Obama Appears to Laud Reagan for Confronting 1960-70s “Excesses”
In campaign news, Senator Barack Obama is coming under criticism for appearing to slight the civil rights and feminist movements while expressing admiration for former President Ronald Reagan. In an interview with the editorial board of the Reno Gazette, Obama lauded Reagan’s challenge to what Obama called the “excesses” of the 1960s and 1970s.
Senator Barack Obama: “I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path, because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown, but there wasn’t much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people—he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.”
Obama did not specify what he believes those “excesses” were. But Reagan is widely credited with leading a rightwing backlash against the gains of the civil rights and feminist movements that preceded his 1980 election.
For a guy who’s usually so eloquent, Barack can be stunningly clueless. The first thing Reagan did was destroy the air traffic controllers’ union PATCO (I guess their complaints about understaffing at the airports would be one of the “excesses” Barack refers to?).
Just another reason why I’m voting for Edwards.
I’m waiting for everybody here to point out how this “excesses” quote exposes Obama’s conservative dark side, but I think he was more commenting on a sentiment felt by a majority of the American public at the time than he was praising Reagan’s policies. If you watch the entire 50-minute video, you’ll see that he lauds Reagan for his ability to build a bipartisan alliance and get all parties on board for his transitional fiscal policies. Obama ties it into his campaign not to expose their similarities in policy (he never explicitly says that he supported Reagan’s policies, even if their is a question of whether he implies it). Instead, he wants to point out their similarities in their supposed ability bring the country in a different direction when the electorate needed it.
We can criticize Obama for this particular soundbite (and I would like to know which “excesses” he refers to, because surely programs for welfare, drug rehabilitation and alternative energy sustainability were far from what I call an “excess”). However, I feel like we would be jumping into the mainstream media trap of having us care about purely soundbites and he said, she said sensationalism, when we should look deeper and more thoroughly into his stated policies, Congressional record, questionable campaign donations, etc.
Completely shocking, appalling and nauseating! My respect for Obama has now gone down the toilet. He’s actually re-writing history with this gem of politicospeak. I lived through the Reagan 80’s and I’ll tell you this much: we sure as hell weren’t pining for the ugly, divisive, “war on everything” mandate that Reagan brought the country. Bush 1 and 2 are basically a continuation of what Reagan started. In fact you have many of the same people working through all these administrations, for example war criminal Cheney. Sadly, as we can see, Obama will pander and brown-nose the same political establishment which has been running the country into the ground since 1980. How discouraging it is to watch him say these words on YouTube. Just ruined my day
“I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path, because the country was ready for it.”
What is Obama saying here? That the country was ready for the corporate fascism that Reagan ushered in, and that Bill Clinton manifested? That Reagan’s abuse of power (in the Contra affair, at least) was superior to Tricky Dick’s? Well, Reagan got away with it, after all.
And what “excesses” is he referring to? I am a babyboomer who grew up in the 60’s and 70’s, in the deep south. The “excesses” were seen at the time as primarily the civil rights and anti-war movements. Oh, sure, many people claim to have been appalled at the “excesses” of the so-called hippies. I just thought those people were too scared to try and were thus jealous that some of us danced to the tambourine man “with one hand waving free,” smoked some weed or tried other things to expand our minds, and, yes, tried to have a lot of sex with others so inclined. (And by the way, still hold these “excesses” as core values!)
I listen to Obama and want to hear RFK or Dr. King. But I find it sort of like listening to The Archies and hoping to hear Dylan or The Beatles. The trappings are there, but no substance is. And this is true because Obama is, as are all the candidates, a focus-group, corporate created facsimile, leading nothing or no one.
But…”i am constantly awaiting a rebirth of wonder…”
Nice going Obama, I really hope that you didn’t mean that you like and respect Reagan.
Although Reagan is gone, his cabal continue today.
The activities of Reagan and his cronies in South and Central America are a disgrace. His racist views are well known. His anti-union stance helped big business get where they are today. He shut down many social programs that helped mentally ill, shoving them, ready or not, on the street, which in turn became a police problem. reagan’s administration was worse than Bush’s. At least we can blame Bush as an incompetent. Reagan did it with deliberate knowledge of the conseguences.
Aphex,
Good try…
But even if you are correct in your assessment, you are still praising a disgusting viewpoint that takes style over substance and ideas. So, by your argument, Obama should be really praising Adolf Hitler - he rose on a popular clamor for change too, and very also effective at moving an agenda.
This isn’t a figging football game here - it is human lives - and Reagan certainly has enough Central American, African and even American worker’s lives on his soul to have a place beside Hitler down in hell.
My observation of excesses during the 1960’s included some expensive social programs, and the Viet Nam War (the Viet Nam War was a tremendous success if you count the number of new millionaires it created…war mongering pays.
Corporations paid 29% of US income taxes in the 1960’s.
My observation of excesses in the 1980’s and beyond include military programs and corporate welfare programs that exceeded the cost of the social programs tenfold or more.
Corporations currently pay 6% of the US income tax burden and that percentage continues to fall.
“My observation of excesses during the 1960’s included some expensive social programs…”
Which “expensive social progreams”? Compare US poverty and crime rates before, and after, the end of these “expensive social programs”.
Contrast these “expensive social programs” with the even more expensive ones in places like Norway or Sweden, where they enjoy the most broadly uniform prosperity in the world.
“all parties on board for his transitional fiscal policies”?
You mean attacking the unions, throwing people out of work, the “trickle-down” theory of enriching the already rich, in the hopes that the homeless sitting on the sidewalks could be trickled on? The massive transfer of wealth from the working class to the rich?
We didn’t have homeless sitting on the sidewalks until Ronald Reagan came into office.
He also supported terrorism in Central American and in Afghanistan. Terrorism was funded by drug and gun running, and the prison population exploded under Reagan. We had 500,000 people in prison in 1980 and now we have over 2,000,000 people imprisoned.
We had James Watts as Interior Sec., who announced that he didn’t have to protect the environment, because Christ was returning soon.
We had Oliver North running a terrorist operation out of the White House basement. I remember reading about his taking his terrorist Afghan buddies to Columbia to teach them how to grow poppies. That went down the memory hole, and the scum bucket North is a talking head now.
I hated Reagan as much as I hate Bush, and his death did nothing to lessen my hatred. Obama lauding him is so disgusting that I have no words for it.
What do you expect from a guy whose mentor is Joe Lieberman and who is a cousin of Dick Cheney. He’s a right-winger. I wouldn’t waste my vote on him or Hillary Republican Clinton.
Obama is a closet neocon. All I ask for is MERCY from my fellow American in November. If they vote like idiots yet again (assuming voting even matters), kiss the country good-bye.
But you see, folks, this is why Obama and Clinton were picked by the Corporate Media (CM). They are the most reprehensible candidates to the anti-Bush people and, therefore, most likely to LOSE.
