Skip to main content

View Diary: Is Obama's Reagan comment his Dean Scream? w/poll (176 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Give me a break (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mcfly, Elise, mjd in florida, speck tater

    Obama simply said that Reagan was an agent of change. He was, especially when you consider that the last 30 years have been influenced by the ideological views of Ronald Reagan. He changed the nature of the debate. Democrats should learn from Reagan's style.

    Or are you going to criticize Hillary Clinton for praising Barry Goldwater?

    •  actually not (0+ / 0-)

      While I don't agree with many of Barry's statements and policies, he also said many things I agree with.  Some samples:

      Think of this and telecom immumity:

           "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

      And boy do I agree with this one:

      Nixon was the most dishonest individual I have ever met in my life. He lied to his wife, his family, his friends, his colleagues in the Congress, lifetime members of his own political party, the American people and the world."

      Or would you disagree with these two:

           "It's wonderful that we have so many religious people in our party, ... They need to leave their theologies in their churches."

      and

      "I think every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the ass."

      Obama likes this one:

           "To disagree, one doesn't have to be disagreeable."

      And he was funny:

      's a great country, where anybody can grow up to be president... except me."

      Don't you wish McClurkin had the POV shown by these two quotes:

           "The rights that we have under the Constitution covers anything we want to do, as long as its not harmful. I can't see any way in the world that being a gay can cause damage to somebody else,"

      You don't have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight."

      Hillary might not be so fond of this one:

           "If everybody in this town connected with politics had to leave town because of chasing women and drinking, you would have no government."

      and Bush wouldn't like this one:

           "Where is the politician who has not promised to fight to the death for lower taxes- and who has not proceeded to vote for the very spending projects that make tax cuts impossible?

      http://thinkexist.com/...

      •  I think you missed my point... n/t (0+ / 0-)
        •  No I didn't. I disagree with your point. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Iberian

          My point, you missed, because we seem to be to some extent talking past each other, is that although I am old enough to remember both Reagan and Goldwater, that if Obama had made a speech talking about Goldwater as a transformative politician, it wouldn't have hit me like his speech where he showed that he felt that Reagan's methods were acceptable.  Goldwater was an honest politician by and large.  And there are historians who argue that Goldwater and his ideas transformed his party, which then transformed the country.  Unfortunately the ideas of Goldwater which they picked up on were the ones about taxes and starving government and bellicosity being a good thing.  But Goldwater's ideas were not what the country wanted, and because Goldwater was explicit about what those ideas were, he was not elected.

          I think that's a good thing, and I respect Goldwater but do not agree with a lot of Goldwater's ideas.  (although he was spot on on civil rights and freedom from religion).

          Obama doesn't subscribe to what he views as a lot of Reagan's ideas, but he obviously approves of what he thinks Reagan did to draw the country together.  Reagan's methods, he approves of.  I strongly do not approve of Reagan's methods.

          Either one of two things are true:

          1.  Obama believes that what he calls the 'excesses of the 60's and 70's' were excesses.  Here's what were & perhaps are commonly viewed by Reagan democrats/republicans as the excesses of the 60's & 70's :the rise of civil rights for women and blacks (and if you read Goldwater,a 60's figure, the start of rights for gays).  The rejection of corporal punishmenbt for children.  The limiting of religion in schools and public ceremonials.  You're thinking sex and drugs, but the Reagan democrat/republican, while he would probably put them in his list at the bottom of the list really didn't like the things I mentioned a lot more.
          1.  He doesn't.

          In case one, he's an honest politician, but I don't agree and I reject him but respect him.

          In case two, he's practicing the methods of Reagan to deceive his listeners, and I reject him and don't respect him either.

          In case two, he's using the methods of Reagan.  In 1980, it took a chaotic time coupled with an empty suit with a charming platform manner.  Now one does not need to be an empty suit to charm on the platform.  Obama is not an empty suit, but Reagan sure was.  He would tell any lie if it was what people wanted to hear.  And he could look genuine and honest while he did it (Duh.  He was an actor and the MSM sold him to people as authentic, would you believe?) Goldwater wouldn't.

          So which is it do think with Obama?

          There really is no third choice.  The 'well, well Obama will put in good policies and Reagan put in bad policies' defense won't fly with me.  The problem is whether the ends justifies the means or not.  For me, not.

          For you, yes, apparently.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site