You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘reagan’ tag.
This is what woke me up this morning with a start
No one here says that for once he is not working for something right.
But one has to wonder: is the Nobel Prize for Peace Laureate going to invade Grenada any time soon?
he certainly seems fluent in Reaganese
Obama mentioned Ronald Reagan four times in his weekly address, noting that when the Republican president signed a nuclear arms treaty with the Soviet Union in 1987 he said, “trust but verify.”
“So those who would block this treaty are breaking President Reagan’s rule – they want to trust, but not verify,” he said.
and that would be blasphemy.
The headline – Reagan’s Son? This was the headline of a NYT profile of….W. The Jr Also Rises….
Notice how he doesn’t even try to pretend he is a D anymore?
In related news
h/t my reader cj:
In a sign that elections are coming, Obama is doning the “postpartisan” cloak again, using the Reagan lexicon about the excesses of the 60s and 70s.
Obama Times offers this unsurprising headline
Obama Says Liberal Courts May Have Overreached
WASHINGTON — In a seeming rejection of liberal orthodoxy, President Obama has spoken disparagingly about liberal victories before the Supreme Court in the 1960s and 1970s — suggesting that justices made the “error” of overstepping their bounds and trampling on the role of elected officials.
Here’s the Reaganesque quote
“And in the ’60s and ’70s, the feeling was — is that liberals were guilty of that kind of approach. What you’re now seeing, I think, is a conservative jurisprudence that oftentimes makes the same error.”
So, as NY Times reveals – here’s what he’s ceding to conservatives
Mr. Obama’s comments, which came as he prepares to make a Supreme Court nomination, amounted to the most sympathetic statement by a sitting Democratic president about the conservative view that the Warren and Burger courts — which expanded criminal defendant rights, required busing to desegregate schools and declared a right to abortion — were dominated by “liberal judicial activists” whose rulings were dubious.
Which makes perfect sense from the Jane Crow president – I have to admire the consistency. Even if Obama Times is trying hard to make believe it didn’t actually happened
Still, Mr. Obama, who formerly taught constitutional law, did not cite any specific decisions. He has long been a supporter of abortion rights, and repeatedly defended the court’s interventionist stance during the civil rights movement because minorities were cut out of the political process, even while saying that such a role would be inappropriate today.
Hey, NY Times – name one instance of “support of abortion rights” from Obama.
I didn’t think so, but nice try.
Still, good on you quoting those who make clear what the difference between the two brands of activism is
his effort to establish a moral equivalency between the Warren court and the Roberts court.”
And the president of the liberal Alliance for Justice, Nan Aron, argued that the Warren and Burger courts had helped make progress on economic and social fronts for people who lacked political power, while the Roberts court is “tilted in favor of those who already have power and influence.”
.Of course, we knew all along what Obama thinks of civil rights and progressive principles. What is surprising is that adopting this “post-partisan” attitude, he thinks people would have any reason to vote for the “D”s in November.
In B0botland they are confused, considering previous awakenings
Most are trying to blame the reporters for misreporting this – didn’t happen so stop saying that
Given how much the reporters mischaracterized his remarks here, I don’t accept their indirect quote.
“….even while saying that such a role would be inappropriate today.”
Sorry, Savage, you’ll have to show me the direct quote and context – I don’t believe for a minute that your interpretation is accurate.
19. The NYT strikes again.
We all know they will whore for the $ client.
or see the multidimensional chess again
16. actually, he didn’t say that
he used purposely vague rhetoric.
Here, he really is playing chess.
.But some do get it
1. That isn’t the hope and change I thought I was going to get.
91. With one comment he legitimized all conservative criticism of Roe v Wade and other landmarks
Does this guy have a CLUE when it comes to politics? The best interpretation is that he doesn’t. I don’t even want to consider the idea that he knows exactly what he’s doing.
