Yes, he's our Reagan. Why that's a good thing.

The short answer: because Reagan was a trojan horse. He was the Stealth Wingnut. He got people to vote for him that would've been appalled by his ideology if he'd run as an ideologue. The man was, when elected, the most conservative president since, oh, Hoover. He might still be, depending on how conservative you think Dubya is. He created a sea-change in the definition of American Government, in a way that still reverbates today. But he didn't run that way.

So, whither Obama?

On the flip.

Look, I'm not going to go find you a bunch of votes and issues stands to prove Obama's progressive bonafides. Because it's been done. It's all over the site here. However, I've been satisfied about his progressive bonafides for some time.

If you're not satisfied he's a progressive, well, then this argument's not going to resonate with you. But go with me, and think of this. We have a progressive, but he's not running on ideology. He's running on "change" and "hope" and all that mushy-mush non-specific stuff.

I say, good. In fact, I say great.

"Reagan Democrats" was, and is, an oxymoron. In fact, so is "Reagan Moderates". And for all the punditry has tried to explain those phenomena in terms of issues, it doesn't fly. It wasn't ever about issues.

It was about personality.

As much as some of us would love to boil down elections to ideology--specifically, ours--it doesn't work that way. Name me the last presidential election that was decided on ideology. Nixon in 72, maybe? For sure, none of the subsequent ones were. We all know the old saw--30% are hardcore Dems, the same are hardcore Repubs, and the other 40 percent are up for grabs.

The up-for-grabs types don't vote ideology. They vote the man. Obama can win them, and he can win them by not getting specific. I have a vision; a vision of hordes of "Obama Republicans" or "Obama Moderates" nodding at his wonderful speeches and marveling at how inspiring he is and filling in his space at the voting booth: and continue to nod and marvel as he enacts the most progressive administration we've seen in 40 years.

The point: just because he talks to Republicans and blathers about 'post-partisanship' doesn't mean he'd vote that way. Reagan didn't vote the way he talked. And, as I said, I'm satisfied that Obama is a progressive.

If he keeps being 'inspirational' and 'oratorial' and plays the muddy middle and not a few Repubs as suckers? YES YES YES!

I've been waiting my whole life for our Reagan. After year upon year upon year of uninspirational policy wonks, I've been waiting for this. It's here. Embrace it. Because we're gonna win, and we're gonna win big, because of it.

•  Damn straight, boss

  You nailed it.

  by Tusconian on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:48:08 AM PDT

•  Tip jar n/t

  by ChurchofBruce on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:51:02 AM PDT

  •  Huh?

    Reagan wasn't a trojan horse.  He was very open about his beliefs, which he spoke about publicly as a spokesman for GE and acted upon as Governor of CA and in his repeated runs for President.  Reagan even named names in the McCarthy hearings. Anyone who didn't know what Reagan was going to do had to be living under a rock for 35 years before 1980.

    by Boston Boomer on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:58:31 AM PDT

    •  Plenty of people

      live under rocks and only emerge for presidential elections.

      Reagan ran on platitudes. And it worked.

      by ChurchofBruce on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:14:49 AM PDT

      •  Are you one of them?

        You don't seem to know anything about Ronald Reagan's history.

        by Boston Boomer on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:00:02 PM PDT

        •  Nope

          I hated the man. I knew exactly what he was, and I was only 15 in 1980. But it worked.

          by ChurchofBruce on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:39:02 PM PDT

•  YUP, you got it!

  by VClib on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:52:07 AM PDT

•  I read Karl Rove's

  op-ed. I thought it was rather stupid. The suggestion that Obama is running as a liberal is akin to bold-faced lieing. He tried to claim it would be to Obama's peril that he's not running as a centrist Democrat. But Rove, either deliberately or mistakenly, misses the point. The point is Obama is bring the centre to him. The 45 minutes he had on national TV after Wisconsin gave him the opportunity to elucidate concisely and succintly, why he is running for President.

  He is re-defining the centre. Rove is an idiot.

  by The British Observer on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:53:09 AM PDT

  •  Reminds me of Mondale

    attacking Reagan like the Gipper was Charles Lindbergh or some anti-New Deal wingnut.  That line just didn't have any juice left in it by '84.  Similarwise the "tax & spend librul" card is totally played out this year.

    by slaney black on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:57:20 AM PDT

    •  Reagan *was* an anti-New Deal wingnut.

