Obama under fire for giving Reagan credit

Obama was right. Reagan did change the course of America for the better. Anyone who can remember Jimmy Carter knows of the malaise that Carter introduced into this country, that its best days were behind it. No one needs to embellish Ronald Reagan's leadership; it takes a big man to recognize as a Democrat, just as Republicans are not hesitant to note the achievements of John Kennedy, Harry Truman and Franklin Roosevelt. This is a two-party government and neither party has a corner on the scoundrels nor the heroes.
Hillary's response is expected, but as I recall, she didn't have a very high opinion of Bill either.

The politicians do not want to change social security it is a cash cow used to balance the budget. Anyway politicians and govt employees do not pay into social security, they have their own retirement funds and health care system paid for by the taxpayers.

If JFK were alive today he would find he had more in comman with the republicans then the democrats

Ouch!
Pass the popcorn jethro.

Paulo

I am surprised that Clinton and Edwards simply did not "get" what Obama was alluding to.
There was a certain gene se quoi that both Reagan and Kennedy possessed: The quality that lends itself easily to being called Reagan-esque or Kennedy-esque.

(You never hear Bush-esque or Johnson-esque, and I doubt you ever will).

It isnt about politics, or laws enacted...

It's about charisma, getting the People to believe that change is possible, and rallying the People to point the country in the right direction again without regard to political affiliation or beliefs.

Presidential candidates who have that ability come along once in a generation...

Obama is being criticized for praising Reagan. Democrat attacked for tolerance of policies half of all democrats once voted for. Excuse me while my head explodes...

Senator Edward's:
You know what, I was going to respond but why bother.

Senator Clinton, your husband signed Republican Bills. That's probably why you don't remember.

Senator Obama, if you want to acknowledge Pres'. Reagan, JFK then move to the center. Protect Business & lower taxes to help the working poor by taking a stand. The rest follows.

But to the 3 of you. Not one has Executive experience.
Obama, if you had that and moved to the center I believe you'd create a greater following.
Skin color, religion, sex, I don't care about (well maybe sex LOL). If you can do the job then that's it for me.

Just as Gov. Romney on the Republican side is also the person for me. He has the experience though.
But these are Primaries, except a true leader will separate themselves from the rest.

Charisma is overrated. History is full of charismatic leaders led their followers to doom. Let's have ideas that we can evaluate from everyone.

Edwards' comments about President Reagan are as inane as one might expect from the well-coiffed political lightweight that he is.

Ronald Reagan was the only President of the US to have ever been the head of a union, the SAG. The only union he "broke" was a public employees union, the Air Traffic controllers, who broke the law and tried to bring the country to a standstill.

Reagan drew more votes from rank and file labor union members than Edwards will ever garner in his wildest fantasies.

Let's have ideas that we can evaluate from everyone.