I don’t like anyone in the running, but you probably wouldn’t see this sort of horse shit coming from an Edwards/Kucinich ticket.
Reagan was a monster. Like from a story book. Putting any praise at his feet is like complimenting the wicked witch.
Are you listening Dennis? This kid you endorsed thinks the excesses were committed by the progressive faction in the sixties and seventies instead of by Hoover’s COINTELPRO and Reagan’s fascists. Even if we give Obama credit for not having been there, we don’t need more ignoramuses in the highest office, nor do we need any more sell out politicians.
Obama/Quayle, ‘08.
You posters are the greatest. And zimmie is the coolest.
Aphex,
Good try…
But even if you are correct in your assessment, you are still praising a disgusting viewpoint that takes style over substance and ideas. So, by your argument, Obama should be really praising Adolf Hitler - he rose on a popular clamor for change too, and very also effective at moving an agenda.
This isn’t a figging football game here - it is human lives - and Reagan certainly has enough Central American, African and even American worker’s lives on his soul to have a place beside Hitler down in hell.
I believe you are just looking for an argument where there really isn’t one, so let me make myself clear. First off, where or what I am praising here? If “praise” is somehow associated with a neutral assessment of Obama’s comments, then I’ll be damned, but I believe you’re missing the point of my post.
We can lambast Reagan and his policies here, (Reagan was one of the worst disasters to ever happen to this country, but I’m not here to remind you about what is already known), but instead of viewing this particular comment as a “slam-dunk” to prove that Obama isn’t really all that he says he is, we should be looking beyond these soundbites which appear to lesser minds on the Drudge Report and really DIG DEEP into what Obama is all about. I believe Obama should make himself clear on what he meant by “excesses”, so we can really see how much he may be in line with Reagan’s ideology, but it’s safe to assume that he won’t make himself clear. Thus, we should look elsewhere to expose Obama’s own political beliefs.
Yes, by my logic, he can technically allude to Hitler to make his point. But that is besides the point, considering that the person YOU want as president can, by default, be compared to any political leader, past and present.
I’ll probably be flamed for this, but I hope I’ve least made myself clear.
Everyone should take a deep breathe and re-read what he actually said:
“I think THEY felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown, but there wasn’t much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people — HE JUST TAPPED INTO WHAT PEOPLE WERE ALREADY FEELING, which was we want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.”
He’s not saying he AGREES with what Reagan did - he’s just pointing out that Ronnie and friends did what the GOP has always done - figure out what sells best then offer it up in buckets (which all turn out to have holes later.) IOW - the people were duped into believing a giant pack of lies (which many still cling to.)
God forbid BO is caught sneezing - within five minutes he’ll be accused of spreading Ebola…
Ever wonder why politicians talk in simple, meaningless soundbites? The reaction to Obama’s statements about Reagan provide an explanation. He’s not praising Reagan’s policies, but making an accurate historical comment about why Reagan was elected. Reagan DID campaign on a blatantly reactionary platform, and he must have tapped into some zietgiest of the times, because he won. Whether, in the long run, Reagan’s idealogy was good for this country is another matter.
Clinton faced the same problem when she pointed out how LBJ contributed to the advancement of the civil rights agenda. Johnson took a big risk in pushing the civil rights legislation through, particularly with the more-segregationist elements of his own Democratic Party. That risk became apparent with Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” in the late ’60s, which used race-baiting to lure southerners away from their traditional support of the Democratic Party and into the arms of the Republicans. Not to slight MLK, but while he was a major player obviously, he wasn’t the only significant figure in our national drama of that decade.
People complain that politicians simplify their messsage and talk down to them, but then go ballistic if they say something intelligent that they don’t agree with. You can’t have it both ways.
This is why I still unequivocally support Kucinich. Reagan began what Bush finished, the undoing of our country, the gradual dismantling of the social safety net and our needless march into imperial wars of aggression and conquest.
While I’ve always respected Obama, now that really changes my view of him. I’ll vote for Kucinich with even greater enthusiasm and if he bows out, then it will be Edwards instead.
Anyone who endorses what Reagan did is not deserving of my respect, no matter what. Period. End of story.
I see little point in ballots any more, but much more opportunity to vote with my voice, creative works, pocketbook and (if necessary) feet. I think those will be the best ways to organize change for the foreseeable future.
greenerthanthou - “We had Oliver North running a terrorist operation out of the White House basement. I remember reading about his taking his terrorist Afghan buddies to Columbia to teach them how to grow poppies.”
Opium poppies are native to Afganistan and not to Columbia. Why would North bring Afgans to Columbia to learn about the crops they have grown in Afganistan for centuries? I buy the rest, but not that “fact”.
Also, I live in San Francisco and we certainly did have homeless sitting on the streets here before Reagan was president. I don’t even thin it got that much worse with him than it was in 78 and 79. I was in Washington from 81-88 and the streets were filled with homeless and the advocates there, like Mitch Snyder had been homeless since before the Reagan admin with the Community for Creative Non-Violence. They did an amazing job of publicizing the plight of the homeless right from the beginning of the Reagan Admin.
FWIW, Reagan did a lot of things that are worth remembering as bad, but he did NOT start the homeless crisis or do anything to stop it for that matter.
“I see little point in ballots any more, but much more opportunity to vote with my voice, creative works, pocketbook and (if necessary) feet. I think those will be the best ways to organize change for the foreseeable future.”
I think this is a perfect response to this article. And that’s an amazing thought for me, because I’ve been a political junkie and active both in and outside of government, all my life. Real change will only come through cultural change, through the people. Someday, hopefully before I die, maybe it can percolate into our political system.
In the meantime, I’ll vote for Edwards in 2008. (I can’t not vote; old habits die hard.)
this is one of things that definitely worries me about Obama - that he bends over backwards to woo conservatives. it’s strategic communications…at it’s worst. it will haunt him in the primary, but help him in general…if he makes it. i don’t think he really believes it - which makes the rest of his message hollow.
Hi Goose2. He took the Afghanis to Colombia to teach them-the Columbians now-how to grow opium in the Andes, similiar to the mountains of Afghanistan in temp & alt. A trick they did not know until then. They grew cocaine. What is illogical here?
And SF in the 80’s? Homeless on the sidewalks b4 rayguns? yes, but not severely demented and acutely ill like after he emptied Atascadero, Napa etc.. Do you remember that change?
It was quite sad. Especially down in the Tenderloin near Glide Memorial Church, where a black Reverand fed these mostly white sick people after that scum reagan threw them out of their hospital beds.
You remember that? ‘i don’t even thin it got that much worse’ Guess that depends on your p.o.v.
Please, it should be obvious what Obama is talking about reagarding the “excesses of the 60’s” - it meant the first steps to move to a society like most europeans enjoy.
