Does Barack Obama Deserve to Claim the Reagan Mantle?
By James P. Pinkerton
Columnist and writer, “The American Conservative”/FOX News political contributor
So is Barack Obama another Ronald Reagan?
On Tuesday morning I saw that RealClearPolitics had highlighted — in the No. 3 position, in fact — an article teased under the provocative headline, “Obama Isn’t Jimmy Carter — He’s Ronald Reagan.”
Wow.
I worked for Ronald Reagan, from 1979 to 1984, in two presidential campaigns and in his White House in between. And while I can’t really say I knew Reagan, I will say I have never thought of The Gipper and the junior senator from Illinois as having much in common.
But in fact, the Obama = Reagan meme seems to be going around a lot lately — encouraged by Obama himself. In January, Obama appeared at the offices of the Reno Gazette-Journal, and had the following to say:
I don’t want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what’s different are the times… 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.
The Washington Post’s Shailagh Murray was moved to exclaim: “Ronald REAGAN? The Democrats’ mortal enemy, that smiling, supposedly simple-minded actor who expanded the Republican Party by wooing all those white, working-class voters?”
And in fact, the normally in-the-tank-for-Obama lefty blogosphere got all over Obama’s case for his admitting that the 40th president had a good side. Typical was OpenLeft.com’s Matt Stoller, who allowed, “There are many reasons progressives should admire Ronald Reagan, politically speaking. He realigned the country around his vision, he brought into power a new movement that created conservative change, and he was an extremely skilled politician.” Stoller is saying here that it’s OK for a lefty grudgingly to admire Reagan for his tactical skills as an agenda-setter and leader. But it’s not OK, Stoller continues, for a “progressive” actually to approve of Reagan or what he believed.
Here’s more from an angry Stoller: “But that is not why Obama admires Reagan. Obama admires Reagan because he agrees with Reagan’s basic frame that the 1960s and 1970s were full of ‘excesses’ and that government had grown large and unaccountable.”
Yikes! Imagine that any Democrat — never mind those 10 million or so “Reagan Democrats” who voted twice for the Gipper, in ‘80 and ‘84 — would dare to think that maybe things got too wacked-out and crazy in the ’60s, or that the country suffered from a government-caused “malaise” in the stagflationary ’70s, or that the country should return to the limited-government vision of the Founders.
But Obama said it six months ago, never took it back, and ever since, the “Obama-hearts-Reagan” meme has continued to reverberate — despite Obama’s overwhelmingly liberal voting record and presidential platform.
And so now to Tuesday’s Obama-is-Reagan Jr. offering, written by Eli Lake, a smart reporter who normally writes for the cerebrally right-of-center newspaper, The New York Sun. And in fact, Lake’s topic is relatively narrow, as one sees after reading the piece as it appears in The New Republic, “Contra Expectations/Obama isn’t Jimmy Carter — he’s Ronald Reagan.”
Lake is careful in his comparing. He ventures nothing, for example, about Carter’s disastrous domestic policy. And we can say that Obama, for his part, some pro-Reagan rhetoric notwithstanding, seems much closer to the high-tax-and-high-spend policies of Jimmy Carter than the low-tax-and-low-spend policies of Ronald Reagan.
But on the issue of foreign policy, Lake might be on to something, in one key area. He focuses his argument on the approach that a President Obama might take to opposing America’s enemies, especially in the Middle East. And here he reaches back in time to identify correctly a key element of Reaganite foreign policy: the successful strategy of equipping local freedom fighters to fight for themselves. That’s what Reagan did — in Afghanistan, where we armed the Mujahedeen to oppose the Soviet Red Army, which invade that country in 1979; in Nicaragua, where Reagan ordered help for the Contras (hence the first word in the title of Lake’s article); and in Angola, where he helped the UNITA forces led by Jonas Savimbi oppose pro-Moscow rivals.
Over time, this strategy of using military surrogates to fight the “Evil Empire” became known as the “Reagan Doctrine.”
Needless to say, liberals and leftists back in the ’80s were horrified that Reagan’s America was effectively opposing communism. Some critics did not want to see the U.S. helping, in any way, to thwart the “progressive” forces of history, while others, not quite as dupey, were nevertheless agonized that we were assisting “thugs” and “butchers.” To which Reagan’s realpolitik answer was, in effect, “Get over it. It’s better to recruit locals to fight local wars for freedom, as opposed to sending in American troops and letting the conflict escalate into a big international hotspot.”
The Reagan Doctrine was thus both idealistic and realistic. It held that it was a) vital to oppose communism, and b) difficult, sometimes impossible, to oppose communism with American troops in every instance. That was one lesson of Vietnam and Indochina in the ’60s and ’70s. Whatever one thinks of the Vietnam War — and Reagan forthrightly called it “a noble cause” during the 1980 presidential campaign — we learned that the American people would not stand for a protracted costly commitment in such a murky conflict. As Reagan understood, a great policy isn’t great if it can’t be implemented.
So the answer that Reagan — and his stalwart aides, such as CIA Director William Casey — came up with was the use of surrogates. And it worked more often than not.
Indeed, the overall pressure of effective resistance to communist expansion — including other measures, such as strong national defense, close cooperation with key allies such as Britain’s Margaret Thatcher and some “Evil Empire”-quaking rhetoric — helped accelerate the historic collapse of the Soviet Union.
