Comments on: Obama and Ronald Reagan’s Slipping Halo

By: catlady16

catlady16 — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 05:32:18 +0000

Responding to RonD January 16th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
I remember well the drive to put Reagan on Mt. Rushmore. Say what? That would be glorifying mediocrity. Used to say Reagan was just a bad actor with a great scriptwriter (Peggy Noonan was the real source of all that “Reagan optimism.”) And I agree with the “empty suit” depiction. I think he was vacant–in the earliest stages of Altzheimer’s–when he was elected in 1980. His was a superficial charm, not a particle of substance. Somewhere, in someone’s cluttered attic, is the Reagan equivalent of the Portrait of Dorian Gray with all the muck stuck to it that never adhered to Teflon Ron. He was one of the “hollow men,” as T.S. Elliott so aptly put it. Never liked him. (Except, my mother said, when I was a toddler and Ronnie was on TV. She said I had a crush on him and would cry, “Wonald Weagan! Wonald Weagan!” whenever he appeared on the screen. But I think he was a Democrat then… What did I know at a year and a half?)

By: Joe94114

Joe94114 — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 04:18:55 +0000

Well, it seemed to me that Obama was saying the Reagan united the country and that Bill Clinton didn’t and that America wanted a return to the entrepreneurial spirit which I assume he thinks was a good thing which sounds a lot like a Republican lines from the past 25 years.

Obviously Obama is really just a secret ultra-liberal who is getting the Republicans to love him.

Of course I’d vote the guy against a Republican, but I think a lot of people project liberalness onto Obama without having thought throw why.

By: natsbrin

natsbrin — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 00:44:07 +0000

Amazingly, few people seem to mention the Republicans spent 640 million dollars of our money to bury him – Natsbrin

By: DWBartoo

DWBartoo — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 00:22:20 +0000

Mind/Finger Synapse Collapse (M/FSC)

Should read:…’Reagan was and is a model that should NOT be emulated …’

By: Patrickson

Patrickson — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 00:18:17 +0000

Thank God for FDL. The same people who shrieked that the Clintons were horrible racists through their mistaken interpretation are now celebrating Obama’s statement on Reagan, in spite of him clearly denouncing the “excesses” of the previous decade. The double standard is truly staggering. I can only imagine the horror if Clinton made the same statement.

By: DWBartoo

DWBartoo — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 00:17:40 +0000

Ok, I listened to Barack. I had been unimpressed, now I am convinceed that an adeguate grasp of history, even of history which he experienced, simply eludes him.

Reagan appealed to the small-minded and venal, to hubris and to myths of superiority. Which ‘excesses’is Obama alluding to? Nixon’s? Vietnam? Carter’s attempt to encourage some honest perspective regarding energy policies? Perhaps it was the DFH’s?

Regardless, Reagan was and is a model that should be emulated in ANY fashion.

Barack is asking us to be simple-minded and inattentive.

Yes, there was distrust of government (for which certain Democrats, think Johnson, MacNamara and Rusk as well as Republicans, Nixon-Agnew-Kissinger etal bear total responsibility) but essentially his is recycling old Repug ‘narratives’ and trying, I think, to appeal to the feeble-minded who would like to see the sainted Ronnie’s visage on Rushmore.

I had thought that Obama lacked depth, now I’m certain of it.

By: stagemom

stagemom — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 00:14:23 +0000

An update from TPM, clarifying…
“You can watch Obama’s full interview with the RGJ here.

Late Update: Here are some comments Obama made about Reagan’s presidency on Meet the Press in October 2006. In them, he made it far clearer that he disagreed with Reagan’s ideas:

But I think, when I think about great presidents, I think about those who transform how we think about ourselves as a country in fundamental ways…And, you know, there are circumstances in which, I would argue, Ronald Reagan was a very successful president, even though I did not agree with him on many issues, partly because at the end of his presidency, people, I think, said, “You know what? We can regain our greatness. Individual responsibility and personal responsibility are important.” And they transformed the culture and not simply promoted one or two particular issues.”

By: mui1

mui1 — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 23:40:00 +0000

Yes but he doesn’t offer the policy to back it up. In effect he’s praising Raygun’s demagoguery.

By: mui1

mui1 — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 23:39:07 +0000

Yes precisely those “excesses.” Last night during the debate Obama said something like: men, “particularly black men” need to be less absentee, and more accountable for their children’s upbringing. I need the transcript, but I believe Obama said this in response to some thread about the deterioriating state of our schools. Not once does he question the conditions that lead to parental absenteeism, like working three jobs to make ends meet, or no job at all (on account of them all going overseas thanx to Chimpy and his free trade confederates), etc. etc. Not once does Obama say scrap “No Child Left Behind.” He just wants to make teachers feel they’re not being punished by it. It’s all bull hinky triangulating.

By: stagemom

stagemom — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 23:32:24 +0000

Thank you. yes.
I think Obama’s commenting on what happened in the election.
and about speaking to optimism and vision in general.