Skip to main content

View Diary: Face it Republicans. Obama is the Democrat's Reagan. (264 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I think Democrats have... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shenderson

    ...to come to terms with Obama being a lot like Reagan.  Policy wise at least.

    We Glory in war, in the shedding of human blood. What fools we are.

    by delver rootnose on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 06:21:32 AM PST

    •  Uh . . . because Reagan would have wanted (42+ / 0-)

      universal health care? Gay marriage? Equal pay for equal work?

      Every honest communication poses a risk that we will hear something that could challenge or change us. -- Kenneth Cloke

      by GreenMtnState on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 06:32:57 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  of course he would have! (18+ / 0-)

        Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say - Grateful Dead

        by Cedwyn on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 07:00:14 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  those things are not all that... (5+ / 0-)

        ...Obama or Reagan are or were.

        So do you think Reagan would have been for or against the secret drone war.

        Do you think he would be for or against the War in Afghanistan going on till 2014.

        Do you think Reagan would have agreed with the idea that if we only hold people off shore in Guantanimo they don't have rights to trial.

        Would Reagan have supported extrajudicial killings of US citizens.  He actually might of disagreed with them which would make him left of Obama.

        I could go on but it would harsh the Obama lovers post election high.  Don't want them to take off the rose colored glasses too soon.

        We Glory in war, in the shedding of human blood. What fools we are.

        by delver rootnose on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 07:33:27 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It adds to my high knowing (12+ / 0-)

          knowing the Obama haters live in a world without functioning question marks. Yes even the question marks have abandoned you.

          There are two types of republicans, the rich and the stupid. The rich ones strive to keep the stupid ones stupid and the stupid ones strive to keep the rich ones rich.

          by frankzappatista on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 07:47:34 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't hate Obama... (6+ / 0-)

            ...so give that shit a rest.  I just don't love him.  There are some issues I really fundamentally disagree with him.  And I disagreed with them when Bush did them and when Clinton did them.  I mean should any self-respecting Democrat like the Patriot Act or domestic spying or 'sneak and peek' warrantless searches.  Or national security letters to look into what books you read at the library.  These are issues that Obama either embraces or continues yet nobody says anything here because the president has a D after his name.

            Oh and by the way.  When you criticize someone's spelling, or grammar you are just screaming

            'I can't make a cogent rebuttal on the issues so let's just insult the poster’

            Weak sauce.

            We Glory in war, in the shedding of human blood. What fools we are.

            by delver rootnose on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 08:20:44 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Perhaps, but people who use (11+ / 0-)

              "Obama lovers" as a perjorative risk painting themselves into a corner. Remember people who used to say "the negro lovers" (question mark omitted out of respect)

              There are two types of republicans, the rich and the stupid. The rich ones strive to keep the stupid ones stupid and the stupid ones strive to keep the rich ones rich.

              by frankzappatista on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 09:38:00 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I just have to say this: (6+ / 0-)

                The internet is a written medium.  Questions that do not end in question marks are NOT proper questions.

                They are statements.

                And statements that sound like questions are BAD WRITING.

                And WEAK SAUCE is terrible on spaghetti, especially if you have a cold.  And I do.  Is that a question?

                Yes.

                And no.

                The POINT being, a drone war is a nightmarish scenario straight out of science fiction, and yet if you asked ME, as POTUS, "which is worse, a nightmarish scenario straight out of science fiction, or sacrificing American lives?" (note the FUCKING QUESTION MARK,) I would have to take a very LONG TIME to think about my answer.

                As for what Reagan would "think" about any other thing, Reagan was not much of a THINKER.  He was a puppet of the same people who implemented all those things.  Reagan's brain trust RAN the Bush Administration, and President Obama would NOT be allowed to simply flush every last one of those Strangelovian bastards, and that's just how it is.

                I love that there is leftist purity, and I actually encourage it, but it's not so good to be idealistically correct while pragmatically, you are getting your ass kicked.