And Lake’s argument is that Obama has learned at least one of those lessons, concerning the use of military surrogates:
If you read the fine print of Obama’s policy papers and talk with his advisers and examine their careers, you’ll find something surprising about how an Obama administration would view this dark side of the war on terrorism. Far from eschewing alliances with unsavory proxies, these ties are essential to Obama’s plans for destroying Al Qaeda. As he has put it, the United States must develop the ‘partnerships we need to take out the terrorists.’ Obama hasn’t fully fleshed out what he means, but his advisers have some ideas. They told me that he would deepen cooperation with Pakistan’s government and military and Somalia’s transitional federal government in their battles with Al Qaeda — and that, while opposed to the troop surge, he applauds the partnership between the U.S. military and Iraqi tribal leaders that helped turn the tide in the fight against Al Qaeda there.
We might pause over the key sentences above: “Far from eschewing alliances with unsavory proxies, these ties are essential to Obama’s plans for destroying Al Qaeda.” That is, make a deal with the devil, if you have to, so as to defeat an even worse devil. And let’s take another look at this sentence, in which Lake says that Obama believes, “The United States must develop the ‘partnerships we need to take out the terrorists.’” “Partnerships”? Partnerships with whom? That would seem to suggest that if a President Obama can find a warlord in Afghanistan or Pakistan who can figure out a way to help capture or kill Usama bin Laden, he would strike a deal, with few questions asked. And that, of course, would sound pretty good to most Americans.
Of course, we don’t yet know if Obama is truly committed to such a practical-minded neo-Reaganite policy, as opposed to the more familiar ivory tower liberalism of Carter and most Democrats. Perhaps Lake is optimistically over-interpreting the policy statements of a few Obama advisers. And we might never know the real truth about Obama’s executive leadership — because John McCain might win the presidency.
But whoever wins the presidency next, he will be well advised to take some lessons from Reagan. The 40th president, in his foreign policy, exemplified a practical understanding of how to use power in tough situations.
Reagan was a visionary, and yet he was a shrewd visionary — he never let the bright vision cloud his good judgment.
And so what a change Reagan made, beginning in 1981, when he replaced Carter! As Lake recalls, Carter emphasized a liberal idea of human rights, above everything else, during his presidency. That might sound nice, but sometimes our friends, imperfect as they might be, are still a whole lot better than our enemies. Here’s Lake reminding us of Carter’s wrong-headedness:
A bit of a refresher course in the horrors of the late 1970s: Jimmy Carter pledged to enshrine human rights as a central value in U.S. foreign policy. That was an admirable goal, but Carter didn’t just inject human rights into U.S. foreign policy; he allowed it to rule policy, no matter the implications for the fight against communism. During the Carter era, the United States cooled its relations with vital client states like the Shah’s government in Iran and the Somoza regime in Nicaragua, even as they fought for their lives.
In other words, in the name of a prissy vision of human rights, we helped topple our own allies in Iran and Nicaragua. And how did that work out? In 1979, during the Carter presidency, the pro-Castro communist Sandinistas took charge in Nicaragua, and, of course, the Ayatollah Khomeini seized power — and our diplomats — in Tehran. Carter had no intention of sullying himself with “partnerships we need to take out terrorists,” but in keeping himself purer than pure, he pushed America into a tailspin.
Politics is sometimes a dirty business and international politics is even dirtier. That’s reality.
Reagan was willing to take risks in pursuit of his strategic vision. And while winning might not be the only thing, it’s still better than losing.
Some might point out, to be sure, that Carter shifted gears late in his single-term presidency. After the Iranians seized our embassy in November 1979, and Soviets invaded Afghanistan in December, the 39th president enunciated what briefly became known as the “Carter Doctrine” in January 1980, which held that the U.S. would defend the Persian Gulf. In addition, Carter announced the creation of a Rapid Deployment Force to back up his promise — a force which eventually became U.S. Central Command. Such policy changes were better late than never, but it would have been better, obviously, if regional order had been preserved by U.S. allies, such as Iran under the Shah.
Also in 1980, pressed by his hawkish national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was finally able to prevail against the knee-jerk liberalism of Secretary of State Cyrus Vance, Carter also commenced extremely limited aid to the anti-Soviet Mujahedeen in Afghanistan. (Nothing said here, of course, is meant to endorse anything that Carter has done since leaving the White House on January 20, 1981.)
And then, once Reagan was inaugurated, the process of helping our friends — even if they were a bit dicey — to fight our enemies began in earnest. The book/movie “Charlie Wilson’s War” provides much useful history, even if liberal journalists and Hollywood chose to emphasize the role played by Democrats such as Congressman Wilson and not Reagan Republicans. Indeed, in Central America, Reagan found ways to aid the Nicaraguan Contras over the strenuous opposition of most congressional Democrats. And in Angola, the U.S. helped Savimbi oppose Soviet-Cuban expansion into Africa. Reagan & Co. even worked with Pope John Paul II to aid the quiet but determined patriots of Poland, who ultimately managed to throw off the shackles of communism in Europe.
So Reagan actively, and effectively, opposed communism all over the world. And yet Americans fired barely a shot. (One briefly violent exception to this rule was Operation Urgent Fury, the liberation of Grenada in 1983, where 19 Americans gave their lives to save American students and protect that Caribbean island from communism. Grenada was a great example of overwhelming force applied in a finite situation, with a clear victory strategy, as well as a clear exit strategy.)