.Well, he did that before the comment, with the Jane Crow EO , demanding that contraceptives be taken out of the stimulus, when he said abortion is not a matter of women’s freedom but a moral issue etc. But good on you to notice now.
Apparently Glen Greenwald who reported this yesterday also had people scolding him for misrepresenting Obama. In his original post he links the actual interview where the quotes come from. Here’s the whole thing:
Well, I mean, here’s what I will say. It used to be that the notion of an activist judge was somebody who ignored the will of Congress, ignored democratic processes, and tried to impose judicial solutions on problems instead of letting the process work itself through politically. And in the ’60s and’70s, the feeling was, is that liberals were guilty of that kind of approach.
What you’re now seeing, I think, is a conservative jurisprudence that oftentimes makes the same error.
and just because I found this great list of logical fallacies, here’s the one applicable to what Obama is doing:
if one does not understand a debate, it must be “fair” to split the difference, and agree on a compromise between the opinions. (But one side is very possibly wrong, and in any case one could simply suspend judgment.) Journalists often invoke this fallacy in the name of “balanced” coverage.
“Some say the sun rises in the east, some say it rises in the west; the truth lies probably somewhere in between.”
Television reporters like balanced coverage so much that they may give half of their report to a view held by a small minority of the people in question.
B0bots have their big Duh moment – made painfully clear by the reaction to the firing of 93 teachers in a poor school in Rhode Island
Obama’s Ronald Reagan Moment
a discussion started by one of the clear-minded ones offered me an I told you so (literally) moment –
You nailed it. When Obama praised Reagan, we all hoped he was just bullshitting.
The fact that he turned out to be serious is going to have disastrous consequences for this country.
14. When Obama praised Reagan, we all hoped he was just bullshitting.
I think many of us believed he meant he wanted to create a liberal version of the “Reagan Revolution” that would secure the Democratic party in power for a generation just like Reagan ended up securing his party in power for a generation.
We didnt think he meant literally copying the worst economic and social policies Reagan was responsible for.
of course, some of the blindness was caused by CDS – that made it OK to praise Raygun
7. Actually, I interpreted it as him slamming Clinton
I took it to mean “Reagan changed the course of this country in ways that the next president from a different party did not.” I didn’t put much thought into it, because I thought it was just another instance of primary candidates invoking other pols to make a point about themselves, like when Hillary said the thing about MLK needing LBJ to actually get anything done.
What I didn’t count on was what you said.
Finally someone remembers
23. Not “all” of us. Those who pointed at the red flag caught hell on DU, too.
The “I told you so” moment was so compelling, I actually posted there – fist time in two years.
At the time I had a thread in “Best ten” about it. I see now it had been removed by B0bot Power. Fortunately my post is still in my diary made at a time when I didn’t even decide on which candidate I’d support (it was still Gravel for me) So this is the quote I posted there
So, to have now one of OUR candidates – whom some of us deemed fairly progressive – embrace those memes (“welfare state” “personal responsibilities” “failed liberals” – which Bush uses too, BTW) – feels like a knife in the back. I feel betrayed and saddened that there are DU-ers that don’t get it.
which led to more reminiscing
Remember when all feminists were automatically white racists? Fun times, that.
The one discussion still there is the one where I declare my support for Hillary – based in part on the Reagan worship. I have one response to that aspect
54. People were morally dead during the Reagan era
and Obama wasn’t quite an adult when it began. I can’t really judge a candidate by their supporters, although Dean supporters seem to hang on forever (even now)
Somehow, B0bot missed the point that this was not about Reaganbots, but Reagan himself..
It’s what Obama answered when a banner with “MEDICARE FOR ALL” was unfurled in front of him
There is a video at the link
with all the efforts of Doctor Margaret Flowers to get the message to him. It’s eerie to watch the reaction in the middle of the political BS he was spouting.
Stranger still, the B0bots reaction – they wanted the banner down so they can gaze upon Teh One.
Probably the one iconic moment that illustrate the mind blowing idiocy of the B0bot.