But, even if it were a atatement of political analysis, it is historical-revisionist nonsense. “Accountable government” my ass. The issue never came up in his campaign. Frank, Aphex, how old were you in 1980? How old was Obama?
Reagan won because Carter failed to get the Iran hostages released, while Reagan tapped into the basest reactionary instincts of the US populace, including their fears and anger (the Russians are coming/nuke Tehran), then there were the Carter votes siphoned away by Anderson. And, of course, the embassy hostages weren’t released because the Reagan campaign, in an act of high treason (daddy bush to be specific) cut a secret arms/aid deal with Iran (Khomeni naiively thought Reagan would be less an imperialist) to keep them there to assure Carters defeat. This led Carter to attempt the abortive and tragic hostage rescue mission, leading to lost US lives.
If Carter had succeeded to get the hostages rescued or released in 1980, he would have been re-elected, Period.
I just hope to hell no future Democratic candidate (after this cycle) will be so generous to the “Boy Caesar” (as Chalmers Johnson has dubbed Dubya) as Barack Obama was to Reagan during this interview. What the hell does it take for people to wise up?
Reagan also lied about the welfare queen when he hired a black actress to portray a woman on welfare who drove around in a limosine. This made many white demcrats crossed to the republican side. Also, the CIA made deal with the Iranians to hold hostages and to release them after the elections. This made Carter look week. Obama forgat to mention these pounts that actually divided the country.
Obama will lose progressive votes based on this comment. Who will he get support from for this comment?
I am soooooo frustrated with the mindset of the general public. How much more proof do we need to see how aligned BOTH parties are???? Is everyone DENSE or just in DENILE completely?? Our entire election system is corrupt and designed for disfranchisement. PLEASE GET A CLUE AND WAKE UP…..both parties are corporate parties and our justice system is unjust! Nothing is gonna change until WE (masses of people) change it. It is time to take to the streets not the polling booth.
peace
Obama and Clinton are DINOS. Plain and simple. Both of ‘em have strong neo-con tendencies, and I hope neither gets the nomination.
I personally support Gravel, but I may have to switch my primary vote to Edwards, since Gravel is toast. I’m afraid Kucinich is too, but if Edwards would take him as VP…
Thank you, mikepeters. I too was in California while Reagan was destroying the social infrastructure of the state while governor. And when he was reelected, I thought, My god, this man could become president. I realized that the public did not understand what this man was doing to the state. And then he would then turn around and do it to the whole country. And he did.
He and Obama are sending out the same message of optimism and the public is yearning for that. But I read an ominous report that only 13% of white Democrats in Georgia support Obama. Black Democrats were holding back from him because they feared he couldn’t get elected in White America. But Iowa has them thinking otherwise. Iowa allows crossing over, and there were very few voters in the Republican caucuses, but an astonishing turnout in the Democratic caucuses. Doesn’t anyone think that maybe a lot of Republicans voted in the Democratic caucuses for Obama, knowing that White America is too racist to vote for a Black man? I’ve suspected that all along.
Lord Trigo, when LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he said “There goes the South”, meaning they would all become Republicans. I’ve lived in California, Minnesota, New York (Long Island), and Oregon. They are all as racist as the South, but more covert. Southerners have accused the sanctimonious Northerners of being as racist and they are right.
Hillary, although a devious sneaky liar, is actually more progressive than Obama. Go to www://glassbooth.org/ and check out their litle test. It’s fun and informative, covers all the candidates and how they stack up with your views. That doesn’t mean I don’t think she’s a corporate whore, she is, and so is Obama. Edwards isn’t acting like one, and I for one will take a chance on him. What do I have to lose? The economy is already tanking and Bush has already shredded that G-Damned piece of paper. McCain has already shown himself to be completely without principle and Ron Paul, the only other principled candidate besides Kucinich is still in the single digits. I don’t agree with the Libertarian view, but now am just about ready to vote for principle over policy.
Amen to Paul Obama is a closet neocon. All I ask for is MERCY from my fellow American in November. If they vote like idiots yet again (assuming voting even matters), kiss the country good-bye.
But you see, folks, this is why Obama and Clinton were picked by the Corporate Media (CM). They are the most reprehensible candidates to the anti-Bush people and, therefore, most likely to LOSE.
I don’t like anyone in the running, but you probably wouldn’t see this sort of horse shit coming from an Edwards/Kucinich ticket
Barack Obama is the ultimate shape shifter.
He is the tabla raza on which everyone can project their hopes and dreams. Obama is the invisible man. He speaks of hope but does not say hope for what or how. He trumpets change but deflects from defining where we as a people are and where we want to be. Obama is very trendy with the elite liberal white demographic, precisely because he is so obscure. He is whatever we want him to be. He can channel JFK in a wink. Also Martin Luther King…and reluctantly, Stokely Carmichael.
I have to say that I am thoroughly confused now. First, it has seemed like for quite a while now, Democracy Now - a source I have utilized for more than a decade - has taken a decidedly anti-Obama angle, only in that they seem to be constantly looking for the holes in his logic. On this account, I think the attach on what he said was not very journalistic. However, I agree that he has a hell of a lot of explaining to do. For example, I can totally understand why he would compare himself to Reagan, from a purely natural historical perspective, as being the guy in the right place at the right time. But what I cannot understand is why he didn’t make a very strong statement condeming the direction Reagan took the country when he did win the Presidency; and how different the direction would be under an Obama Presidency. Is that because it really wouldn’t be that different?
To be frank, I think this is Obama over-thinking things and getting himself in trouble, and it is showing his un-readiness to be the President of the United States.
One last thought though: I just can’t see how it is possibly that someone as smart, articulate, grassroots by nature, and passionate about change can have anything but disagreement with every policy decision Reagan made! That’s why I am still willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and let him explain this one.
Otherwise, my vote goes to Edwards. Might go to Edwards anyway, but if it becomes clear that Obama has the nomination in the bag at any point, he will get my vote, because I can live him - as long as he explains this one, dig? Clinton? Sorry, I’ll never be able to live with that one.
PS: Edwards/Kucinich would be absolutely the best ticket ever!
Am I allowed to “double post”? I didn’t see this article printed in the headline section,
and originally posted a comment in response to someone posting Obama’s praise of Reagan
in the comments for the EdOp, “Will Obama have to spend more than his White rivals?”, Lester JS.
(which is a good essay to read, if anyone is interested…)
————-
anyway, previously posted.,
Praise for the great entertainer… or communicator….
or the public appeal of celebrity….
I’m not stunned by Obama’s praise for Ronald Raygun. I’ve feared it all along. I also expect this statement
will get no traction. People aren’t interested in what’s behind the curtain. Just like Ronald Reagan “landslide”
reelection after the mining of Nicaraguan Harbors, people will overlook the obvious for the fantasy.