      I plan to vote for "the Democrat" in November, but I'm not voting for anyone who is in any way similar to Ronald Reagan.

      by Boston Boomer on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:01:10 AM PDT

      •  I know, but the specific rhetoric of it

        had lost its effectiveness.

        by slaney black on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:15:31 AM PDT

        •  All I can say is, if you want

          mainstream Democrats like me to vote for Obama, don't link him to Ronald Reagan any more than he has already linked himself.  I'm not looking forward to an election in which two Republicans fight it out to see who wins the White House.  I will vote for a Democrat only.

          by Boston Boomer on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:01:50 PM PDT

  •  If Barack ever takes Rove's advice

    on how to run his campaign, he's a bigger idiot than Rove ;-)

    by Greasy Grant on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:00:12 AM PDT

  •  You don't understand American politics.

    Clinton is a liberal. Obama LOOKS even more radical than her.

    I half suspected that Obama was originally encouraged to ru nto make her look less jarring to the center.

    Once his stance on Death Penalty etc is widely understoood he'll be Dukakised

    by Salo on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:02:04 AM PDT

    •  I think it's already happening.

      But since bad news about Obama is not allowed on dkos, lots of people here haven't noticed yet.

      by Boston Boomer on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:03:56 AM PDT

      •  His wife just made another stupid speech...

        Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.—Michelle Obama

        The Republicans are having a field day with the above...(I am an obama supporter, BTW)

        by YoursTruly on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:43:02 AM PDT

        •  Now my life is judged as

          "uninvolved and uninformed?"  Great.  Win votes by talking down to the voters.  It seems to be working on some people, though.

          by Boston Boomer on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:03:34 PM PDT

          •  for a boomer u sure sound stupid urself

            by pmb on Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 10:09:08 AM PDT

    •  What is the death penalty problem?

      As far as I've heard Obama is for the death penalty. He's wrong on that because the death penalty should be stopped. Since the Innocence Project has exposed the problems with people on death row being there wrongly due to DNA evidence that was never considdered, today most Americans recognize that at the least a moratorium on the Death Penalty is appropriate.

      So what is wrong with Obama's death penalty stance?

      by Gregory Wonderwheel on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:22:10 AM PDT

      •  Example of Obama's good stance on death penalty

        SPRINGFIELD, Illinois (AP) -- Barack Obama can honestly claim to have made a difference on a matter of life and death.

        Obama cites his role in Illinois' death penalty debate as proof he can solve problems through compromise.

        While an Illinois state senator, Obama was key in getting the state's notorious death penalty laws changed, including a requirement that in most cases police interrogations involving capital crimes must be recorded.

        The changes enacted in 2003 reformed a system that had sent 13 people to death row, only to have them released because they were later determine to be innocent or had been convicted using improper methods.

        "Without Barack's energy, imagination and commitment I do not believe the very substantial and meaningful reforms that became law in Illinois would have taken place," said author Scott Turow, a member of the state commission that recommended many of the changes.

        Obama often cites his role in Illinois' death penalty debate as evidence that he can resolve thorny issues through compromise.

        "We brought police officers and civil rights advocates together to reform a death penalty system that had sent 13 innocent men to death row," he declare in a recent presidential debate.

        Enactment of the 2003 law was a huge political achievement in a state that had been deeply divided over problems with capital punishment.

        Obama was at the center of the emotional debate.

        Legislators and lobbyists who worked with him describe a lawmaker who was personally involved, refused to abandon some needed changes but also demanded compromises from both law enforcement and death penalty critics.

        More at Obama cites role in death penalty reform

        I can't see any problem here. In fact this is exactly what the vast majority of Americans agree with. Instead of a detriment ot his campaign this story shows the centrist deal making and results that Obama can brag about against Clinton's claims that he is all talk and no action.

        by Gregory Wonderwheel on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:29:08 AM PDT

  •  Rove is an idiot

    I'd say he's more like an idiot savant.
    His one talent is using vile revulsive tactics to divide the American people. He is, unfortunately, quite good at it.

    by MingPicket on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:25:12 AM PDT

•  The whole point of the 2-party

  dynamic which the Republicans have figured out and we have not is to move the center. Take what is considered the moderate position now and make it conservative then reactionary, that's part of the meaning of the word progressive.

  by Nylawstudent on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 10:56:45 AM PDT

  •  No, I don't think that's it.

