Daily Kos

The rightwing "gets" Sen. Obama

by Dave from Oregon

Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:04:18 AM PDT

and they are scared....

http://online.wsj.com/...

Stephen Hayes does a very interesting job of dissecting Sen. Obama's rhetoric.

Some here have described him as the second coming of JFK or even RFK.  Over there in rightwing land, they see him as doing to them what Reagan did to Jimmy Carter.

It is particularly telling when Hayes ends his piece with "Like Ronald Reagan did".

I think they are beginning to figure out what they are facing with Sen. Obama and that John McCain may not have the tools to pull this one off.

Tags: stephen hayes, obama, reagan (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 35 comments

  •  Yeah... " may not have the tools"... (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    SharaiP

    And a dollar may be worth 100 pennies!

    =)

    by teknofyl on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:06:39 AM PDT

  •  Let's not get cocky, (7+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    DesertCat, radarlady, the fan man, SharaiP, goon 01, Unlabled, Happy Days

    but you may be right.  This could well be a perfect storm.  With Obama running for President and his ability to help other Democratic candidates, I think this could be one of those transformational elections.

    by mystic on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:06:52 AM PDT

  •  Great article (6+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    HarlanNY, DesertCat, Dave from Oregon, SharaiP, goon 01, spookthesunset

    It was funny to read the quotes of opponents decrying Reagan's empty rhetoric. Every 4 years candidates say the same things about each other, and every 4 years we pretend we've never heard it before.

    by LaughingMan on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:06:56 AM PDT

  •  There is a method to Obama's madness. (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    goon 01, Unlabled, pvlb

    I have been saying this for months about him. He truly understands how to win. And he also understands how to win with a mandate.

    by Hesiod on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:19:16 AM PDT

  •  The thing about Obama (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    21st Century Man, Thaddaeus Toad

    is that he is subtle.  His soaring rhetoric can distract people from the content of what he is saying.  People get inspired and swept away.

    But there is real, and serious content behind the 'feel good' appeal of his rhetoric.

    May his coattails bring in a filibuster-proof majority in both houses.

    Trust him to be president, trust him to run his campaign.

    by pvlb on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:30:13 AM PDT

  •  Wow (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    SharaiP, goon 01, Shhs

    Stephen Hayes is about as neo-con as you can get. I suspect that some of the hardcore neo-cons are drawn to Obama because they see in him some of that "national greatness" stuff they like. Of course Obama has entirely different plans for a great nation than do the neo-cons. But the rhetoric is similar.

    by Elrod on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:31:46 AM PDT

    •  He's not drawn by him (0+ / 0-)

      He's scared of him.

      Austin loves Obama!

      by DrJK on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:39:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  A great nation that every one envies (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      21st Century Man

      Is a great nation that every one envies.  At the end of the day it really doesn't matter if that nation is right or left for some people.  Just the fact that you live in a great powerful, envied nation (and that the French don't spit on you) is good enough for some people.

      Heck that's what swayed my pro-life brother in-law (pro-life as in does websites for the local right to life organization).

      I think some people have lost sight of that (hence the dissing of FDR by Bush).  However, if you ask most people (including the neo-cons) who they consider great presidents, they won't just mention conservatives.  They mention people who elevated America's standing in the world.  People who changed, and or defined a generation.

      My brother in-law went to the Obama rally in Cleveland bc he said it might be the last time he gets to be close to the man who will the next great president.  He came away linking health care, energy credits, and the green economy.

      I say that's a win for us all.

      The definition of insanity is voting the same way and expecting a different result. I'm talking to you FL,OH, KY, WV!

      by Shhs on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:41:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  They are drawn to him (0+ / 0-)

      Because he is their only hope for sweeping all their criminal garbage under the bridge. That's exactly what his unity will get us, and replay in 20 more years. Pardon me if I can't applaud that.

      Women's History Month: The 19th Amendment

      by belly on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:44:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  This is why he's so appealing (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    21st Century Man, Thaddaeus Toad

    He IS to the Left of Clinton on policy.  But he doesn't demonize those on the Right. And thus he is able to advance a progressive position without compromising as much.  