I also see it as a compelling admission by Obama. As if he realizes American’s loved Raygun for the image
he painted, the optimism, the can-do-it -ness., even if it is all cowboy and get-tty-up, and hi-ho Silver… and a way.
And by god or gun, Obama is going to give that image back to the American public(?)
But I also think one needs to look to some of the speeches of Michelle Obama (because she is on the campaign trail too)
and see for yourself what you think about her, “pull yourself up” rhetoric, and how that plays into the larger presidential picture.
Pretty conservative social message from my point of view. The pull yourself up rhetoric hardly broaches the subject of why
there continues to be such economic inequality in this world even after people try to play by these golden rules and go to work
everyday and work hard and don’t tell lies and go to church and help our neighbor only to die poor
and disempowered.
anyway….
Later,
Rob
casual_jabber@ yahoo(dot)com
EDWARDS!!
For example, I can totally understand why he would compare himself to Reagan, from a purely natural historical perspective, as being the guy in the right place at the right time….
AAARRRRGH!
HOW in the world was Reagans naked, fascist power-grab, in any way, to be likened to being “in the right place in the right time!
Maybe it’s a generational-age thing, but as a 52 year old, I find this dualistic divorcing of Reagan’s ideology from his political tactics to be bizarre.
Is Obama in favor of more Trickle dowN?
Heck my socksggot yellow from Reagans brand that is about it.
Flash Obama attacks a Caribean island?
Flash Several hundred Marines bombs in Israeli hotel?
Flash Obama say its the trees that causes pollution?
Obama jelly beans can hardly wait>
Who will Obama have too read the stars for him?
Flash Michele Obama will redo the White House.
going to use Chicago Decorators .
Yes we are all ready for Obama Right? Wait a minute Reagan also came from THE RIGHT.
Could It Be ? OBAMA A Trojan REPUBLICAN.
What A change Huh ?
genaman
And this is a bit off-topic, but Hilary’s LBJ remark is also more historical revisionist, nonsense. Like Obama’s Reagan remark, it belies a profoudly eliteist attitude that all human progress is benevolently bestowed upon us fucking peons by the rich political corporate elites.
The elites in Congress wrote, and LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act because if he hadn’t the black people in the streets - along with plenty of antiwar whites, would have escalated and burned until ultimately the republic itself was threatened. That’s how “change” happens - from the people, not the elites. As Fredrick Douglas said; “power concedes nothing without a demand!”
Yes, and that Civil Rights Act was only possible because of Democrats in Congress acting together with LBJ, a Democratic president willing to sign it.
Obama is not trashing Reagan, because he is inviting some disenchanted Republicans to switch sides. And we’ll be luck if they do. And get back to the LBJ environment of Dems all over the place.
Obama is also pointing out that Reagan captured the national psyche because some believed then the country had gone too far left. Obama knows the opposite is true today, we need a leftward shift, and he intends to be that shift by not going off the left cliff and scaring centrist voters away.
This “Obama likes Reagan policies” flap is a load of
____________ (fill in your favorite word for junk.)
Look at Obama’s voting record. He says he’s against the war but he doesn’t show up for key votes. The Kyl-Lieberman Iran amendment — which ratchets up the confrontation with Iran by calling for the designation of its Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization responsible for killing U.S. troops passed overwhelmingly, 76-22. Of the Dem Presidential candidates, Hillary Clinton voted for the measure, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd opposed it, and Barack Obama missed the vote. Recently, Senator Obama said he would favor “surgical” missile strikes against Iran. Just a few examples of his inconsistency.
In contrast, Congressmember Kucinich put his campaign in Nevada on hold and took the redeye back to Washington yesterday to challenge the democratic (sic) party’s stealth vote to authorize a defense bill on the floor under a suspension of rule (which means that it is considered to be noncontroversial!) DK is determined to hold the dims feet to the fire by calling for a vote so that we will know where each elected official stands. Oh, and by the way, he just took on NBC AKA GE AKA Raytheon so he could have a seat at the debate. Please see:
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3246
for a detailed account of the debate debacle where one of the biggest defense contractors and nuclear players pulled out all the stops to prevent an independent nonconforming voice from being heard.
As a life long Republican whose father was a delegate to the GOP convention that nominated Reagan, his nomination and Presidency marked the end of my support for the Republican Party.
As a loyal supporter of Obama, I hope he makes it clear that he was recognising the method by which Reagan gained support rather than any admiration for the way in which he and his administration systematically destroyed unions and took out the Equal Right’s Amendment from the parties platform.
I love it. Would all these brainless Obama supporters have made excuses for this quote, where he engages in an incredible betrayal of progressive goals, if it had been made by Hillary? Of course not. You’d be fuming and demanding she be shot. Has it occured to you, that there may be more damning quotes, as yet, hidden from view? Am I obliged to support every Black, simply because he’s Black? Is Condoleeza Rice Black? She’s frightening! I think Oprah is a narrow-minded fool. Hasn’t she proudly proclaimed that she’s supported as many republicans as democrats? Huh!? Is Alan Keyes Black? The man is a lunatic. This kneejerk glorification of anyone that’s Black, conceals a certain nervousness about race, quite aside from the fact, that not only should “race” be set aside when we consider candidates for office, but the whole notion of race, is an archaic and scientifically empty piece of nonsense.
The country doesn’t want what we want. The country as a whole, wants a conservative democrat, or a moderate republican. Bill Clinton was perfect, and his popularity, a source of Rumplestiltskinian frustration and anger among Leftwingers and Rightwingers alike, demonstrates it, and should help us through this period.
If we’re lucky, we might get a conservative dem pres., and a liberal dem VP. We will not get a Progressive Pres. Stop deluding yourselves. Obama is a good politician; he’s not presidential material. He’s a closet republican.
It won’t surprise me at all, if he wins the nomination. Chris Matthews likes Obama, and hates Hillary. What else do I need to know? Being liked by Chris Matthews, is like being endorsed by Adolf Hitler.
Clinton/Edwards
May RWR rot in hell and all those who support him (Obama,for one and of course the entire MSM that lauded his presidency when he died)
Uh-oh! Refreshing take on perhaps why Andrew Sullivan supports Obama?
And why Obama isn’t being run through the mud by conservative talk shows
while all other democratic candidates are covered from head to toe.
Maybe Youth voters of America need to take a moment and ask their parents
if they voted for Reagan.
What excesses is he talking about in the 60s and 70s? As I recall there was a recession around 72-74- with the same kind of ignored indicators of today.
All of the problems started when Nixon visited china and introduced globalization.
Unless you are a wealthy person, people have experienced job losses and diminished living.
The only excesses in this era were of drugs and such-Mr. Obama appears to have enjoyed them also.
I do not believe the people who were in a stupor had much to do about the state of affairs now. Most are even dead.
More blame game and a delivery of 0 results already.