                Reagan was the Right's FIGUREHEAD.

                And the point of this thread is, Obama is ours.

                He did the one thing a good number of other Democrats couldn't do:

                HE WON.

                We are the change we have been waiting for.

                by mellowinman on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 01:07:57 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  Those are legitimate criticisms (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            blueoasis, Cedwyn, delver rootnose

            He's a guy we hired for a job, not a figure to "love" or "hate".

            I voted to keep him on the job but not blindly.

        •  I'm pretty sure the diarist... (5+ / 0-)

          didn't mean Obama WAS Reagan.

          Only that Obama was the Democrat's Coin-Flip Version of him.

          Message to Dems: We HAVE to start showing up for Midterms.

          by Jank2112 on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 07:52:32 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I can compare oranges to rattlesnakes. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            kurt, majcmb1, Theodore J Pickle

            I can compare JDAM bombs to Habitat for Humanity.

            I can compare the Mars rover with the deer in my yard eating beef ribs.

            Technically, all you can really do is CONTRAST Obama with that piece of shit.

            The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

            by xxdr zombiexx on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 08:25:07 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  There is some merit to what you are writing (7+ / 0-)

          Some.  Reagan's foreign policy set us up for Afghanistan - Reagan and Bush created the mess in both Afghanistan and in Iraq (supporting Saddam Hussein, creating the Taliban, etc).  You can make the case that Obama is trying to responsibly unravel the latent disasters of Republican foreign policy.

          Would Reagan support Gitmo or assassination of US citizens?  Maybe... he did support the torture of US citizens in Central and South America. I don't agree with Obama on these issues.  But can you seriously believe that Reagan would have not used drones in Central America had he had the option?

          There's no real comparison between Obama's foreign and security policy.  I think it's a little off-base to pretend that they are the same.

          “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” Charles Darwin

          by ivorybill on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 08:49:31 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  well, there's a reason for that. (32+ / 0-)

      And  addressed that in my diary.

      The reality is that the GOP dominated the political discourse for 30 years. Reagan ushered in a entirely fresh lexicon in terms of talking about conservative principles.

      It wasn't until Obama VOCALLY AND DIRECTLY challenged the term "Trickle Down" and SAID EXPLICITLY "It doesn't work" that we've seen Reagan's nomenclature taken on head first.

      Even Clinton was hamstrung by a still dominant conservative culture.

      And what I;m saying is that Obama is the first democratic president in a generation who has not only taken on conservative memes, but also introduced our own memes that, like Reagan's, will define the next 20-30 years of political discourse. And hopefully, force the right leftward the same way that Reagan's language and the dominance of conservative themes forced the left rightward.

      We now have "fairness", "income inequality", "vulture capitalism". These are strong themes, leftist themes. And if we take advantage of our position, we will force the right leftward as they are forced to deal with the reality that the american electorate accepts our framing on these issues.

      So in a way, saying Obama is a republican sort of makes the point that I was making in the diary.

      Except he's not a republican. he's to the right of many leftists - and the reasons is because we are only at the beginnings of shedding the 30 year dominance of right wing thought and culture.

      For the record, I am not a member of Courtesy Kos. Just so you know. Don't be stupid. It's election season. My patience is short.

      by mdmslle on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 06:47:40 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Pfffft. (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        delver rootnose, Jank2112, dinazina, Chi, kurt

        You're giving BO way too much credit and dismissing everyone else who has ever supported 'fairness' etc., you know, people like Roosevelt [he was president in the '30s] and current people like Howard Dean and groups like Moveon.  And Naomi Klein wrote her books well before BO was even on the scene.

        So you're dismissing all the work done by people who came well before BO who helped to change the discussion-Daily Kos would be another great example, now that I think of it.  Where was BO in 2002 and 2003 when DKos was taking off?

        The only reason BO embraced some liberal notions was to win the election.  

        And he followed the memes, he certainly did not introduce any.