    This is Communications 101, but that somehow got lost in Washington.

    Austin loves Obama!

    by DrJK on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:39:24 AM PDT

    •  I wouldn't say he's to the left (0+ / 0-)

      If anything he's more pragmatic.  Here's a great article the details the difference between Bill Clinton and Obama's team.

      http://www.tnr.com/...

      The definition of insanity is voting the same way and expecting a different result. I'm talking to you FL,OH, KY, WV!

      by Shhs on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:42:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I question some things here... (0+ / 0-)

        ... Thaler presides as a kind of in-house intellectual guru, consulting regularly with Obama's top economic adviser, a fellow University of Chicago professor named Austan Goolsbee. "My main role has been to harass Austan, who has an office down the hall from mine, " Thaler recently told me. "I give him as much grief as possible." You can find subtle evidence of this influence across numerous Obama proposals. For example, one key behavioral finding is that people often fail to set aside money for retirement even when their employers offer generous 401(k) plans. If, on the other hand, you automatically enroll workers in 401(k)s but allow them to opt out, most stick with it. Obama's savings plan exploits this so-called "status quo" bias.

        This is an intriguing idea. But it is also a "mandate." Why wouldn't Obama use this same "behaviorist" approach to his health care policy with regard to adults? He already has implemented "mandates" for parents of children.

        Censorship reflects society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime. ~Potter Stewart

        by SignalSuzie on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:52:33 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  There's an opt out option. (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Myz Lilith

    I think a lot of it has to do w/starting w/a plank.  People want something done about health care (80 percent).  Now that's a majority, however a lot of those people don't want increased taxes or have a fear of government.  Which means not a majority.  Mandating health care alienates those people who would otherwise support it.  IMHOP just getting any health care at this point is a huge change.  Later (as Obama has said) if people want mandates then it can be implemented.

    However, as the article kinda points out fundamentally Obama's brain trust (and the candidate) believe in personal choice.  Kid's can't choose, but adults should have that freedom.  I know there's a fear of the free rider, but free riders who (and there's the distinction) get sick get in trouble.  There will be people who opt out, who will never get sick (lucky bastards).

    Look I think both candidates have pros and cons to their health care plans (as seen in MA).  I personally don't like mandates (maybe it's my southern upbringing).  Antidotally, I've seen how easy it is for my Republican family members to now believe in a health care system (despite the fact they are doctors), when the mandate is off the table.

    The real question that both candidates need to talk about more is prevention.  

    The definition of insanity is voting the same way and expecting a different result. I'm talking to you FL,OH, KY, WV!

    by Shhs on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:05:04 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

  •  Historical Parallels... (0+ / 0-)

    There's also this cautionary warning:

    Obama More Carter Than Reagan

    Late in the summer of 1976, President Gerald Ford and his inner circle huddled in Vail, Colorado, facing the grimmest general election outlook for a Republican since the L.B.J. landslide of ‘64.

    [...]

    At the Vail strategy session, the Ford team zeroed in on the chief vulnerabilities of their Democratic opponent, Jimmy Carter: His lack of experience, his lack of accomplishments and his lack of specificity on the issues. These had to be exploited mercilessly.

    And they were. Ten weeks later, Ford came within an eyelash of a political miracle. After trailing by 33 points around Labor Day, he was edged out by a handful of electoral votes—and just two points in the popular vote. If the campaign had lasted even a week longer, many believe, Ford would have won.

    [...]

    "...once again, the Democrats seem ready to nominate a candidate whose appeal is rooted more in the emotions that he stirs than in the details of his 12-point plans. For Jimmy Carter in 1976, the operative word was trust. For Barack Obama in 2008, it is hope.

    Actually, the similarities between Carter and Obama are considerable. Like Obama, Carter’s resume included service in a state Legislature (rare for a president), and only a very brief stint in high-profile office, his single term as Georgia’s governor from 1970 to 1974. Obama, of course, has only been in the U.S. Senate since 2005, after an eight-year run in the Illinois state Senate.