Today, Americans might take stock of what works and what doesn’t work. In 2001, the U.S. went into Afghanistan, pursuing a Reaganesque strategy of limiting America’s military footprint; the battle was won quickly by U.S. airpower and a few CIA and Special Forces units, guiding the anti-Taliban forces to a remarkable victory. It’s a lesson of world geopolitics that local Muslims fighting local Muslims is much to be preferred — even by Muslims — than Westerners fighting Muslims.
By contrast, in Iraq, the Reaganite stratagem of supportive subtlety (let our friends fight our enemies) was rejected in favor a grander strategy (let us fight our enemies directly). The U.S. went into Iraq as we did in Vietnam, with flags flying and lots of boots on the ground. And, as in Vietnam four decades ago, the experience in Iraq has proved much more difficult than most experts anticipated. Also as with Vietnam, opinions on the wisdom of the war vary widely, as do opinions on what to do now. But this much seems clear: If at all possible, the Reagan idea — letting locals do the fighting, backstopped by Uncle Sam — is superior to the idea of having Uncle Sam himself climb into the ring. And that’s something to think about as we contemplate not only how to achieve a victorious peace with honor in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also how we might approach a possible conflict with Iran. The goal, after all, isn’t to fight. The goal is to win.
So, is Barack Obama as smart as Eli Lake thinks he is? Is he veering away from the brittle liberalism of Carter and learning sound strategy, instead, from The Gipper? For the sake of the nation, let’s hope so. And let’s hope that John McCain, too, is communing with Reaganism, because no matter who wins the next election, the well-being of America depends on wise leadership from the top.
But of course, as our 40th president would say, the true greatness of America resides not in its leaders, but in its people. So here’s hoping that all Americans are continuing to draw inspiration and instruction from our commander-in-chief from 1981 to 1989, the once and future Ronald Wilson Reagan.
Though I had issues with President Reagan, I have far more with Senator Obama. He is far too liberal for my views even if he is trying to convince some people otherwise. The world today is a lot more unstable than it was back in 1980, those countries that have been ignored for too long are now a threat at least to Israel. However, as anyone who studies the Bible knows, the situation will only get much worse.
I don’t know which rhetoric to believe: Barak Obama running for the nomination, or Barak Obama as the presumptive nominee. I think the best way to judge what Senator Obama is likely to do in the future is to look at what he has done in the past, which frankly isn’t much. Barak Obama has been running for the office of President since he was sworn in as Illinois’s junior senator. Probably even before that, just like John Kerry. But when you look at what scant evidence is there, you can only come to 2 conclusions. The first is that when you look closely at Barak Obama the candidate, there is far less than meets the eye. Even as a state legislator he did not do very much. And since arriving in Washington he has been far too busy campaigning to accomplish anything substantive. The second thing you notice is that Barak Obama is 100% liberal. Whatever he may say now, “liberal” defines his core beliefs, which are the most accurate predictors of what his future belief may be.
Barak Obama is not Ronald Reagan. He’s Jimmy Carter, re-packaged for a new generation and for those who have failed to learn anything from history.
Jim, I think what excellent points you make are for people who READ things. Alls Obama has to do is claim to be like Reagan, and (to those enamored on the left) he is. Its the Hollywood mindset of whatever one can imagine is reality
I mean, they dont want to claim Obama is a liar, so whatever he says simply goes without saying as its the truth.
You will need to make a short movie if you want to get this point across to the far left, start with how the polar bears are hungry, ice caps are melting, what are we going to do? and then jump in with all the details youve got on Obama there as if it were a Monty Python “and now for something completely different” moment.
I heard somewhere that Al Gore admired Reagan, styling his talking mannerisms and head movements while speaking to be exactly like Reagan
Obama admires Reagan but lacks the faith side and the truth side and all the values and wisdom and ethics and integrity that Reagan had. like I said, its a Hollywood kind of facade that Obama puts up. Hopefully Obama will keep comparing himself to Reagan, but its an act, empty words to see what stirs up donations.
I say that Ronald Reagan would have been proud to have watched President Bush land on the Aircraft carrier with “mission accomplished” in display, someone should aks Obama and see if he was proud also?
I say that Reagan was among those who were deeply offended by the 1968 Olympics black panther salute. Someone should aks Obama if he supports and is proud of that event or is he offended by what it signified?
Obama’s ‘flirtation’ with Reaganism is just that. He is just attempting to ‘toughen up’ his foreign policy image for the general election. In my view, it’s just pure political calculation. His voting record is 100% liberal, and, in the past, he has shown no expertise or much interest in foreign affairs. He knows John McCain has the knowledge and experience to carry out this ‘long war’ against Islamic fascists. He doesn’t. So, expect more political ‘chest-thumping’ from Obama.
Obama/Reagan — Why hell yes! Why not?
I mean here’s a guy that obviously aspires to be all things to all people. Possibly the biggest megalomaniac of all time. What a coup if you now can claim for your camp the Reagan mantle.