Posted by: ed | January 18, 2008 8:02 PM

~~~~~~

Good idea "ed"! Thats the cornerstone of bureaucracy and government ennui, like we havent had enough "ideas" already. Oh, you outdid yourself and really thought this one out, pal.

NEXT!

Obama’s opponents are now trying to make a big deal of his observation–certainly historically correct–that Ronald Reagan’s type of leadership created a sea-change (for good or for ill) in the American polity.

Obama was also pointing to the fact that Reagan was an excellent communicator who connected with the public in a way that many others–like Nixon and Bill Clinton–did not.

Furthermore, Obama’s questioning of the relevance of Hillary Clinton’s type of “experience” in confronting the new challenges the United States faces receives validation from an interesting case in American history.

It also points to why Obama’s outsider status might actually be just what is needed to successfully restore the U.S. to international political creditworthiness.

Lincoln biographer David Herbert Donald showed how what might have been perceived as the Great Emancipator’s serious shortcomings as a war president and commander in chief actually turned out to be some of his greatest assets.

Remember, Lincoln came to the presidency having only meager experience–much less than Sen. Obama’s–in public office, let alone experience in the Executive Branch. (Lincoln’s experience in the military was limited to little more than two months service during the Black Hawk War.)

According to Donald, Lincoln was also fortunately unburdened by convention, precedent, and standard operating procedures in facing war’s challenge. (The parallels with Obama kind of leap from the page, no?)

However, Lincoln was also a quick study who grew into greatness through trial and error in pursuing the most significant of his goals.

Lincoln also knew democracy’s ancient lessons. When Cicero finished speaking, the people said, “My, how well he spoke.” But when Demosthenes finished speaking the people said, “Let us march!”

“Public sentiment is everything,” Lincoln noted. “With it, nothing can fail, against it, nothing can succeed. Whoever moulds public sentiment, goes deeper than he who enacts statutes, or pronounces judicial decisions. He makes possible the enforcement of these, else impossible.”

Martin Edwin Andersen, Churchton, Maryland

P.S. Memo to Hillary: Next Monday we will be celebrating Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, not Lyndon Johnson Day.

Immediately after Reagan died--on June 28, 1994--CNN reported that:

"Former President Bill Clinton and his wife, Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, issued a statement that praised the former president for his optimistic outlook."

The CNN report continued:

"'Hillary and I will always remember President Ronald Reagan for the way he personified the indomitable optimism of the American people, and for keeping America at the forefront of the fight for freedom for people everywhere,' their statement said."
(See:http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/05/reagan.main/index.html)

More interestingly--and in retrospect understandably, given their common penchant for lying--President Bill Clinton eulogized Richard Nixon at his funeral like this: "May the day of judging President Nixon on anything less than his entire life and career come to a close."

(See: The New York Times, April 28, 1994; http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9805E5DD1730F93BA15757C0A962958260)

Now the Clinton camp followers hypocritically make Obama's statement of fact--that Reagan ushered in a sea-change in U.S. politics, whether you agreed with his direction or not--into some claim that Obama is less than genuine in his politics.

Clinton talking point No. 1: That Reagan busted unions, therefore Obama must been less than committed to the labor movement.

Meanwhile, people forget that Bill Clinton pardoned the union-busting international financier Mark Rich.

(See http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0212-04.html)

Elsewhere I have blogged that Hillary Clinton is the Democrats' Richard Nixon in pumps.

Need there be any more proof?

Martin Edwin Andersen
Churchton, Maryland

Oh god, are we talking about Republican hero Ronbo Reagan?

That popping sound you hear is the Wingnuts heads exploding in delight.

I respectfully disagree with Senator Obama on Reagan.

Ronny Raygun was a crook who should have been impeached and imprisoned for selling out America's good name to the Iran Contra's:

http://photobucket.com/mediadetail/?media=http%3A%2F%2Fi8.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa22%2FTw1tcheroo%2FReagan.gif&searchTerm=ronald%20reagan&pageOffset=5

I want a refund!

http://roadkillrefugee.wordpress.com/2008/01/17/obama-cites-reagan-as-his-inspiration-disses-president-clinton/

Who are the defenders of the status quo ? Is that you ?