    [...]

    Most significantly, both men came along at exactly the right time. Carter’s peanut-farmer-from-Plains simplicity and his oft-repeated promise that he "will never lie to you" were powerful political weapons after Nixon and his wiretapping, his plumbers and his pardon from Ford. And Obama’s message of hope—and his own life story—resonates with an electorate that, after these past eight years, feels utterly disconnected from its government and simply wants to believe in someone again.

    [...]

    But the ’76 example tells us that criticisms that don’t stick during the primary season can still work in the general election. Day after day in fall campaign, the Ford forces pounded away at the experience question and painted Carter as a political illusion, an affable-seeming politician who was terrified of expressing his opinion on any controversial topic.

    "It is not enough to say, ‘Trust me,’" Ford said at one rally. "Trust must be earned. Trust is not having to guess what a candidate means. Trust is leveling with people before the election about what you’re going to do after the election. Trust is not being all things to all people, but being the same thing to all people."

    The media eventually caught on too, scrutinizing Carter with a daily intensity that was absent in the primary season, and Carter’s lead steadily eroded.

    McCain is readying the same kind of attack against Obama.

    Full article at:

    http://www.observer.com/...

    Censorship reflects society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime. ~Potter Stewart

    by SignalSuzie on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:39:30 AM PDT

  •  Reagan was called an empty suit (0+ / 0-)

    the New York Times ran a long profile of Reagan on its front page. The author, Howell Raines, lamented that the news media had been unsuccessful in getting Reagan to speak in anything other than "sweeping generalities about economic and military policy." Mr. Raines further noted: "political critics who characterize him as banal and shallow, a mouther of right-wing platitudes, delight in recalling that he co-starred with a chimpanzee in 'Bedtime for Bonzo.'"

    I think that is interesting.

    The definition of insanity is voting the same way and expecting a different result. I'm talking to you FL,OH, KY, WV!

    by Shhs on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 09:54:45 AM PDT

  •  New improved Reagan, Now with Brains and a heart! (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Dave from Oregon

    They're right to panic. The whole RW is built on Ronald Reagan's two pipelines of infantile bullshit.

    Pipeline one: Morning in America, the shining city on the hill. Translation, we're PERFECT! Infallible! God's own magnificent bowel movement!

    Pipeline two: Perfect that is, except for the gosh-darn government. Government is baaaad. Bad. Bad. Bad. Liberals are bad, too. And Mexicans, Commies, Gays, Pointy-head academics, Atheiests, Unionites, Hippies, Druggies, Welfare Queens, Rooskies, the liberal media, uppity women, and pretty much everybody else who's not one of God's select republicans.

    So the Reaganite gameplan is to take GE's money and talent, and use it to fire up the simple-minded idiots who buy pipeline #1. Pander to their fear and hatred for everybody in Pipeline #2. Distill into 51% of the electoral college, and Voila! The Reagan revolution.

    It WAS transformational. Obama is perfectly right about that. The Clintons play the same sick, simple-minded, divisive game, only in reverse.

    Show me a great leader, a great movement, and I will show you a great enemy. The Reagan repubs had enemies, enemies everywhere, but none of them were particularly great. They were more convenient than great.

    In contrast, the democrats tried to love everybody, in a feeble party of Kumbaya. No enemies to speak of. Just challenges to meet, and failures to overcome. Unfortunately, voters want enemies to destroy, and evil to wipe off the face of the earth.

    So Barack Obama has a great enemy, and his name is Ronald Reagan. Reagan is still very popular, so he has to tread very carefully. Respectfully. Reagan is like Voldemort, the name that must not be spoken, but that is the ultimate political reality that we are facing.

    Because government is US. We NEED a government, and we need it to be effective and yes, transformative.

    by Asherd on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 10:24:49 AM PDT

    • Permalink | 35 comments