Give me a break. At the rate Obama and his supporters are going, a 75,000 seat stadium won’t be able to contain just the overflow crowd wanting to attend his coronation. He’ll need a planet all his own.
spare me, not even close. carter and obama, that”s the match!!
i knew Ronald Reagan…. and barack obama you are no Ronald Reagan….
bo has to be dreaming or just lying again that he thinks he is anything like Ronald Reagan.
For Sen. Obama try and claim that he is like Reagan is a stretch. I would be willing to say I was wrong if he follows Reagan’s lead and cuts taxes and encourages the American people that they can achieve what they want through work and determination-not through government programs. I don’t see that happening in this election. Here’s an idea- how about the media take the policies that Reagan proposed and the policies that Obama proposes and compare them - what the cost was/is of the programs. People can say whatever they want, but it doesn’t make it true.
“The shallow machiavellianism of Brzezinski led him to the notion that Islam was not to be worried about because it was a “bulwark against Communism” and Muslims could help destroy the Soviet Union… Brzezinski was not slightly wrong about Islam and about Iran — he was totally, completely wrong. And so, under his watch, the rise of Ayatollah Khomeini — a man who Carter called a “man of God” — began. Iran’s radicalized government became the central breeding ground and exporter of a virulent, extremist brand of terrorism. Iran funded, trained and equipped Hezbollah, Hamas, Fatah and Ansar al-Islam, to name but a few.” To think that a inexperienced Chicago politician could possibly handle a world situation as we’re facing is laughable. He’s already expressed his feelings as to where his loyalties lie when it comes to Muslims. No one is making up the information that is spreading about Barack Carter Obama. Religion, birth, associates, anti-American feeling by he and his wife. I wouldn’t trust him to lead a marching band. He’s a self aggrandizing narcissist, bent on destroying the great nation of our forefathers, bringing us to our knees to worship, Allah! Enough already, if the democrats want to take back the white house, let them nominate a true American.
Obama/Reagan — Why not?
I mean here’s a guy that obviously aspires to be all things to all people. Possibly the biggest megalomaniac of all time. What a coup if you now can claim for your camp the Reagan mantle.
Give me a break. At the rate Obama and his supporters are going, a 75,000 seat stadium won’t be able to contain just the overflow crowd wanting to attend his coronation. He’ll need a planet all his own.
Bristol Mercheson
I agree, every time Obama speaks, his lack of experience shows even more. We are in a time where amatuers need not apply for the top position. He is making changes without even getting insight from military leaders what the situation is on the ground. First one must acess the threat, then one can correctly formulater a plan of action.
Obama fails to recall history, first the Arab world sided with Nazi Germany in the pre WW2 era. They agreed with the elimination of Jews. Later on as the War progressed, Britain and the United States were seen as enemies. This political climate remained over the years, so it has never been where we were ever well liked.
One should look at history not to repeat the same mistakes. Carter only made a move to rescue the hostages as he realized he was going to lose the election. This leaves the question, what was of more intrest to Carter, the hostages or his reelection.
Now Obama will push Pakistan, who while not in full cooperation, does assist in supplies to the tropps and catching Terrorists, Obama fails to see this point, Iraq needs to succeed, democracy is the biggest threat to Iran. Pulling out now, and allowing the Iraqs Gov. to fall means Iran will have a power monopoly in the middle east. So now the problem is getting bigger, not smaller.
Number two is, Iran is just playing a stall game, they will enrich uranium, and they will not stop. The talks are only designed for them to keep stalling until they are completely successful with Nuclear missles. One can see with conventional missles they easly threaten the world. One would be a fool to believe once they have a nuclear capability they would tone done.
No the real fact is, it is not about color, it is not about parties, democrat or republican, it is about the safety of our Nation and the rest of the world. As now a mistake will cost millions of lives in the future. This is not a scare tactic, these are the facts. When Iran has Nukes, the middle east will turn into a nuclear arms race.
ARE YOU KIDDING…OBAMA WILL NEVER COME CLOSE TO COMPARING TO RONALD REAGAN!
With Obamas war of hatred against America in full swing, and escalating, there isn’t a whole lot of humor going around about his presidential dreams these days. Being Americas greatest enemy from the inside isn’t anything anyone can find a happy future in. And America is only beginning to pay the price for his life in Washington DC that is still only speculation at best.
I hope Obama isn’t like Reagan. After George W, we can’t afford that much more national debt so the rich can have more money.
Folks,
You’all might be surprised at what Obama will be like. You think he didn’t learn anything in the streets and politics of Chicago? Please keep underestimating him. I think that’s what most people did with Reagan!
Regards,
Flagwaver
No sense in comparing Reagan to Obama. Yes, the writer here makes some interesting comparisons but leaves out a critical factor. Reagan had the supports who wanted to frustrate our enemies so he had some latitude in his actions. Obama, on the other hand, has supporters who actually want the U.S. to fail in the War on Terror, mainly because they don’t even believe that we’re in a war on terror. Thus, Obama has no maneuvering room whatsoever. The MoveOn.org crowd will keep Obama on a tight lease. Additionally, Obama himself has no fight in him, unlike Reagan.
“Well, . . . there he goes again.”
Reagan was straight forward and resolute in his principles, before and after his election. He understood the difference between Good and Evil.
Barak Obama is a malleable man in an expensive suit that shapes to an illusion in a Mist. His views are as long lived as the Mayfly. He is more Clinton than Reagan, bending his image to whatever polls indicate they should be, for now.