        The banks have a stranglehold on the political process. Mike Whitney

        by dfarrah on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 07:29:55 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I agree with both of you. (12+ / 0-)

          Dfarrah, you are right. Plenty of people build the ladder that Obama climbed on his way to the top, and then held it steady for him as well.

          And yes, without the threat he was facing from Mitt Romney, would he have acquiesced to the DREAM act? To gay marriage? Hmmmm...

          But MDMSLLE is correct also, that Obama was/is a teriffic spokesman for liberal ideas in a way that others have not been. Clinton was too much into triangulation, and then L'affaire Lewinsky robbed him of gravitas. Gore was unfairly seen as too much of a tree-hugger. Howard Dean was too much of a bomb thrower. John Kerry was an imperfect messenger trying to do the job at the worst possible moment in time. John Edwards, was as astute as Obama, but people just never latched onto him or his message for some reason.* Hilary has too much baggage. Nancy Pelosi is too easily written off because she's from San Francisco.

          No doubt though, all of them contributed to Obama.

          Obama came along at just the right time as the Cheney/Bush Regime** was meeting its inevitable crumbling. The failure of the two simultaneous wars, Katrina, the economic mess, and the absolute haplessness of the McCain campaign -- all of that overshadowed the GOPs attempts to paint him as part of "The Chicago Machine" or "the Harvard Illuminati".

          Just like Reagan took advantage of the disaster the country found itself in in 1979 and 1980, so did Obama. He was able to deliver a message to an eager and willing audience.  All of their fans said for years, that the Shins were an awesome, excellent band. But until the movie Garden State, they really didn't have a mass forum to demonstrate that.

          Same for Obama. Right man. Right Time.  

          *I'm talking about before his own sex scandal.

          **I call it the Cheny/Bush Regime because Cheney was the man in charge, and nobody's gonna tell me otherwise.

          Message to Dems: We HAVE to start showing up for Midterms.

          by Jank2112 on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 08:09:33 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well, I didn't know that (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            sidnora

            BO was a spokesman for liberal ideas.  

            In fact, I recall many lectures from people on this very site who said that BO isn't a liberal and what the heck were the more liberal people on this site expecting after they were so disappointed in BO's first term.

            And as far as I'm concerned, Bill Clinton saved BO's butt.  Even for some of the positives that BO managed, he was poor at communicating policies or selling his ideas.  So Clinton had to come out swinging for BO [and I've heard that Clinton regrets some of the damage he did--such as NAFTA and repealing Glass-Steagull.]

            And I suppose you don't recall that HRC was for mortgage relief, and what has BO done in this area.  Practically nothing.  

            And, no, I did not support HRC in the primaries; I unfortunately supported Edwards.

            The banks have a stranglehold on the political process. Mike Whitney

            by dfarrah on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 12:40:13 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  It seems apparent it puts you in a world of pain (0+ / 0-)

              to give this President credit for anything. You began by mentioning the noble premise of countless others over many decades who have aided in the success of one. I hardly think this obvious point is even worth mentioning, except to avoid giving this President credit.

              Now you are going against your own logic of claiming the input of millions in the success of one by suggesting that Bill Clinton deserves most of the credit for Barack Obama's latest success.

              The fact that Bill Clinton (who has been admirable in his support for the President) had to speak for this President before people could accept the great things Barack Obama has done, such as saving the economy and passing the Affordable Care Act, points so clearly to the very same sad, and pitiful, state of mind that you are demonstrating, in which you would do anything you can possible do, in order to distract from this President's record.

              •  I think the president (0+ / 0-)

                has definitely accomplished some items.

                The world of pain you mention is the world that many people struggle through every day.  I strongly believe that many people suffered, and continue to suffer, because BO is such a weak proponent of whatever policy he supposedly supports.  

                For example, his stimulus package should have been much bigger--yet he simply did next to nothing, deferring to Summer and Geithner.  They insisted on 'doing no harm,' so what does BO do? Close to nothing.