Maybe Obama’s analogy is politically illuminating. Maybe, on the other hand, he’s just pandering to conservatives. In any case, Obama is no progressive on the verge of launching a progressive trajectory for our deconstructed republic for the next 20 years. So, what’s he talking about? Somebody needs to ask.
I guess Obama really meant what he said when he called himself part of that “Joshua Generation” last winter in AL. Wonder why he didn’t compliment Reagan to a church full of people commemorating the March on Selma?
Didn’t Reagan fight the MKL holiday kicking and screaming, reluctantly signing it into law?
Maybe it was during the Reagan years Obama was smoking something that he references in his book!
What idiocy by Obama. What lunacy. What mewling defenses of this dunderheaded sociology by the suit-and-tie crowd here in CD. That said, the dolt is trying to get the requisite amount of electoral votes in a republic of non-reading bible thumpers, so he will follow the Clinton DLC playbook until he gags on his own lies. Not one candidate has the humility before the supersystem we all must possess before we utter a single public word, but we cannot expect them to in such a shameless, money-stuffed, poll-mad , autistic charade of an “election.” Kucinich is a 0.0% joke, Edwards is turning into Plasticman before our eyes, and if Mike Gravel says some honest things like a smart crank at an assisted living facility, why would he want to be the “leader” of such a failing, bloated kakistocracy?
I was going to vote for Obama in the California primary because I absolutely LOATHE Hillary Clinton - but after reading this I should just stick with the candidate I actually trust and I’ll vote for John Edwards or Dennis Kucnich. If Obama is going to be a sell out praising Regan for reversing all the progress we made in the 1960’s and 1970’s then Obama is probably just another “Corporate Democrat” just like Hillary?
Shit - aren’t there ANY Democrats who have a conscience? It looks like Obama is trying to appear more “centrist” and conservative to suck up to voters instead of defending civil rights - for crying out loud, he was a Civil Rights lawyer - I hope he was not misquoted.
Well I’m sure I was able to take advantages of the tail end of those “excesses” of teh 70’s and complete my degree at Virginia Tech for only about $950 per year - paying as I went with a co-op job.
Thanks to Reaganomics, it’s now about $8000 per year and college is now only for the rich and white.
BeForKids -
In my caucus in Ames, Iowa, home of Iowa State University, there were 4 registered Republicans out of 208 attendees. The average age of the Obama group which numbered 80 was under 30. Obama didn’t do all that well with the 60+ crowd, as far as I can tell. The old timers must know something the young turks don’t.
I already voted for Edwards. I am glad he is still in the game to keep Clinton and Obama from moving any more to the right.
Excesses! talk about excess what about talking about Star Wars excesses. Like billions of dollars for a system that didn’t work. Jeesh Barak. That was lame. Okay this does it. I’m not voting for Obama even if Oprah backs him and frankly I would love to see an African American be President. Maybe politicians say crap like this because they need to. Here on CD we’re like fringe you know. Like they say crap like this because Raygun is now Saint RayGun in the way that the Ray Gun Man was idolotrized in the mass media. He was a major kreep though in my estimation. And like most people get their info from the news on the mass media (heaven help us) so Obama is like sucking up to them,speaking their lingo and is really a progressive just trying to get in. He’s fooling them by saying Raygun was an alright guy. Maybe. Maybe not. Yeah like probably not. I’ll vote for the Kucinich or Edwards now in the primaries but will vote for anyone but a republican in the finals except if Ron Paul gets the nod.
What a sell-out.
If you actually listen to Obama when he gives a speech or when he talks in these fake debates, all you hear is rhetoric. There is absolutely no substance. Positively a more accurate measure of his promises would be to look at what he’s already done. Look at his votes, consider how he spends his time in Congress - and especially question his not being present for important votes. Obama is a shill and Hillary is a… well, let’s just say I would rather not go there.
I want a President who values his responsibilities, is courageous, determined, is real, is his own man, has integrity, fortitude, and the voting record to prove his stand on all the important issues. I’ve already marked my ballot, and it is for putting America back on track under the leadership of a workhorse: Dennis Kucinich.
“He’s not praising Reagan’s policies, but making an accurate historical comment about why Reagan was elected.”
Had he only been pointing to Reagan as an example of what he means by change, he would have qualified his comment “But that was not the sort of change the country needed.” He assigned “clarity”, “optimism” and “dynamism” to Reagan’s actions as president — the first two terms are favorite neocon buzzwords. And he called predatory capitalism “entrepreneurship” — which is like calling cancer “cellular expansion”.
The happy horsedump business about uniting, along with his disapproval of impeachment, might have been a clue to his refusal to recognize the fundamentally criminal nature of the rulers and their bankers.
Now the true reason for MSMs effort to keep the heat off Obama, has come out; but interestingly, it has come out only a couple of days before Obama can create the impression that he’s a legitimate Leftie, in enough States, to get the nomination, in enough time to please and pacify that half of the Left, too brainless to see what’s right before their eyes. It’s only now coming out that Hillary is considerably more to the Left than Obama. In fact, isn’t Obama a closet republican? Once more, the democrats, especially the know-it-alls on the Left, have been duped. Once more, whether it’s McCain or Obama, we’ll fall into neocon hands. Hillary would have been hated by many people, but she’s never been caught praising the Reagan era. Suckers!
“It’s only now coming out that Hillary is considerably more to the Left than Obama.”
What Reagan began, Bill Clinton accelerated and Dubya completed. Clinton and Obama are very much in the same place, competing for the same corporate contributions with similar platitudes.
Trying to say either one is ‘to the left’ of the other is pretty damn funny. Sounds like an argument between Genghis Khan and a brother of his about who’s an iota to the left of the other.
If you are really on the left, and you are looking these two. They are both so far to the right that you’d need a telescope to try to spot any microscopic differences between them that puts one a smidgen to the left of the other. The answer is that they are both center-rigthists who believe in and strongly support and promote a government of the corporations, by the corporations and for the corporations.
“It’s only now coming out that Hillary is considerably more to the Left than Obama.”
A marrow-chilling thought, considering that Hillary is also farther to the Right than Ramses the third.
Liberty & Justice,
SJ
www.spartacusjones.com
If I aim the telescope at the far distant and faint light that is Obama, here’s what I see ….
He talks constantly about unity and division. Very basic simple-minded stuff. Unity is good, division is bad. He’d end division and create unity.
This combines with this constant and steady rhetoric about how awful and evil the ’60’s were.
When you step back and look at all of this, here’s what you see. There’s division in this country because some people have dared to oppose the corporate and conservative attempts to control this country and its agenda. People have actually dare to stand up and say that a country that’s devoted to maximizing corporate profits might not be the best thing for the citizens of this country.