Perhaps, the Emperor Barak as no clothes. Like two dimensional cutout doll toy that my sister played with, he can be dressed up by anyone who wants to create a look for today…
Come to think of it, Reagans suit is way to Big for such a small man.
Once a man becomes President and can receive all the info, including classified reports, he almost always does the right thing.
Examples: Woodrow Wilson ran on a peace ticket and brought America into WWI.
Franklin Roosevelt ran on a peace ticket and brought America into WWII.
Harry Truman ran on a peace ticket and brought American into Korea.
Lyndon Johnson and John Kennedy had run on peace tickets and brought America into Vietnam.
Richard Nixon ran as a Hawk and brought America into China.
Ronald Reagan ran as a Hawk and oversaw the collapse of the USSR.
I like much of what Obama is saying and how he says it, but the United States of America will sleep better if McCain wins.
Larry Carlson
I think what is telling about Obama is simply that he is willing to promise the world, to anyone who will listen, as long as it gets him elected; this coming from a man who has yet to do anything of substance to back up his claims… He promises change, but says nothing about how to accomplish this. From what I have read, he promises to rid the world of nuclear weapons, end the war in Iraq, win the war in Afghanistan, solve the energy crisis, negotiate peace with Iran, bring all nations together under a more perfect United Nations (and this is all the tip of the iceberg, the things I can remember off the top of my head). All of these things he has promised, but yet, there are no plans available to see any of these things through. He just says that he will do them, and it gets left at that. And yet, for all his talk, again, he has yet to do anything in his present job…
I was not a McCain supporter, and never have been. I always viewed this race as a lose-lose situation. I had planned on voting for myself this November, simply because I couldn’t decide which was worse for this country; a liberal claiming to be a republican, or a no-one claiming to be the the answer to be the messiah. The more I learn about Obama, the more I find that I must vote for McCain.
I think one thing everyone must know is how the media works throughout the world now compared to that in the 1980’s. We have the internet, 100+ cable stations from around the world, 24/7/365 dedicated news stations that, if nothing else is happening, they run the same stories over and over. Not many people would know about what was going on throughout the world in the 1980’s if it wasn’t covered on the half hour nightly news.
So, for Obama to say he is like Reagan, great. That means he is LEARNING from successes and mistakes of those past Presidents. Since he wasn’t in politics back when these things were happening, his views of the time will not spill over to now.
Also, in this article, the author talks about how Obama has good people working for him. I think that is the most important thing all of us should remember. The President is like a CEO of a company. He will hire whom he thinks will do the best job for a particular task. And not hire his old buddy from 20+ years ago to run an organization. i.e. Bush hiring an old buddy to run Fema who screwed up pretty bad when it came to hurricane Katrina.
I guess this reply is more of whom would make a better President? A new guy to Politics? Someone who has been around for a long time with numerous friends/enemies? An actor? That is what should be looked at, not the promises since they will say anything to get elected, but the people they have surrounding them.
I am suprised nobody talks about “Ears”, Ross Perot? He got what, something like 20% of the presidental vote when he ran? Because he had the right people in the right position. So did Arnold in California. Look at Arnie’s approval rationg now.
Obama is more like Reagan than either Bush sr. or jr are. Bush Sr. thought that Reagan’s Economics was “Voodoo Economics”. Bush Jr. seems to think that libertarianism is a bad word. Reagan firmly believed in that.
I am a libertarian at heart and I find it sad that the GOP has completely abandoned these concepts. You know there is a big problem when the party of massive spending and big gov’t is the side that’s championing personal liberty. And the side that is supposed to be championing liberty and small gov’t is the side that made gov’t bigger in order to police idology.
Ronald Reagan was a Quack that like Bush caused a Recession that started right before Bush 1 and ended with Clinton taking the Reins and got America out of. He was making decisions based upon a Astrologer reading the stars how stupid or BRAIN dead do you have to be. Its going to take another Democrat to get us out of this depresssion thats starting to take over the American economy
Unless there is some political leader well known for coming into office with virtually no resume at all, Obama doesn’t merit anyone’s mantle. It says something about Obama’s arrogance that he even decided to run for president in the first place at this point in his career. The typical county commissioner’s resume is more impressive. In terms of the scale of things that should qualify someone to run for president he has done, really and truly, nothing. Do his backers actually believe that being a good speaker with ideas they agree with is all it takes to be an adequate president? Or do they think so little of the presidency that they think it’s fine strategy to simply run a packaged presentation for the office instead of a real candidate?
The following is an excerpt from the actual 1980 Republican Party Platform, which Reagan ran on successfully to win the White House:
“The Republican Party reaffirms its belief in the decentralization of the federal government and in the traditional American principle that the best government is the one closest to the people. There, it is less costly, more accountable, and more responsive to people’s needs….We favor the establishment or a commission of distinguished citizens to recommend ways of reorganizing and reducing the size and scope of the Executive Branch.”
http://tinyurl.com/6422pb
This is a key lesson that the current Bush Administration and their supporters totally forgot. Completing ignoring the fact that traditional conservatives wanted to shrink the size of government including the Executive Branch, today’s Republicans became infatuated with power, perks, pork, and Executive power. Cheney was assiduously feathering his own nest every chance he got. The Bush Administration went ahead with numerous policies (like inccreased domestic surveillance) on their own initiative, treating the Congress as an annoyance to work around, instead of a co-equal branch of government.