                If the stimulus would have been bigger, as advocated by a number of reliable economists, the country would be much further along recovery instead of inching along at a snail's pace.  If the economy was stronger, the repubs would have never been able to make it an issue in the election and BO likely would have picked up a decent slice of the repub vote.

                The bad economy affects everyone, incuding repubs.

                The result of the stimulus was a population that could see some improvement, but not much.  So, because BO can't make an economic argument [and I have to question whether he even understands the consequences of austerity--or if it's just another pretty idea to him], Bill Clinton had to ride to the rescue, providing people with example after example of how transfer payments keep people out of poverty, how the economy works, and tying the stimulus to real results.

                It's just not that hard to speak to the concrete results of political actions, yet BO is such an appeaser he simply cannot argue for himself.  Every now and then, he sounds insistent during a speech or his radio addresses, then.....nothing.

                So many people have suffered during the economic downturn; his indifference--as reflected in his continued inaction--is simply inexcusable to me.  There simply is no justification for the prolonged suffering his inaction [or inability to forcefully advocate for something] caused.  We've been there before; we know what works, and BO just went along with the do-nothing group.

                It may be hard for you to believe, but I was thrilled that he won re-election.  I was thrilled when the S.C. ruled in favor of the health care, resulting in a solid political victory for BO, even though I hoped they would overturn the law.  I think it's a sop to insurance companies.  So it's possible to be thrilled over someone's political victories and yet despise some of the things they do [like murdering with drones].  

                Like I said in some other post in this diary, we'll see about whether BO sells out the safety net in order to appease the repubs.

                The banks have a stranglehold on the political process. Mike Whitney

                by dfarrah on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 08:54:05 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  The President had to fight tooth and nail to get (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  samddobermann

                  two Republicans to sign on to the stimulus package, because he didn't have enough votes initially, and they would not have passed it if it were a trillion dollars.... And just how you pass a bill without votes again??? If the President hadn't passed the stimulus he passed we would be in a Second Great Depression.

                  This statement you made is beyond ridiculous:

                  "Bill Clinton had to ride to the rescue, providing people with example after example of how transfer payments keep people out of poverty, how the economy works, and tying the stimulus to real results."

                  No, Bill Clinton told the American people the great things the President has done.... Let me get this straight, Bill Clinton just told people how transfer payment keep people out of poverty and everyone just run out and vote for Barack Obama?? He didn't recite the great things Obama had done.... He just talked about theories and why did people connect Barack Obama to those theories again???

                  Bill, Clinton didn't save the auto industry, Bill Clinton didn't pass the Affordable Care Act. I have great admiration for Bill Clinton, but even though he and Hillary tried to pass Health Care, while he was President, they were unsuccessful...do you remember that???  Who passed the bill? Barack Obama passed the bill....

                  You tend to contradict your own views, you wanted the ACA to fail, yet you claim you were glad the Supreme Court didn't strike it down??? I don't believe that statement.  You are dedicated to the ridiculous notion that Barack Obama has failed, like John McCain, and yet you are glad he was reelected...huh??? I don't believe it....

                  I wish you anti-Obama folk would stop claiming you are happy the President is reelected, if it were left to you, we would have a President Romney today.

                  And that's the issue with folk such as yourself, you are good at staying behind your computer and complain, but you are unable to elect anyone.... Because you can't tell me one individual in politics today who could have been elected and carry out the agenda you somehow speak of. I challenge you to name one....

                  Most people disagree strongly with your assessment of Barack Obama, and unlike your incredible claim that you are glad the President was reelect, I can prove that most people are in favor of this President, and do not believe he is a failure, you know how I can prove it? Well...he was solidly reelected!!! This says it all! Your anti-Obama crusade has failed horribly.....

                •  There is no way that they could have (0+ / 0-)

                  gotten a bigger stimulus bill at the time. NO WAY. You can cite economists up the gazoo; they can't pass a bill at all. There were a lot of people who had input into the decisions — and remember the needed republican votes required slashing about $50 billion off what had passed the House.