The 60’s were the last real time there was any serious opposition to corporate rule in this country. That corporate rule largely took hold in the post-WWII era in the 50’s. The 60’s were the nations strong answer of NO! to this. Its really the last time we’ve seen serious opposition to corporate rule. That opposition sputtered in the 70’s and beginning with the election of Reagan in 1980 and through ALL of the Presidents and Congresses that have followed, we’ve seen nothing but a government that does nothing other than promote corporate profits at whatever cost to the American people.
To Obama, all of this ‘division’ is wrong. All opposition must be stopped. That’s what he’s saying.
We know that conservatives don’t compromise. We’ve seen over and over and over and over that whenever the Democrats move towards the conservatives to try to reach a compromise, all the conservatives do is to retreat even further to the right, make their demands even more extreme. Even with the Democrats as staunch supporters of corporate rule, they still get called socialists by the right.
So, when Obama says he’s going to end division, we know what he means. It doesn’t mean that he’s going to end or slow down this constant drive towards pro-corporate government. It means he’s telling those of us who oppose the notion of government that worries only about maximizing corporate profits to sit down and shut up.
His constant attacks on the evil 60’s say this loud and clear. The sixties were as close as we’ve gotten to slowing down or stopping this drive towards pro-corporate government that’s been going on since the end of WWII. What Obama is saying is that this was the problem. The problem was that the American people actually had the nerve to object to what the corporations had already decided. When he lauds Reagan for ending the excesses of the sixties, this is what he’s saying.
Obama … there is no alternative. you will be assimulated. you will be happy once you are assimulated and you give up any dreams of being anything other than a cog in a corporate machine. The ‘hope’ Obama offers is that of the seemingly happy acceptance of drugged and mindwashed people who’ve stopped fighting.
I’d love to engage the particulars of all this, but enough is enough. Of course Obama appears “centrist”, and so do the others. I don’t have a real problem with that. It almost seems praiseworthy given our history on the left of fragmenting over particulars and ideological purity. Of course electing Obama is a strong symbol for the world that we abhor and reject W and his fascist cronies. Even Mitt Romney’s story about “rescuing” a little girl shows how different he is than “W”, but it isn’t enough difference. The point to me is that Edwards is the only person talking about substantive change with content in the message. Hillary’s resting on Bill’s record established clearly that she is a kind of Republican in more reassuring and human form, but that is not what we need. I’d love to send the signal I think Obama would make if elected, but I cannot stand is empty rhetoric. I do think that in 20 years he might make the best president we’ve ever had. I can’t support him until he shows he has the guts to stand for something other than a reflection of everyone’s hopes for a departure from the current disaster. In the general, I will vote for the democrat. In the primary, I can only vote for Edwards because Dennis isn’t a viable candidate for the nomination. Excluding him however is an absolute unmitigated disgrace. If we are going to insist on substance, we have to vote for another John. If we lose on that basis, we allow the winner to claim a mandate, even if it is devoid of content. It ain’t so simple as ideology!
“I listen to Obama and want to hear RFK or Dr. King”
What the Obama campaign has mastered is the art of speaking nothing but meaningless, content-free drivel that’s well tested by polling and focus groups. Its supposed to sound pleasant to the ear when you hear it. And since its completely content-free, it allows the listener to think that Obama fits whatever image the listener has in mind for what they want in a candidate.
If you want to hear RFK or MLK Jr. when you listen to Obama, then you probably will. That’s what its designed to do. But its also designed such that if you wanted to hear Ronald Reagan when you listen to Obama, then you probably would hear that. Whatever you want to hear, you’ll hear it from Obama. Its designed to be pleasant sounding drivel that will sound good to those who aren’t paying attention (most of the American electorate).
Actually, its exactly the same technique Bush used in 2000. He spoke lots of words that sounded good. Lots of flag waving and nonsense about patriotism. Lots of poll-tested sound-bites like “compassionate conservatism”, which while being an oxymoron sounded nice to the ears. But exactly the same technique of sounding pleasing to the ears while allowing the listener to believe the candidate is whomever they want it to be.
Frankly, the very notion of a candidate who refuses does this and refuses to talk in specifics about what they’d do once in office scares the crap out of me. For the life of me, I find it hard to believe that anyone would be so stupid as to elect a candidate who is obviously conning you. But oh well, I’ve found the American electorate hard to believe for a long, long time now.
Ah, more of the constant BS from the Dems that electing a candidate with a (D) after their name will be the magic cure to everything. It doesn’t matter that the (D)’s and the (R)’s have pretty much the same agenda. Just elect the candidate with the (D) after the name.
We seem the propaganda prior to every war that tries to personalize the problem. First its all the evil Saddam. Now its the evil president of Iran. That’s the sort of simplemined nonsense that’s used continually to prod this nation into wars.
So now we see that technique echoed by the Dems. Its all the evil Bush’s fault. If we just replace Bush, everything will be wonderful, the wicked witch will be banished, and we can all just skip down the yellow-brick road singing songs.
Nevermind the fact that Bush was always just a puppet. That we was propped up and supported by powers that want their own narrow self interests advanced. That it was incredibly obvious from the beginning that Bush was just reading a script handed to him.
Naw, pay no attention to that. Its all the evil Bush’s fault. All we need to do is to replace him. Nevermind that its just going to be with another puppet who’s been handed a new script to read. Maybe the theatrics of the script are a little different. Maybe it has a different tone. But the one thing for sure is that the scripts are being handed out by the same people, and that their goals are still the same.
If we just replace Bush with new puppet reading a new script, everything will be wonderful and Toto and Dorothy can skip off down the yellow brick road.
Yeah, right.
The youngster who are backing Obomb’em do not remember the Reagan years. As a forty-four year old organism, I do.
The only thing that has made the terrorist Reagan acceptably bipartisan is the daily rightward rightly leaping political spectrum, and the Corporate Media.
This sort of bipartisanship is the quicksand in Iraq and on Wall Street.
Bipartisanship is for DC the highest compliment. For any organism OUTSIDE that incestuous Corporate Windtunnel, it whould now be the lowest condemnation.
Obama is not a friend of The People, he is just another shark in a suit.
If people are truly voting for Hillary, Obama and Edwards and not Kucinich than America is truly a lost cause. If the voting machines are rigged than at least there might be some hope for the future.
I think Obama will have to back track on that one and find a good stick to clean the RR cow pie off his shoe.
Edwards’ comment: “Whaaaa?”
I sent this article to my supposedly progressive friends who are excited about Obama. I’ve gotten no response. I really doubt this will do much to slow Obama-mania.
It’s not the political process, any more, that holds out hope for meaningful change. We have to look elsewhere.
It was even stupid politically. When was the last time a Republican praised FDR to sway Independents to vote Republican? I cannot recall a single time. Republicans win elections for many reasons (playing the race card, lying, cheating, etc…), but one that does not get enough discussion is that many Independents vote for Republicans because at least the Republicans make it clear they have enduring principles (e.g. the rich should get richer and foreigners who stand in the way of Bizniss must die) while the Democrats are vague, change positions, and say anything to get elected.