Reagan did spawn a 'sea change' in American politics.
Obama hopes to spawn a new 'sea change'. Change based on the ideals of unity - not division (and certainly not modeled after Reagan's ideas)
How can anyone look at the state of modern politics and the outlook for our country guided by our current stautus quo - how can this 'sea change' of unified working government not make sense.
Anyone who has paid any attention knows what Obama is speaking of about the Republican Party being guided by 'ideas' for the past 15 years... you don't have to subscribe to those ideas but they are, none the less, ideas. The same could be said of the Democratic party of the late 50's and into the 60's - Kennedy Idealism. Both of these movements ran their course and were watered down by time. That explains the state of the Democratic Party in the 70's and 80's. It also explains the 'washed out' state of the Republican Party today.
--- Why do 'we' resent being talked to as if we had the capacity for knowledge. That is how Barack Obama is speaking to America... as if 'we can' understand. Why would we sell ourselves short and believe that we are past our zenith... that we are a declining people. Come on people... Now is the time to show some strength of character.

Barack Obama for President of the UNITED States of America.

* * * * *

Ronny Raygun was a crook who should have been impeached and imprisoned for selling out America's good name to the Iran Contra's:

* * * * *
Posted by: John E | January 18, 2008 9:35 PM

I find it It's amazing and incredible that John E. could remember history like that.

[Sorry about that]

* * * * *

Ronny Raygun was a crook who should have been impeached and imprisoned for selling out America's good name to the Iran Contra's:

* * * * *
Posted by: John E | January 18, 2008 9:35 PM

I find it It's amazing and incredible that John E. could remember history like that.

I have no problem with commending Reagan if it were sincere and uncalculating. The problem is he conveniently made these statements, as well as other glowing statements about the Republican party and its impact over the last decade and a half, to what was known to be a conservative-leaning newspaper. The guy is shameless in his hypocrisy.

Martin "Mick" Anderson, I'm hoping it was just a typo, but President Reagan died in 2004, not 1994.

More here:

http://acropolisreview.com/2008/01/john-edwards-vs-obama-and-reagan.html

I always like it when people use a snarky screen name to insult the president and then proceed to attempt to use the French term je ne sais quois (rough translation: I don't know what) and spell it like Mean Gene Okerlund's name. Maybe you guys should leave the foreign languages to the people that know them, there, Smirky.

? ? ? ? ?

Posted by: John E | January 18, 2008 9:35 PM

Tell me, John E., who were the Iran Contras? Or, did you just make that up?

Tell me, John E., who were the Iran Contras? Or, did you just make that up?

Posted by: John W. | January 19, 2008 01:08 AM

Johnny W,

What's wrong, did I insult your GOPer hero, Zombie Reagan?

Waaaaaah! Weeeepy! Waaaaah!

The Iran-Contra Affair was a political scandal occurring in 1987 as a result of earlier events during the Reagan administration in which members of the executive branch sold weapons to Iran, an avowed enemy, and illegally used the proceeds to continue funding anti-Sandinista rebels, the Contras, in Nicaragua.[1] Large volumes of documents relating to the scandal were destroyed or withheld from investigators by Reagan administration officials.[2][3] The affair is still shrouded in secrecy. After the weapon sales were revealed in November 1986, President Ronald Reagan appeared on national television and denied that they had occurred.[4] A week later, however, on November 13, 1986 Reagan returned to the airwaves to affirm that weapons were indeed transferred to Iran, but that they were not part of an exchange for hostages.[5] On March 4, 1987 in a nationally televised address to the nation he took full responsibility and admitted that "...what began as a strategic opening to Iran deteriorated, in its implementation, into trading arms for hostages."[6]

Full story:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair

Sorry Johnny my boy, I guess I should have said "Iran-Contra Affair" instead of the "Iran Contra's", I wouldn't want to offend someone who has a Community College law degree like you do.
I'm not WORTHY, Please forgive me, oh great Johnny W, owner of the biggest brain on the Swamp.

Obama was right about President Reagan. It is important to be honest even in politics.

Reagan was a uniter, Obama will be one.

I didn't agree with many of Reagan's policies, but you can't deny him his due. If we followed his path, perhaps Iraq would be more stable without the death and destruction this illegal war has brought.

The Belrin wall fell without us attacking. Same goes for the Kremlin. And with the right type of "non-violent" pressure and encouragement, the people of Iraq would have thrown out Sadaam all on their own.