Well, I may squeeze one more.
In the Bobotland discussion of the incident, some wonder what “there you go” means. And one comes with the perfectly logical explanation
2. Sounds to me…
…like he was encouraging them to say it so that maybe Congress would hear it…
Yeah, Chicagosuz, because poor Obama is bound and gagged in a basement by evil Rahm & Congress and has no way of signaling he needs help except for cryptic messages to supporters with banners. From “the guy who never campaigned for public option“So useful that you added that smilie there, for us all to cheer up at your interpretation…
Psst! Don’t look now, but some in the media discovered Obama is not a great speaker after all! Imagine my surprise to see the same paper that linked Obama to Reagan, calling him tongue- tied! Not to sure about the Carter comparison, but it’s good to see that the bestest teleprompter reader ever gets finally called on his lack of skills.
Some of the insight:
Obama seems incapable of balancing the need to be a national leader and his childish desire to retain his image as the uber cool dude he so clearly believes that he is.
Well, some of us noticed that since the shoulder brushing times. Apparently, many of the press knew it too, but only now can it be told
Obama has never run anything other than his presidential campaign. He doesn’t know the difference between governing and campaigning and he’s sticking with what he knows.
A little reality check here: Obama thinks he ran his campaign – gave it as “executive experience” to counteract Palin’s as governor and you bought it. It was Axelrod who ran his campaign, Obama merely …campaigned.
And here’s Michael Wolf
He’s cold; he’s prickly; he’s uncomfortable; he’s not funny; and he’s getting awfully tedious.
He thinks it’s all about him. That we want him for himself-that he doesn’t have to seduce, charm, surprise, show some skin.
And a touch of that sociopathic Jr we missed so
“The guy just doesn’t know what to say. He can’t connect. Emotions are here, he’s over there. He can’t get the words to match the situation.”
More on this disconnect in Bostonboomer’s post at the Confluence
Here’s my proposed explanation for Obama’s inappropriate laughter in the 60 Minutes interview. It comes from a powerful conflict. I think deep inside, Obama is very unsure of himself and very needy. More than anything in the world he wants to be loved and admired and looked up to. But no matter how much love and admiration he gets, it’s never enough to fill the hole inside him.
Which, is not really news for anyone who actually watched the campaign closely, the fawning press included
Obama is flat footed. His detachment means he seems unable to feel the anger of mainstream Americans. Obama and his people seemed utterly bemused as well when he condemned Pennsylvanians as bitter about the plunging economy and reliant on God and guns. Again, it took ages for him to acknowledge that his patronising analysis was insulting to voters.
And Tim Shipman gives away a few ot those things the press kept for themselves during the bestest campaign ever:
To some degree we have always known that Obama, while a great platform speaker, is not a great talker. He was a dreadful debater and more prone to be “on it” in one stump speech and utterly uninterested in another just hours later than any front line politician I have seen.
Also, from Wolf
Wolff stresses that it is the president’s sanctimonious self-regard that has shaped his inept message management.
And the most damning of all, from Politico who crowned Obama as Reagan, casting McCain as Carter in the election
“Of all the pitfalls Barack Obama might face in the presidency, here is one not many people predicted: He is struggling as a public communicator.”
Who would have thunk it that reading from the teleprompter didn’t constitute communication? And who knows, some day, they’ll even figure out that reading words other people wrote is not even eloquence: it’s just acting. Nah, they won’t get that far. It would mean unsettling the pedestal of that other great communicator that thy built and that will never happen.
But for now, the illusion that has been so carefully put together by the entire media, at home and abroad is starting to be taken apart….Too late of course for the stupid voter to be able to do anything about it. I have to wonder, which is the bigger fraud: Obama himself or the one the media perpetrated on the public?
Rassmusen’s polling of the extremes (strongly approve/disaprove)
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows that 35% of the nation’s voters now Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty-one percent (31%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of +4(used to be +30 Innauguration Day)