Obama, you screwed up.
mikepeters - “Hi Goose2. He took the Afghanis to Colombia to teach them-the Columbians now-how to grow opium in the Andes…”
Of course. I read that backwards. My bad. I thought you implied that he had the Afganis go to Columbia to LEARN how to grow poppies. My mistake, you are quite correct.
“And SF in the 80’s? Homeless on the sidewalks b4 rayguns? yes, but not severely demented and acutely ill like after he emptied Atascadero, Napa etc.. Do you remember that change? ”
Oh yes. I do. We had a friend with a mentally ill son and he was at Agnews for years. I was in the city regularly and I stand by what I stated. It was bad and really didn’t get much worse. SF has been a problem for years before Reagan’s presidency. Much of that was probably due to the urban renewal that destroyed many square miles of the city’s poor neighborhoods in Hays Valley. Many of the displaced never made it back onto their feet.
As for emptying the hospitals, that was a very complex issue and not simply the fault of Reagan. Since the 60’s there had been laws passed that eliminated the abillity of states to keep mental patients against their will. Remember “One Flew Over the Cookoo’s Nest?”
A grand coalition of conservatives AND liberals worked to close the institutions in many states, not just California. The thoguht was that the dollars would go back to the local jurisdictions where the patients would live in the community and not in warehousing institutions. (massive doses of thorazine were seen as a literal god-send at this time in the mental health community…) The dollars of course did not materialize, but they didn’t in any state, not just the one Reagan was governing.
Might also want to check out the work of the Mental Health Systems Act that was passed by Carter, not Reagan. The act did on the national scale what had been done in releasing patients already in many states. Check the original speech where Carter proposed the bill at
Again… Reagan didn’d do much to stop the slide in mental health, but hitting on him for the cause is simplistic, partisan, and simply incorrect. In fact the release of mental patients was seen at the time as a very progressive act as most of the patients were being kept against their will, medicated into catatonia and in effect tortured with lobotomies and shock treatment FAR worse and with a regularity and banality that would make Gitmo look like a resort.
We need to fix this problem and we need to take care of our poor and ill, but do we go back to the system of involuntary incarceration of the mentally ill in warehouses that would make Charles Dickens cringe?
In short… Reagan was BAD but not the cause. He didn’t gut mental health, we all did, and until we fix that somehow, we aren’t going to be free of the homeless.
If you go to opensecrets.org and go down and click on the 2008 presidential race, then to the left and click on selected industries, you will see where the money is going. Very informative. They’ve changed their format. Earlier, it showed that Edward’s money came mostly from ActBlue, a progressive PAC that supports progressive campaigns. Hillary and Obama didn’t get any of their money. But they did get over $90 million and $80 million respectively for their campaigns. These industries expect to get what they pay for, and I’m sure they will.
kathyodat
Goose2, that’s bullshit. I was in California then and yes, Reagan didn’t empty the mental hospitals. What he did do was end the funding of the halfway houses people were moved into, and so they moved onto the streets, and for too many, on into prison for being unbalanced. What he did to California was refuse Federal fund matching grants to the state. He ended up with a state surplus, and the cities and counties ended up broke. Property taxes went up to try to cover the deficit, starting the property tax revolt with Proposition 13, which was blamed for ruining California’s infrastructure, but really it was Reagan. I was horrified that nobody seemed to understand what was happening and then THEY REELECTED him. That’s when I knew this country was going to be in big trouble, that Reagan could duplicate nationwide what he did to California. And he did. Here we are.
kathyodat
Reagan was a supreme master of getting people to stab themselves in their own backs. And a media darling front-man for the Bush Dynasty, Kissinger and Nixon types, and other nasties just under the surface.
They also brought Hanzlon’s Razor (”Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.”) to an art form. The uninformed just assumed that Reagan was merely senile — rather than overtly hostile to the middle-class, poor, science, the environment, human rights, social justice, Latin America, rule of law, etc.
Obama apparently sees his job as making us happy, once again, to be f’d over?
BeForKids,
You wrote, referring to Clinton and Obama:
But they did get over $90 million and $80 million respectively for their campaigns. These industries expect to get what they pay for, and I’m sure they will.
Those industries expect at least a 10,000 percent, but probably more like a 100,000 percent, return on their investments.
I thought Obama’s comments were about the words he used “clarity, optimism, dynamism” - not about Reagan’s policies (and I am no fan of Reagan.)
As far as what he meant by the “excesses” . . . he could equally have be commenting on the decay of old-fashioned social values, where the excesses could be the break-down of the family with the increase of divorce, drug abuse, the loss of pride in ourselves as a people, whatever . . .
We can not know exactly what he meant until he has a chance to explain…
I haven’t read nor have I heard the interview.
However, Obama is a serious man who seems to have lauded Reagan’s sense of where
the American people were then. I was in Washington, and I was aware that the mood in
DC and the mood of the country diverged greatly. White America was satiated with
the Civil Rights Movement; men were pissed about the ‘feminist revolution.’ White men were pissed at black people because the Movement opened a bunch of previously tightly closed doors. Business was upset that they didn’t control everything. Reagan simply tapped into the ‘mad white men’ syndrome and played his role superbly while letting others run government.
Obama is not a true politician; he tells the truth too frequently.
I fear that Senator Obama is too honest, thoughtful and intelligent to be elected Preident by the American people, since it seems in reading many of the responses to this piece the senders are none of the above.
As one who left the GOP when they nominated Reagan, I understand that he was elected in part because people at that time were fed up with the status quo and ready for a change. Well the pendlum has swung back toward the left ( after moving too far to the right) and once again we are ready for a change. Obama, or Edwards, but certainly not a Clinton, or any of the Republican candidates can lead us there!
I fear that Senator Obama is too honest, thoughtful and intelligent to be elected Preident by the American people, since it seems in reading many of the responses to this piece the senders are none of the above.
As one who left the GOP when they nominated Reagan, I understand that he was elected in part because people at that time were fed up with the status quo and ready for a change. Well the pendlum has swung back toward the left ( after moving too far to the right) and once again we are ready for a change. Obama, or Edwards, but certainly not a Clinton, or any of the Republican candidates can lead us there!
jeanne daykin, Goldman Sachs has contributed over $360,000 to Obama’s campaign, butless than $80,000 to Edwards. ActBlue, the progressive PAC, has contributed over$1,600,000 to Edwards, and zero to Obama. Tells you something. Follow the money.
Obama sounds wonderful, but has said nothing of substance. Why is that? He has avoided almost all of the controversial Senate votes in the past year. Glassbooth.org tracks the records of politicians, and ranks him to the right of Hillary, for Heaven’s sake. No wonder he got more money from the financial institutions than she did.
