I find the adoration of all celebrities, including politicians, too nauseating to ever consider creating one of those worshipful images. But I have to admit that I’ve looked at the smear genre and there have been times when I said to myself, “I could do that, and I know just the politician I’d like to do it too.” But I’ve never been motivated powerfully enough to actually take the time to do it. All I can say is that while I can’t understand adoration, I do somewhat understand the urge to creatively smear.

I didn’t get too excited over the collection that focused on smearing Obama. Sure, they’re desperate, as is the Zoner who lobbed the link grenade. That’s why I’m willing to relax and enjoy the show. I love the smell of rightwing fear, and it’s getting downright intoxicating.

Except when somebody comes along and uses it to cobble together a political indictment because they are worried they are losing an election.

But we both know the $700B Romney says he will put back into inefficient providers will NEVER happen in a million years. Ryan’s budget cut the exact same $700B plus turns medicare into voucher care for anyone currently under 55. Putting future seniors at the mercy of insurance companies NOT to balance the budget, but to give yet another round of tax cuts to the wealthy on top of the Bush tax cuts.

You don’t know what authentic even means? Yeah, I get that from you.

As far as a candidate’s past being off limits, I don’t think you want to go there. Obama got a free ride on this in 2008. Still is.

Your biography of Reagan’s political background is a bit sparse. There’s a lot of space between 1951 and 1966.

A background as a combat veteran only counts for Democrats when it’s a Democrat.

They cheerfully voted for a draft evader over a decorated combat veteran in 1992, and with the typical flexible political ethics, snapped 180 degrees in their view of the importance of military service in the election of 2004.

I kind of like the way any opposing point I put up here is “outrage.”

I remember that during Reagan’s first foray into national politics, he was compared to other candidates and generally was found wanting in experience in government and politics (this was in the days before competence was turned into a negative by the anti-government crowd). He was indeed the guy who spent his time cavorting with Bonzo while the other candidates were establishing themselves in government service. Reagan was the guy who didn’t go to war, he only played a soldier in the movies; while, again, many of his opponents were putting their lives on the line as real soldiers.

For all your contrived outrage that people brought up Reagan’s acting career during his political campaigns, you can hardly claim it hurt him, now can you? We’re talking about the guy who did get elected President. Twice.

And whose graven image is today worshipped by millions.

What would Reagan have thought of being pictured on the rampage riding a T Rex?

I’ll say it again: Quantifying who’s being deified more, Obama or Reagan, is trivial. What’s more interesting is how the iconography fits into our civic religion. In America we perform a trick akin to transubstantiation or the three-in-one: We take an ordinary human being and elevate him to a position of singular focus and power for a limited period; we make him king in all but name. And during that time we perform rituals every day that celebrate and deify this individual, while stoutly proclaiming “he is but a man”. The White House is the stage for a 200-year-old theatrical production.

It has power. Ronald Reagan really was just a man, but the office elevated him. In the 80s my second ex-wife was in the PR business, and once escorted a group of kids to the Reagan White House for a ceremony honoring some corporate-sponsored program. She described how she was standing beside Reagan, and found herself starting to cry, from the effect of what I’d call his “Presidentiality”. The setting, the rituals, the obeisance of the staff and aides, the tones of voice and the carefully-crafted words of a gifted actor, were all part of a powerful theatrical presentation designed to strum emotional chords. And it sure worked.

I know you won’t let go of your notion that Obama is getting more than his fair share of adulation, but I don’t consider it important enough to worry about. Collecting the iconic images and checking out everybody else’s galleries was interesting, and that’s that. There’s nothing really new here.

If you think your first paragraph is true, I’m not sure there’s a point in responding. “Dabbled.” Good grief.

You take a two-term California governor, and someone who’s acted in multiple heroic movie leads, and the picture you put in your paper is him in his underpants. Right.

I suspect there was a nice pile of photos ready of him and Bonzo, too.