                  Obama got another chunk of stimulus through during the Lame duck session at the cost of allowing the high income tax cuts stay for two years. He got more unemployment insurance, more in Pell grants, and a bunch of other things amounting to a further about $400 billion over the tax cut revenue loss.

                  There was also a lot of first year spending in the health care bill.

                  I don't know what you think he could have done more of for those who had mortgage problems. He could not order the banks to write them off or down. There would be a bit of a problem with the constitution on that.

                  I'm asking you to believe. Not in my ability to bring about real change in Washington ... *I'm asking you to believe in yours.* Barack Obama

                  by samddobermann on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 03:49:44 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

        •  That was my first thought (6+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          puakev, Boise Grad, Chi, kurt, mdmslle, sidnora

          although you'll note that the Republican party became a lot more conservative than Reagan over time, such that Reagan would be a Democrat today.  What he did was break the liberalizing trajectory.  Obama hasn't been a lexicon breaking progressive, but he may have prepared the ground for actual liberals to come after him and push the frame.  We won't know if Obama is Reagan-like until about 2028 at the end of the second term of a liberal presidency.

          This has been a golden age for confirmation bias. - David Brooks

          by Mindful Nature on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 08:14:23 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Uh, BO wasn't part of (0+ / 0-)

            any preparing 'the ground.'  If anything, he simply rode the wave.

            That's just insulting to all of the people who have worked so hard to change the popular discourse.

            The banks have a stranglehold on the political process. Mike Whitney

            by dfarrah on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 12:51:29 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Of which he is one (0+ / 0-)

              It just isn't insulting if someone manages to get the megaphone and project these messages of counter narrative.   Others also have been a part, but so has Obama. He's the one who actually pulled it off to say to the media that tax cuts don't work or that trickle done doesn't work or that marriage equality matters.   Yes others have said this but not with the power of the bully pulpit   So yes by pushing leftwards more progressive candidates will look less out of the mainstream.

              This has been a golden age for confirmation bias. - David Brooks

              by Mindful Nature on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 11:38:09 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  God. Where were you in the 90s ? (15+ / 0-)

          When Barack Obama went to work in poor black neighborhoods  , and after going to Harvard Law School, continued his activism ( registering voters in poor neighborhoods, etc.)

          For decades now, the man has been much more about action in the trenches than about writing on blogs.

          Not to dismiss the great work of the people you mentioned, but Barack Obama didn't need MoveOn or Howard Dean to learn about America's problems...

          Another note: Have you watched President Obama's last rally in DesMoines on Nov. 5th ?  Or, better, his visit to Chicago headquarters on NOv. 7th ?  The way he becomes so emotional when he talks about how it's the power of the people that will change the world ? If you haven't watched the videos, I strongly suggest you do.

          His heart is in the right place. He is simply patient and wants a peaceful, smooth transformation instead of a full-blown revolution.  

          •  Who cares if BO was (0+ / 0-)

            a community organizer?

            Bottom line?  Now that I think about it more, he was not even remotely part of the changing conversation.  

            If anything, he had to be dragged kicking and screaming to start supporting anything that liberals wanted.

            And, no, I don't watch the guy.  I recall being very impressed with him at his DNC speech when Kerry ran.  However, it was just bs, much like most of his campaign was when he ran for his first term.

            And the only reason BO went all populist-y for this campaign was because the message resonated.

            He's great at speechifying.  Action?  Not so much.

            The banks have a stranglehold on the political process. Mike Whitney

            by dfarrah on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 12:48:21 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  OWS changed the conversation and Obama followed (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kurt, Hammerhand, timewarp, TheOpinionGuy

        suit.

        Without OWS Obama would have lost this election IMHO.

        “The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” ~ John Kenneth Galbraith

        by Lefty Coaster on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 09:00:40 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Not. (0+ / 0-)

      The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

      by xxdr zombiexx on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 08:17:17 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site