    That's not what the diarist is saying.

    The diarist is saying issue stands don't win Presidential elections. Personality wins Presidential elections. And I think the diarist is right. People by and large agreed with Mondale, Dukakis, Kerry on the issues, but were turned off by their personalities. Hillary is in the same mold.

    House elections are different, because of redistricting. Most districts are safe for one party or the other, which means the primary is the real election -- and whoever can get the district majority's partisan majority most fired up wins the primary. Not a recipe for electing people moderate on the issues or with accommodating personalities.

    by HeyMikey on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:29:48 AM PDT

    •  Whatever.

      If you think people will vote for Obama's personality, great.  Just don't publicly link him to Reagan anymore than he has already linked himself in his book and public statements.  That is, if you want him to win Democratic votes.  I can't tell anymore.  It seems like a lot of the Obama supporters on dailykos talk like Republicans.  

      by Boston Boomer on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:05:57 PM PDT

      •  I'm as liberal as it gets

        I'm talking about presentation, not issues. I thought the diary made this clear.

        by ChurchofBruce on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:41:43 PM PDT

        •  Obama needs to work a bit on his presentation,

          don't you think?  At least Ronald Reagan didn't use canned lines during his primary campaign as far as I know.  

          All I have been talking about is the approving use of Reagan as a model.  I don't happen to think it's a good idea, especially in the general election campaign.  Do you really want both sides to be touting Reagan as the model?  Why should voters take the "new Democratic" Reagan over a real right winger?  Not to mention the Democrats will hate it.

          by Boston Boomer on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:23:43 PM PDT

          •  He's not perfect

            but he's pretty damn good.

            As for taking Reagan as a model--again, not in ideology or governing. However, Reagan won 46 and then 49 states. That's what I want to model.

            by ChurchofBruce on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 02:36:19 PM PDT

•  I love the newly unvealed Healthcare Mandates!

  A Mandate From Heaven Obama will go from city to city in his  Capitol Tent and will lay on hands and allowing the afflicted to touch th ehem of his garment--sorta like a Medieval King curing scrufola.

  It'll make Healthcare affordable and accessible to the 15 million or so that won't get insured under his plan.

  by Salo on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:00:02 AM PDT

•  Reagan wasn't that much of a conservative.

  Reagan wasn't really very conservative in the sense of applying conservative "values". Of course he was every bit the conservative in acting with conservative hypocrisy.

  I don't want to make a big list but he did many things, in the same way that the current George W. Bush has done, that are against conservative "policies".  Increasing the size of government, increasing the deficit to the largest amounts of the era, approving taxes, etc.

  When Reagan died and all the books came out praising him to create the myth of Reagan as a great conservative, some observers wrote articles pointing out the way that these books were painting a one-sided picture in order to make the myth.

  Reagan's Liberal Legacy by Joshua Green

  The Real Reagan LegacyBy Mike Hersh

  The Reagan Legacy

  by Gregory Wonderwheel on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:04:01 AM PDT

•  All politicians are images, even Clinton & Obama

  BOTH Obama and Clinton are all talk at this time. That is the nature of campaigns. Clinton's talk is no more believeable than Obama's talk.
  Clinton's talk that she is experienced and ready for action is just talk. Clinton can produce no evidence that she is more ready than Obama on day one. She can only produce talk that the voters may believe or not.

  Clinton can produce no evidence that she is better at getting legislation done.

  Clinton can produce no evidence that she is more experienced in any way that matters or that her experience as wife of a governor and president should count toward being a president or that Bill Clinton had any significant experience before he was elected president.

  Clinton is talk, talk, talk, just like Obama, so when she says his talk is not believable and her talk is, she is asking the voter to make a leap of faith in her favor. That is not a winning argument to me.

  by Gregory Wonderwheel on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:11:48 AM PDT

  •  The way I parse her argument

    Originally: "I'm the best person for the job."

    Now: "He's not the best person for the job."

    by MingPicket on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:27:58 AM PDT

•  Unfortunately so can McCain

  McCain presents that "nice" image that the non-ideologues like: war hero, has a couple of issues where the public believes he's at odds with most Republicans, has all the appearances of being a moderate even though most of us know better.

  by TDDVandy on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:22:21 AM PDT

  •  Talk about McCain's first wife will pop balloon

    McCain's image as a maverick and a "nice" guy is just like a balloon ready to be popped.