Instead we are stuck in a situation where we are increasingly seen as occupiers, not liberators. Reagan new better.

It's a good thing Bush II wasn't president during the cold war. The war mongering, Texas Cowboy would have shot nukes at Russia. And we'd all be dead now.

I didn't agree with many of Reagan's policies, but you can't deny him his due. If we followed his path, perhaps Iraq would be more stable without the death and destruction this illegal war has brought.
Posted by: David J
-
Were you born yesterday? Reagan, and Bush the Elder, empowered Saddam Hussein and sold him WMD's. Reagan also had the CIA teach Osama how to use a surface-to-air rocket launcher.
Funny how the right-wing media tends to dismiss all that. The mainstream media is also largely responsible for the fact that many people believe that Saddam had something to do with 9/11.

Reagan brought about a realignment in our politics that resulted in twenty-eight years of right-wing rule, including the eight year Clinton regime, which gave us free trade and "ended welfare as we know it". Why deny it?

We have a chance now to change the direction of the country, but not if we choose the second-most hated person in America.

Were you born yesterday? Reagan, and Bush the Elder, empowered Saddam Hussein and sold him WMD's.

Posted by: Bruce Y | January 19, 2008 9:19 AM

I'm hardly "right wing" and will be voting for Obama. And I am fully aware of the arms given to the Afghan rebels in the 80's that empowered AlQaeda.

I was only pointing out that, in some instances, he did handle the cold war the right way. I don't necessarily mind giving certain "rebel" groups advice, training and even, in some circumstances, arms. And Raegan certainly needed to be more careful about who's hands they fell into.

But we shouldn't fight their battles for them.
Especially when it is not a matter of American security, on false pretenses and for those who don't want us there, like Iraq.

“What's wrong, did I insult your GOPer hero, Zombie Reagan?

Waaaaaah! Weeeepy! Waaaaah!”

No. JohnEEE-boy, I just thought the way you worded it, i.e. “Iran Contras,” was wonderfully ignorant, and I wanted to pull your chain (just like you do to everyone else).

I also think it’s equally entertaining that you would now reverse your fields and suggest that Reagan should have been impeached because of the Iran-Contra affair. As you may (or may not know) from history, convicting Reagan for his involvement in the Iran-Contra scandal would have required someone to believe Ollie North.

So, do you believe Ollie North?

Congress didn’t, which is Ollie ended up facing a charge of obstruction of Congress, among others. The jury didn’t believe him either when he testified that he believed Ronald Reagan was aware and approved of his activities. They found him guilty.

Reagan testified via videotaped deposition that he knew nothing of the matter. There is also evidence that two of Reagan’s advisors, John Poindexter and Robert McFarlane, intentionally shielded Reagan from knowledge of North’s precise activities in the affair.

So, tell me, JohnEE-boy: Other than the fact that Reagan was President at the time of the Iran-Contra affair, what other evidence existed to show that he engaged in impeachable conduct as you suggest?

I think you have dipped your bucket into an empty well (again), and did so in the name of your blind adherence to the dailyKos-MoveOn.org-DNC- type ideology. You know, John Lennon really wasn’t serious when he sang, “Turn off your mind, relax and float down-stream; _______ it is not dying . . . .” So stop it.

Man is this being twisted. Just to correct some stuff.

OK, the Italians the Japanese were enemies in the last Century. Not now.

John E: Please fill us in on the leaders you respect. Your ready to run your mouth off with your fingers, please, who are your mentors?

al-Qaeda, has a blood taste and will kill their own children, the innocent. While their pathetic leaders hide and run like scared woman.
Has bin laden sacrificed his own family, having them blown up or is he to much of a coward along with the rest.

bin laden can get arms any time he wants, always could. It's what's in his head and the other cowards that follow him that course death to innocent people.
Do you really think killers like him will just quit. Or do you think he wants the power, sending children, woman to kill and give up their lives because he al-Qaeda are to cowardly. Even if he's dead, or screwing a goat, someone else will follow. And the West (with it's Laws) is a soft target.

Say what you want about Reagan, the present Pres. Bush, but Bush did an open tour of the middle east, while bin laden cowered in a cave. Reagan was instrumental in ending the cold war, and Bush liberated 50 million people.

Obama was showing a respect, which seems to have missed some. With insults.