And the powerful evangelical wing of the Republican Party had a long agenda of proposed Federal programs to promote so-called “Christian values,” even when that usurped the prerogative of the states to decide for themselves.
The new Republican attitude was, “Now that ‘our guys’ have won the White House and Congress, let’s milk it for all the power, privilege, perks, and pork we can get out of it.” But that’s never been a truly conservative thing to do.
Lest we forget, the Reagan doctrine gave birth to the Taliban in Afghanistan and the current religious social zealotry in Iran.
Fighting by proxy only works when your ’surrogate’ is a group based on integrity and not fascist totalitarianism. I hope neither McCain or Obama takes up that aspect of Reagan’s foreign policy. It’ll just create a mess for the next generation to live with.
Let the outcomes of history be examined as closely as the events that shaped them!!!!
Obama has become so arrogant and his lack of experience is really showing. He will never be a President Reagan!
This is ridiculous, a jackass calling himself a race horse. Would that God would resurrect the Gipper and let the jackass run this race against him.
Reagan filled his metaphorical suit out. Obama’s is empty.
Barrack Obama is like Ronald Reagan, don’t think so. First of all, Reagan was a conservative, Obama is a liberal; 2nd, Reagan thought government was too big and too intrusive, Obama wants to make it bigger and control more of the people’s lives; 3rd, Reagan wanted the people to keep more of their money and did not try to start class warfare, Obama says the rich folks have to much money and the government needs to take it away from them and give it rich politicians (not to the poor as they say);
4th, Reagan was a man with a very strong backbone that wanted peace, but knew you had to have strength in order to have that peace, Obama wants to appease all of the dictators by giving them money and that ain’t gonna work and wants to disarm the United States, which would be a disaster; Reagan was a humble man who did not seek the limelight, Obama has never met a camera he didn’t like. There is probably more, but I am tired of typing….by the way, did it ever occur to anyone why Obama does not speak off of the cuff? The reason is that he can’t, he can really deliver a speech he gets to practice, but answering questions is beyond him. To elect him as president is really scary.
Sen. Obama is most certainly NOT a Ronald Raegan. One always knew where Ronald Raegan stood on any issue. Sen. Obama changes with the wind.
The Senator’s upcoming trip with anchors from ABC, CBS, & NBC is the most obvious, shameless, and blatant expression of media bias I have ever seen on the American political scene, with the exception of the Clintons. If there were any doubt about the journalistic objectivity of those liberal networks as to who THEY want for president, there shouldn’t be now.
You know, reading some of the posts here really amazes me. We all must have access to a computer to be able to write things, right? How many of us are in a cave on Mars sending Morse code beeps back to somebody sitting on Funk and Wagnall’s porch since noon today? who then puts it in a post?
Most of us are able to search for information on the internet that Al Gore took credit for creating.
So why then are so many people so incredibally ignorint when it comes to the facts being wrong? Lets see, a person has the internet, speaks good engrish, and has access to various historical documents for free that dont cost anything, and everything else; Then takes a specific point in history and says its something that it never was.
Reagan and Bush causing a downturn in the US economy? huh? Nobody can say this as an authority without being dishonest. You could say “help me fill in the details of Reagan and the US economy legacy, I think its like this….” and then explain some scenario.
But to take the topic as an authority, someone who is on the level of a teacher and is therefore done learning, and say “Im telling the world it happened exactly like this….” then explain some scenario that not only didnt happen but doesnt make sense?
Who would claim to write as an authority and then claim to be above correction, then not have any peer review, then say something thats easily disproveable? Whats the word or expression for someone like that? I think we all know, but there probably is not much space left for me to write it out. pity.
About half of the Democrats, which is about half of the electorate, voted for B.O. That’s about 25% of the voters, and wow just look at all the hullabaloo! About the same percentage of Americans beLIEVE that 911 was an INside JOB! So then it’s fairly clear who voted for him in the first place. Plus, of course, the pols who just can’t stand the Clintons, and practically everybody who’s black.
The reason the Democratic Primary was so close, is because not ALL Democrats are college students trained like Pavlov’s dogs to respond to a sound bite, nor are they dumb enough to just cast their precious votes for parochialism. Most Democrats are rational, thinking, educated human beings, like most Republicans.
And, I think B.O. would not have won the primary at all if all the revelations about him had come out sooner. Lots of people were sorry that they voted for him.
And NOW, even poor Hillary has to go out and Yah Yah Yah for Obama, to “unite the Dem. party. Seems the great Uniter has, as a first step, disintegrated the Democrat party.
NO ONE CAN BE PRESIDENT WITH 25% OF THE VOTE.
Wow, it is refreshing to see an intelligent and well reasoned article written by a conservative instead of the typical hate-filled rant by some drooling christian right wing extremist that so typically passes as Republican propganda these days. I applaud you, sir.
I would certainly never criticize Regan for lack of vision or leadership; in fact, I think he brought these qualities to the US in a period when they were much needed. What bothers me is that people seem stuck in this rut that there’s only one way to run the country - you’re either a “reganite” or you’re not.