    The story about him and the lobbyist is just the first poke at the balloon.

    The story of how this "great" war hero left his first wife who "stood by her man" while he was a POW for five years after he came back so he could have an affair with his current wife and use her inherited money for his political campaign takes all the niceness out of this guy's image.

    by Gregory Wonderwheel on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 11:34:05 AM PDT

•  yes! Finally!

  That's how you build a movement and ideological consensus!

  Trick the rubes!

  Brilliant!

  Are you serious? Reagan used dog-whistle politics and fear-mongering (not to mention ugly racial innuendos) to move working class voters to his side. As soon as he was out of the picture, his "grand coalition" began to fall apart.

  You call that a movement? You honestly believe that the way to build a movement is to just charm your way into office and then bank on people loving what you're doing?

  Reagan was able to enact an insanely conservative government not only because he was popular, but because he had the entire military-industrial, prison-industrial, and media complexes supporting him.

  In order to have a progressive presidency, President Obama will have to pick a fight with all three. If he doesn't, he'll just be another incrementalist.

  If he does, guess what? All the popular support will whither away in the face of unrelenting attacks from the status quo powers.

  I've written about the potential greatness of an Obama presidency here; but don't fool yourself. You don't build a movement this way. This is a marketing campaign.

  by ChicagoLife on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:06:52 PM PDT

  •  I don't care about a 'movement', honestly.

    As you said, after Reagan was out of the picture, the coalition began to fall apart. I want 8 years of one of mine in the oval office. After that? Well, we'll have to just do it again.

    by ChurchofBruce on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:43:47 PM PDT

    •  I like it

      Maybe we should just start always lying in our campaigns as much as we can, get into office, pimp our candidates out to moneyed interests to raise enough money to win reelection, and that way we'll have "one of ours" (whatever that means at that point) in office for 8 years too!

      Politics without principle is for people who don't care about material reality. Congratulations.

      by ChicagoLife on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 04:17:22 PM PDT

      •  Do you think Obama's lying?

        I don't. And I don't think Reagan did, either.

        It's presentation. It's getting people to vote for you, not for a list of your ideas.

        Let me again say that I hated Reagan, wouldn't have voted for him in 80 (I wasn't old enough) and didn't vote for him in '84. But I was in the vast minority. My first presidential election, 84, I voted for a guy that lost 49 states. Including my own: MA. Reagan, a conservative, won Massachusetts.

        And he did that because people liked him. Not his laundry list of ideologies--him.

        People like Obama. Talk to some moderates, independents, people who haven't voted Dem in 30 years. They like Obama. Not his list of issues, him.

        by ChurchofBruce on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 09:45:19 PM PDT

•  Really?

  I don't want a Reagan, he was kind of an idiot.

  I think voting for Obama just because of who he is and isn't is fine. All those loonies in 2004 voted for Bush because he loved Jesus, besides lowering taxes, he hasn't made anyones life better. Most people were better off during the Clinton years yet they still voted for Bush because he was Bush, of course, look where that got us. That being said, Obama isn't a white hillbilly from TX, not from an oil family, not personally connected to any military contractors, he can speak in full sentences, he actually graduated from an Ivy League school because of his merits, not his name. As far as the issues goes, he was one of the few who actually voted against the war, he wants to repeal the tax cuts for people making more that 250k, he supported border security and he may be a little free in handing out cash to everyone in the world but I think I would rather him give cash to someone who needed it as opposed to Blackwater.

  by toad734 on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:08:03 PM PDT

  •  That works for you

    and it works for me, too.

    Who else will it work for?

    by ChurchofBruce on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:45:35 PM PDT

•  The idea of having to vote for

  any incarnation of Ronald Reagan makes me want to throw up. Really does. You're not helping me reconcile myself to voting for Obama in November.

  by votermom on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:19:04 PM PDT

  •  Do you or do you not

    think that Reagan was a fantastic campaigner? Not his ideas, not his ideology--his campaign? If you don't, you weren't paying attention.

    by ChurchofBruce on Thu Feb 21, 2008 at 12:44:54 PM PDT

    •  Dog-whistling during a campaign

      is fantastic? Playing on racism, is fantastic?
      Not to me.

      by votermom on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 06:30:22 AM PDT