"I'm not WORTHY, Please forgive me, oh great Johnny W, owner of the biggest brain on the Swamp."

Posted by: John E | January 19, 2008 1:47 AM

It's very telling that John E obsesses about trying to insult people who are smarter than he is, which means anybody who can demonstrate at least 8th grade language skills...

It's not only because he is defensive because he's none too bright, but anti intellectualism is one of the characteristics of Fascists.

Somewhere in the bible it says "As ye sow, show shall ye reap" which I always thought sounds better than "What goes around comes around."

But that's what we're seeing here.

Oprahma (through his surragates) skewered HC for stating a self evident truth -- that is, without LBJ there would not have been the '64 Civil Rights Act.

Now She is returning the favor by attacking Oprahma for his stating a self evident truth -- that Reagan was an effective President and the GOP became the "Party of Ideas" during his watch. Whether one agrees with those ideas and policies is beside the point.

"Who calls the tune, pays the piper" It's Oprahma's own fault that he has to defend himself on this.

MJ:

I wouldn't go as far as saying that John E wasn't smart. I think he is a fairly intelligent person. I never go after him for being unintelligent. Nor can anyone fault him for his loyalty or seriousness.

I only twit him from time to time for being an ideologue, or for being un-careful. I think he might get a lot more out of using his own intellectual talents if he didn’t rely so much on the official talking points of his political persuasion.

You should also notice that his banter is directed at me, personally. I take no offense at it because I know he's not mean spirited about it (yet). We’ve been exchanging such comments for as long as I’ve participated in discussions here on the Swamp.

John W,

Mean spirited; ideological; careless with facts; always making the attacks personal (it's not just against you)

To me that adds up to "not too smart". But I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about that.

And by the way he definitely is mean spirited about it... oh if you only knew!

Good grief. I take a break from blogging and lo and behold, lawyer wannabe John W is attempting to run the boards. This is actually a good thing considering the usual level of incompetent discourse coming from the Republics. At least he can put a cogent argument together.

The fact is that Obama is taking hits because Ronnie was a divisive and generally incompetent chief exec. Obama would be better off emulating someone who exhibited actual skill and competence, ala, FDR.

It's not only because he is defensive because he's none too bright, but anti intellectualism is one of the characteristics of Fascists.

Posted by: MJ | January 19, 2008 3:31 PM

Leo Juanito,

Coming from a dope like you who has been run off this sight at least twice for being racist and posting as other people, I'll take that as a compliment.

think you have dipped your bucket into an empty well (again), and did so in the name of your blind adherence to the dailyKos-MoveOn.org-DNC- type ideology. You know, John Lennon really wasn’t serious when he sang, “Turn off your mind, relax and float down-stream; _______ it is not dying . . . .” So stop it.

Posted by: John W. | January 19, 2008 3:24 PM

Johnny W my boy,

Zombie Reagan LIED, you can choose to believe what you want and you can go ahead and have the last word because your fragile ego depends on it.

End of story.

Case closed, you lose again...

Now just wait a doggone second JohnEEE-boy. I asked you a simple question. I asked: What's your proof that Reagan was involved? I pointed out the other side of the case, and not very forcefully, so you could respond.

If you know something, don’t give up. If you know something I don't know, I'd like to hear it. I think we'd all like to hear it.

But if you are simply throwing the idea out there, and stating it as true when you don’t have any proof – then what are we supposed to think of what you say? If you can’t back up your assertions with facts then no-one will have any reason to believe you. They will have to do all their own fact checking. Then listening to you will become uninteresting.

You are entitled to your own suspicions and opinions, but you aren’t entitled to your own facts. Lead with facts.

I may be your adversary from time to time, but I am not your enemy.

Posted by: weinerdog43 | January 19, 2008 6:35 PM

weiner,

I wouldn't bother with Johnny W, just tell him that he's right or whatever he want's to hear and let him think that he's had the last word, then move on.

The old guy has a severe inferiority complex (he voted for George Bush, I think that says it all).

P S - Johnny W,

Here's some reading material for you before you take your next nap. I'm sure it's better than your usual reading material (Redstate.com, Freeper Republic) and Reichwing radio shows (Rush) ;o)