Yes, Regan was a great man. But he’s not the only one. Abe Lincoln, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson were also great men. It is interesting that none of these great leaders followed Regan’s policies or philosophy to the teeth. Yet one could also argue that they were “just like Regan” in that they brought fantastically successful new ideas and policies to the US in a time of need. In the future there will be other great Americans to come who also won’t follow Regan’s political philosophy, yet will be fantastically successful. Perhaps in saying that Obama is “like Regan”, Eli Lake did not mean that Obama will embrace Regan’s political leanings, but that Obama is that rare candidate who has the capability to implement visionary and creative new policies that will successfully push us through this time of crisis?
Oh my God, don’t desecrate Ronald Reagan like this!!!!!!! This boy will not now or ever even come close.
Ok I think its time to quote Mark Twain.
“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. ”
Why?
Because the majority is currently on the opposite side of the GOP. I haven’t decided if I’ll vote for Barr yet, but he is starting to poll 7-10% in some states.
Bush made a big mistake kicking the libertarians out.
Obama is not 100% liberal. The problem some of the 100% conservative folks have is that they don’t understand what it means to be middle of the road.
Obama recognizes that the government has a role to play, particularly as it relates to regulation. A lot of conservatives seem to have a world view in which they believe something like “no government is good government”. That is simply not true… ask any 14th century serf or any 21st century slave of a warlord in many parts of the world today.
Ladies and gentlement, the wealthy classes in the absence of regulation, have been all too happy to have the bulk of the population live in as impovrished a state as necessary to fuel the engine of their enterprises. Obama recognizes the essential truth of the same thing that, for example Henry Ford recognized in paying higher wages to create demand for his product. Obama recognizes the essential truth of the same thing that Adam Smith recognized about “the invisible hand of the market” which is that it can only be successful in the absence of manipulation.
There is ample evidence of Obama’s bedrock good sense both in his explanation of the issues and his powerfully effective use of advisers and competing opinion. If the Obama phenomenon is a mystery to you…. I suggest you “strong conservatives” listen to and read what is being said and done… rather than allow preconceived opinions color and distort all there is to see. Give it an honest listen, and you will be pleasantly suprised.
I’ve always thought it was bizarrely ironic that, totally contrary to the rhetoric, it is the supposed conservatives who run up the big public debts. Talk about the height of irresponsibility and hypocrisy. I’m sure the rationalization goes something like …. ” These are exceptional and troubled times… the ends justify the means… we have a noble and righteous purpose…” or so other equally one-dimensional and self-serving set of ideas. Sure boys… right the ship…. but do it in a way that doesn’t sink it. And by the way, the people earning less than $100,000 per year are real people too, and their aspirations do have merit as well.
In Obama you have a coherent plan which I believe demonstrates a very realistic understanding of the way the economy works and the issues facing the nation. What certain elmements of conservative orthodoxy disagrees with is the scope of what is important. Obama tries to realistically take account of the legitimate interests of the broadest set of groups within society. His challenge is to balance the valid societal social needs for regulation with the very real problems of some social programs that are counterproductive because they cost too much money and in some cases are not fair to the people paying the taxes that support them.
John McCain, with his apparent disinterest in facing up to the deficit spending problem, and with his apparent lack of interest in the need for fairness in the economy is a recipe for disaster.
Shocked Obama hasn’t claimed he was God yet, what a joke he is…..
I think were screwed either way. McCains history will screw us further, Obama has no history, is the devil we know better than the devil we dont know? Lack of experience doesnt mean he will be a bad president. He says he’s a christian but he’s liberal. McCain is republican but doesnt appeak to evangelicals, wheat the heck are we gonna do? Personlly, I think Barack is gonna win so we’d better start praying for him.
I’ve got a feeling that Lorie M. wasn’t even born when JIMMY CARTER blew off the Shah, and wouldn’t support him against Khomeni. Reagan came AFTER Carter, Lorie M., REAGAN had to clean up Jimmy’s mess, and we all have had to live with the outcome of that. Carter called Khomeni a “Man of God”, like himself, idiot thought they were on the same “wavelength”.
So look, Lorie M., and all you other sound-bite infested “liberals”, learn the truth about history beFORE you open your oh so pompous yaps.
Jeff, it’s REAGAN, not Regan, please return to square one. What does it mean that the spelling of those on the left is uniformly atrocious?
“You’all might be surprised at what Obama will be like. You think he didn’t learn anything in the streets and politics of Chicago? Please keep underestimating him. I think that’s what most people did with Reagan!” - Flagwaver
Flagwaver,
Have you taken a good hard look at the streets and politics of Chicago lately?
What he learned there is exactly what worries us most about him!!!
God, help us all!
It was reported by the NY Times and CNN in Sept. and Oct. 2007 that the Chicago police have been accused of rampant abuses. During Barak Obama’s peak years in Chicago politics 2002 through 2004, there were more than 10,000 abuse cases against the Chicago Police. That is the equivalent of 14 cases per day.
Now the AP reports, Gov. Rod Blagojevich has released a statement that the Illinois State troopers or perhaps even the Illinois National Guard will be used to help the Chicago Police get things under control there. Mayor Daley’s Chicago and Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s Illinois are in shambles!
Just yesterday it was reported that there were regular abuses of incarcerated prisoners at the Cook County Jail. This was determined after a 17 month Federal Investigation of the Cook County Jail. Gov. Blagojevich and Mayor Daley have their own Abu Ghraib going on in Cook County.
