 2013 11:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CPAC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cpac 2013]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republican Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[George W. Bush]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jeb Bush]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[George H.W. Bush]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bob Dole]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ronald Reagan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mitt Romney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John McCain]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Editor's Picks]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13242878</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As 2016 speculation begins, don't believe the myth that GOP always picks the presidential candidate “next in line”]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>All eyes this week are on the CPAC meeting of conservatives, a Beltway gathering that will produce the first straw poll of Republican presidential candidates of the 2016 cycle. (Hey, we’re under three years to the Iowa caucuses now!) But the wiseguy reaction should come soon: All of the jockeying for position is irrelevant, because everybody knows that Republicans always select the “next in line” candidate. For example, Micah Cohen <a href="http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/14/is-it-too-early-for-2016-polls/">claims</a> that Hillary Clinton may benefit from a next in line effect, and that it’s “a dynamic seen in several recent Republican primaries.”</p><p>It’s a myth.</p><p>But expect to see plenty of it. It was a widely circulated myth during the last cycle, and the nomination of Mitt Romney will surely entrench the myth even more. But still, it’s a myth.</p><p>Of course it is true that parties – all parties – are most likely to nominate a candidate who enters the fight as the clear leader. But if “next in line” is more than just a trite statement that strong candidates usually do well, then it doesn’t help to predict anything.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/03/16/gops_presidential_front_runner_not_who_you_think/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/16/gops_presidential_front_runner_not_who_you_think/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>24</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Mini golf for freedom!</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/14/minigolf_for_freedom/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/14/minigolf_for_freedom/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Mar 2013 16:51:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CPAC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cpac 2013]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[merchandise]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ronald Reagan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fashion]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13228934</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A user's guide to the weirdest, craziest stuff at the carnival that is CPAC]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sure, CPAC is a place for conservative leaders to share big ideas about rebuilding the movement, and for ambitious politicians to cut their teeth and earn the loyalty of committed conservative activists. But it is also basically one big carnival where, for example, you can play basketball for freedom.</p><p>And that doesn't even start to describe the merchandise that's available here: T-shirts, beer cozies, aprons, bumper stickers, and pins emblazoned with images of Ronald Reagan or messages like "I &lt;3 Hyek." Even Optimus Prime makes a cameo.</p><p>Here's your guide to the best of the best CPAC weirdness (click on pictures for bigger images):</p><p><strong>Apparel for freedom:</strong> Eberle &amp; Associates, a GOP-affiliated direct mail firm, is handing out free tees with messages like, “Keep Calm and Fight Socialsim” in the style of the British WWII poster, and “Viva la Reagan Revolution” in the style of Che Guevara. All you have to do is tweet the hashtag “#fightsocialism” or like them on Facebook. Another booth offers “customized apparel for fraternities, sororities, and honor groups” (<a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/338142/are-frat-brothers-natural-conservatives-betsy-woodruff">groups that tend to lean right</a>), while another offers patriotic-themed clothing — all made in America, of course. And Marco Rubio’s PAC is selling $25 water bottles (<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/19/marco-rubio-water-bottle_n_2716768.html">get it?</a>).</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/03/14/minigolf_for_freedom/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/14/minigolf_for_freedom/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Paul Ryan and the problem with losing</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/13/paul_ryan_and_the_problem_with_losing/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/13/paul_ryan_and_the_problem_with_losing/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Mar 2013 16:54:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Video]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opening Shot]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Paul Ryan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sarah Palin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lloyd Bentsen]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bill Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bob Dole]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ronald Reagan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[George H.W. Bush]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Joe Lieberman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Geraldine Ferraro]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Walter Mondale]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Editor's Picks]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13227267</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Like myriad candidates before him, Paul Ryan is learning how damaging being part of a failed ticket can really be]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What was most striking about the unveiling of <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323826704578353902612840488.html">Paul Ryan's latest budget blueprint</a> on Tuesday was how familiar it felt. Here was the chairman of the House Budget Committee for the third time in three years offering a dramatic reimagining of the size and scope of the federal government, with plans for deep tax cuts slanted heavily toward the rich, the voucherization of Medicare, and a thinning of the safety net. In the spring of <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/15/paul-ryan-budget-proposal-vote_n_849800.html">2011</a> and <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/14/opinion/paul-ryans-fairy-tale-budget-plan.html">2012</a>, Ryan put forward similar plans, which his House Republican colleagues quickly <a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/05/31/medicare_ryan/">pushed through the chamber</a> only to watch them die in the Senate. And now, with a few <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/paul-ryan-budget-obamacare-medicare-2013-3">politically cynical tweaks</a>, the annual ritual is once again being observed.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/03/13/paul_ryan_and_the_problem_with_losing/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/13/paul_ryan_and_the_problem_with_losing/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>23</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>