KILLER, COWARD, CONMAN -
GOOD RIDDANCE, RONNIE REAGAN
MORE PROOF ONLY THE GOOD DIE YOUNG
Sunday, June 6, 2004
by Greg Palast

You're not going to like this. You shouldn't speak ill of the dead. But in this case, someone's got to.
Ronald Reagan was a conman. Reagan was a coward. Reagan was a killer.
In 1987, I found myself stuck in a crappy little town in Nicaragua named Chaguitillo. The people were kind enough, though hungry, except for one surly young man. His wife had just died of tuberculosis.
People don't die of TB if they get some antibiotics. But Ronald Reagan, big hearted guy that he was, had put a lock-down embargo on medicine to Nicaragua because he didn't like the government that the people there had elected.
Ronnie grinned and cracked jokes while the young woman's lungs filled up and she stopped breathing. Reagan flashed that B-movie grin while they buried the mother of three.
And when Hezbollah terrorists struck and murdered hundreds of American marines in their sleep in Lebanon, the TV warrior ran away like a whipped dog ... then turned around and invaded Grenada. That little Club Med war was a murderous PR stunt so Ronnie could hold parades for gunning down Cubans building an airport.
I remember Nancy, a skull and crossbones prancing around in designer dresses, some of the "gifts" that flowed to the Reagans -- from hats to million-dollar homes -- from cronies well compensated with government loot. It used to be called bribery.
And all the while, Grandpa grinned, the grandfather who bleated on about "family values" but didn't bother to see his own grandchildren.
The New York Times today, in its canned obit, wrote that Reagan projected, "faith in small town America" and "old-time values." "Values" my ass. It was union busting and a declaration of war on the poor and anyone who couldn't buy designer dresses. It was the New Meanness, bringing starvation back to America so that every millionaire could get another million.
"Small town" values? From the movie star of the Pacific Palisades, the Malibu mogul? I want to throw up.
And all the while, in the White House basement, as his brain boiled away, his last conscious act was to condone a coup d'etat against our elected Congress. Reagan's Defense Secretary Casper the Ghost Weinberger with the crazed Colonel, Ollie North, plotted to give guns to the Monster of the Mideast, Ayatolla Khomeini.
Reagan's boys called Jimmy Carter a weanie and a wuss although Carter wouldn't give an inch to the Ayatolla. Reagan, with that film-fantasy tough-guy con in front of cameras, went begging like a coward cockroach to Khomeini pleading on bended knee for the release of our hostages.
Ollie North flew into Iran with a birthday cake for the maniac mullah -- no kidding --in the shape of a key. The key to Ronnie's heart.
Then the Reagan roaches mixed their cowardice with crime: taking cash from the hostage-takers to buy guns for the "contras" - the drug-runners of Nicaragua posing as freedom fighters.
I remember as a student in Berkeley the words screeching out of the bullhorn, "The Governor of the State of California, Ronald Reagan, hereby orders this demonstration to disburse" ... and then came the teargas and the truncheons. And all the while, that fang-hiding grin from the Gipper.
In Chaguitillo, all night long, the farmers stayed awake to guard their kids from attack from Reagan's Contra terrorists. The farmers weren't even Sandinistas, those 'Commies' that our cracked-brained President told us were 'only a 48-hour drive from Texas.' What the hell would they want with Texas, anyway?
Nevertheless, the farmers, and their families, were Ronnie's targets.
In the deserted darkness of Chaguitillo, a TV blared. Weirdly, it was that third-rate gangster movie, "Brother Rat." Starring Ronald Reagan.

Well, my friends, you can rest easier tonight: the Rat is dead.

Killer, coward, conman. Ronald Reagan, good-bye and good riddance.

JohnEEE-boy:

I don't read that stuff, and I never listen to talk-radio. I have never listened to Rush L. on the radio, and I don’t particularly care to.

Interesting article from Mr. Palast - of sorts - and certainly not atypical of people of his political persuasion. It's long on emotion and opinion and somewhat short on facts - just like your posts lately.

I'm amazed that you have decided to give up so easily on the challenge I made. It's really too bad that you just copped an attitude like that. It's out of character for you.

You are entitled to your own suspicions and opinions, but you aren’t entitled to your own facts. Lead with facts.
I may be your adversary from time to time, but I am not your enemy.

Posted by: John W. | January 19, 2008 11:28 PM

Johnny W my boy,

I don't take history lessons from someone (you) who was dumb enough to vote for George Bush.

Have a nice day, John :o)

John W,

I don't take history lessons from a guy (you) who was dumb enough to vote for George Bush.