We do not underestimate Barak Obama at all in Illinois. We have seen what excessive liberal Democratic Chicago Politics can do to destroy a City and a State.
We the people of Illinois are embarrassed. Is this the Chicago education that Barack was given, and you apparently want in the White House?
I’m curious…does Obama plan to “deepen our cooperation with Pakistan’s government and military” before or after he invades them…as he has said he would do in the past? Bradley’s comments above are right on track. Obama can get away with claiming to be like The Gipper because the media lets him get away with such preposterous public musings…including the “conservative” media types.
McCain is no conservative…but McCain as president provides a far more optimistic picture than the alternative!
I,for one would want Obama to have no connection with Reagan other than the ability to get elected.I am no fan of RR.In fact,I believe RR was a nice man but not a good president. I realize,of course, that my opinion is not the view of the majority.I firmly believe that Obama is destined for greatness.
I do think there is a similarity between Reagan and Obama in that both guys felt/feel the need to take the country in a new and different direction. That is the only similarity.
Reagan understood that the socialist policies of previous administrations were making the country poorer and more dependent on government, as well as weaker militarily.
Obama understands that peoples’ self reliance, smaller government and a strong military threaten his vision of a socialist utopia. He wants to socialize our health care and renew the “Fairness Doctrine” so that non-socialist viewpoints become illegal on the airwaves. He’s in favor of Karl Marx income redistribution and eco-communism. A socialist president along with a compliant socialist majority Congress will be willing and able to take the country on a sweeping left turn that we may not ever be able to reverse.
Reagan was dangerous to socialism. Obama is dangerous for America.
I have been so disappointed in Fox “fair and balanced” coverage of this political period.Your claims of balanced coveraged is sadly skewed in favor of the Democratic partys choice for president;it has caused me to loose faith in this network and will no longer be my primary choice for information.
If there is any question of this,put a timing mechanism on your coverage of the two candidates and analyize the results.
It makes me sad to affect this choice but there is no difference in your coverage than the other networks that are in the tank for the socialist candidate.
Curtis Anthony
Clovis,New Mexico
Obama - Reagan !!!!!
May God forgive us for falling into the trap of listening to speakers that deliver a good speech and calling them leaders!! He keeps calling himself a Christian and yet he will sell us down the river at the first chance. Jus like Jimmy Carter!! Just remember, it takes give and take between the Congress and the President. (I cannot get the picture out of my mind of him standing up there with his arms crossed looking over the crowd, when a person was passed out on the floor, and everyone else was rushing to their aid.) I love and will always think a lot of President Bush, because never anything more of himself than what it is. At least he has run something before, and he didn’t need 300 writers to tell him what to say. (For that matter, neither does Huckabee). They believe what they say and they say it. He hasn’t even raised his family yet, but he is willing to tell us how to raise ours.
God took very good care of this earth, long before EPA, PETA, the Environmentists, AL GORE, and anyone else. Some of Grandparents, Great Grandparents and Parents lived in the 100’s - My oh My!!
My Dad called it horse-sense - He once said - “All those Dollars and no sense!!!”
By the way, when the first Congress met, they had other main jobs; they gave of their own time to run the colonies!! Now Congress lives off from us and we are not to have a Voice???
Pat
Ok now Obama is Ronald Reagan? I thought the other day he was a rock star! He is not and will never ever be Ronald Reagan. No one will ever be Reagan. Obama makes himself be whoever he thinks the people want to get votes. Does he really think we are that stupid? Get a clue Obama!!!!!
obama deserves to be compared to rev. wright who he spent 20 years with. Obama did not have the strength to stand up in his church and make a change. He has not served a full term as Illinois senator, and has done noting as an Illinois rep. that any one can point to as an accomplishment. Now he wants the Keys to the White House.
BARAK OBAMA WOULD LIKE TO CLOTHE HIMSELF WITH THE MANTLE OF RONALD REAGAN BUT UNDERNEATH, THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES. IF BARAK OBAMA IS ELECTED BY A NATION MISLED BY SOARING RHETORIC, WE WILL FIND A NAKED FOOL BEHIND THE DESK IN THE OVAL OFFICE.
Obama is Reagan, FDR, Lincoln and Washington all rolled into one. This is the most amazing human being ever born. He speaks and birds stop singing while he speaks. He has all the answers to all the questions. Everyone will die from boredom a week after he takes office because he wil have solved all the world’s problems. A one day trip to a war zone qualifies him to be Commander-in-Chief of the military of the most powerful nation in history. A stint as a community organizer and the debating of a few bill on the floor of a couple of legislative bodies qualifies him to the the chief executive officer of the most powerful nation in the history of the world. There are no words to describe this man.
Dennis Mitich, you’re a genius! Joe, you’re…oh, forget it.
He is arrogant enough to think so. I don’t believe it!
NoQuarter says :
Quote:
Barack Obama used donations to refurbish and repaint his campaign plane, and has removed the flag of the United States from the tail of the plane. Reports Bonnie Kapp for Fox Embed:
The plane that once had an American flag on its tail now sports the Obama “O.” “Change We Can Believe In” and the candidate’s website
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/
Never, never equate a democrat to a great republican president. Obama does equate to Carter and that’s all bad news.
Don’t you all know the difference between a far left liberal and a far right conservative?