Except for Kucinich and Gravel, Edwards is the only candidate saying the corporations have gotten too powerful and the rich have gotten too much of our money. The public agrees with him. Meanwhile. Clinton and Obama engage in a pissing contest and the media make sure they are the front runners, essentially ignoring everyone else. Lucky us.
kathyodat
I would also like to say that Obama is intelligent, but inexperienced, especially about foreign affairs, and in the corporate pocket. In politics, you do not take the money and run.
kathyodat
The ability to set a new cultural/political direction was real. I didn’t like the direction, but stop obfuscating about the fact that the country was ready for something different. Lookup the sagebrush rebellion, look up Carter’s protest of USSRs invasion of Afghanistan (we’re not going to the Olympics! Boy, we really showed them!)So, they might not have liked the difference, or even understood it’s implications till a pinkslip came or Nicaraguan refugees started showing up in church basements, but Reagan did move the entire system in a different direction. And much of the movement was based on a felt sense of Americans that they were following him down a path, answering a call, picking up the phone when he said Congress needed a call. Hence “Reagan Democrats.” Hence such a butt-whooping of Mondale & my party the second time around, when RR was already clearly too old to manage it all, that no serious Dem even mentioned raising taxes in the following election cycle.
Like Ed Koch said (a reagan Dem himself, in a way) you don’t have to agree with his policies to recognize that he had shifted the government in a way that really only FDR had been able to do in this century. The fact that he had evil up his sleeve is important. The fact that America went with him for much of the trip. is in arguable.
is inarguable.
Maybe this upstart should go back to school and study the Reagan years. That’s the problem when you get someone like Obama headed for the White House who needs to spend more time reading about American History.. We had a dumbnote with REagan who could care less about surpassing the laws of checks and balances. And we had his successor who did the same. And then came Bush, who never can gets a quote right or a date or a name. And now you have a young man who was probably one of Reagan’s yuppies. Keep talking, Obama, and surely you will continue to put your foot in your mouth.
Reagan did change the trajectory of the country, disastrously so. Barack seems to me to be trolling for white male Reagan Democrat support in the general election, support without which he cannot win. I think this says more about how pathetic American presidential electoral politics has become than it does about Obama, except that a particular aspect of political shrewdness trumps the role of a candidate to remind voters of the realities of past administrations, especially one so abominable as Reagan’s, whose spawn now infect the White House and ravage America’s domestic well being and behave as pariahs wreaking havoc on the global stage.
I guess it’s c’est la vie, c’est la guerre, c’est le campaign. It is a nauseating reality, if indeed it is a requisite for electoral victory in the general election.
I do think Obama is obligated to clarify what “excesses” he’s talking about, and he also needs to make clear which of Reagan’s policies he disagrees with, and that had better be a long list, although I’ll accept an outline of which of Reagan’s principles (especially the unprincipled ones like the war on Nicaragua and Iran-Contra) he finds unacceptable.
Remember Robert Bork? I can never forget a Reagan quote I read in the LA Times while eating a road-killed steak at Norms regarding not getting Bork confirmed: “Over my dead body.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bork
“Bork’s writings have influenced the opinions of conservative judges such as Associate Justice Antonin Scalia and former Chief Justice William Rehnquist of the U.S. Supreme Court, and sparked a vigorous debate within the legal academy about how the constitution is to be interpreted.”
Anonymous David January 18th, 2008 11:59 pm
Thanks for pointing out Iran/Contra in which the White House (Reagan) tried to subvert the wishes of congress and do an end run around congress (in violation of the law)and continue to fund the contras with money made by selling weapons (probably with mass destruction capability) to our erstwhile business associates, the Iranians. This is how Reagan interpreted the constitution.
I guess these are the type of people Obama admires, conservative Republicans. At least he is being honest and we should give him credit for that. He finally came out of the closet and that takes courage. A mainstream, corporatist, and militarist candidate with a flair for the art of speaking in public while really saying nothing. Hot air, vague utterances of hope, morning-in-America Reagan-like bullshit and platitudes.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/jan2008/elec-j11.shtml
“Obama is a conventional bourgeois politician, dependent, like his rivals, on lavish financial support from corporate interests and the wealthy. He is not the product of any sort of genuine movement from below in American society, but rather the latest in a long line of demagogues employed to foster illusions that the big business-controlled political system can serve the interests of ordinary people.
Working people have absolutely no stake in the outcome of the struggle between Obama and Clinton for the Democratic nomination. Neither has any answer to the social crisis affecting ever wider layers of the population, and both defend the use of military force to secure the global interests of the US corporate-financial elite. The Democratic Party, no less than the Republican Party, is an instrument of the financial elite that monopolizes the wealth and dominates the political life of the country.”
We need to stop pretending that the Democrats are going to do anything other than what they have done: nothing. We need to form a new party or merge with an existing 3rd party because a choice between a Democrat and a Republican is not much of a choice at all. Let’s dump the Democrats and move on.
Dear Senator Obama,
Thank you for finding time in your campaign schedule to praise Ronald Reagan, one of the great war criminals of our time. As you know, the Reagan Administration came to office proclaiming, hypocritically, that the struggle against international terrorism would be the core of US foreign policy. Organized campaigns of international terrorism of unprecedented scale and violence were established immediately and led to a World Court condemnation of the U.S. for “unlawful use of force” and a Security Council resolution calling on all states to observe international law — a resolution vetoed by the US.
As a graduate of Harvard Law School, you must know that the World Court order to terminate the crime of international terrorism and pay substantial reparations was dismissed by the Reagan Administration with contempt. The instant reaction was to escalate the terrorist war, including official orders to the mercenary army to avoid combat and attack undefended civilian targets.
In the Reagan years alone, US sponsored state terrorists in Central America left hundreds of thousands of tortured and mutilated corpses, millions of maimed and orphaned, and four countries in ruins. In the same years, Western-backed South African depredations killed 1.5 million people.
In Afghanistan, the Reagan Administration supported the Mujahideen, and helped pave the way for the successful terror operations of Osama bin Laden.
Yours Truly,
Everyone Who Hates Democracy and Decency
I am a little dumbfounded by the fact that no one that has posted a comment above has actually listened to or read what he said. Your hatred for Ronald Reagan blinds you to his comments. Mr. Obama is making an assessment of historical events, not claiming he agrees with or supports any of Reagan’s policies or actions. Mr. Obama is commenting on the tide of opinion that brought him into office and on nothing more. Reagan did change American history and politics forever. I read or heard nothing in his statements that laid claim to this being a beneficial change. I heard or read nothing that could be categorized as “lauding” unless you are glazing over his comments because of your hatred of Reagan. Try reading or listening to it again NOT assuming everyone but you knows everything there is to know about American politics and history.