First he talks about how wonderful he thinks Ronald Reagan is, now he's claiming that only Republicans are the "party of ideas?" Give me a break!! Which nomination is this guy seeking -- the Democratic or Republican one?
And to make matters worse, his campaign is trying to claim that Sen. Clinton said that Reagan was one of her favorite presidents. WRONG!
FACT: What Hillary Really Said About ReaganAnd for more on this, check out: Sen. Obama's Party of Ideas by eriposte, and Kos Buys What David Brooks Is Selling by Big Tent Democrat.
by Peter Daou
In an effort to divert attention from Senator Obama’s comments about President Reagan and his assertion that the GOP has been the "party of ideas," the Obama campaign circulated an item this evening from the Salmon Press in New Hampshire that asserts that Senator Clinton listed the former President as one of her favorite presidents. In fact, Senator Clinton only complimented President Reagan’s communications skills – an attribute of his that has been widely praised by Americans of all ideological stripes – and did not list him as one of her favorite presidents. She also noted that she respected George H.W. Bush.
Maybe instead of praising Republicans, Obama should focus on telling us how he intends to fix the huge mess the Republican party has created!
11 comments:
Hillary won Nevada! I didn't think she would be able to pull it out. I heard that some of the culinary workers who wanted to caucus for Hillary were not allowed to leave work to do it. If their bosses found out they were supporting her, they gave them jobs for that would keep them at work. I was afraid that would happen. With a primary vote, your vote is private, the caucusing can hurt in situations like this.
I don't like the caucus process for this reason as well. It's too easy to intimidate some voters. Particularly if they have to worry about whether or not their job might be at risk. I heard from some feminist friends that there were similar (an other) problems in Iowa.
Maybe it's time to try and urge these states to adopt the primary process.
BAC
Let me add the emphasis you were obviously ignoring: "The Republicans were the party of ideas . . . in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom." He also doesn't in this quote say whether or not it was a good challenge they were issuing.
From your article quote "Senator Clinton only complimented President Reagan’s communications skills – an attribute of his that has been widely praised by Americans of all ideological stripes" - the exact same thing Obama was doing.
I find it very entertaining when I hear Republicans falling all over themselves praising Reagan. They can find nothing good to say about their current standard bearer, so they must reach back to their idealized fuzzy vision of Mr. Congeniality. Apparently, they have forgotten that his administration managed to triple the national debt during his term, plus all the nasty meddling in various small, third-world countries, plus dismissing the air traffic controllers, etc ad nauseum. But the old fart could crack a joke with the best of them, so yeah, he was a GREAT PRESIDENT!
John - Is Obama making all these references to Reagan because he wants to be compared with the Gipper? And why is he heaping praise on a party that has been so disastrous for the American people? Does he want my vote? Clearly not.
BAC
He isn't making "all these references" to Reagan. These two clips you've shown are from the same "paragraph" of a response to one question asked him in the interview for that Nevada paper. Please see the video link I posted to the previous clip, this question starts about 17, 18 minutes in.
You are being mislead by whoever sent you these clips.
John - Any reference to Reagan is one too many. I don't care how far into the tape it begins. Why would anyone seeking the Democratic nomination make positive comments about Ronald Reagan? And particularly to a Nevada newspaper, following a big union endorsement? Reagan did everything within his power to break unions.
If Obama doesn't understand how this would inflame Democrats -- particularly union members and women -- then he is clearly not ready to lead this party!
BAC
I know it pains you, but it is a FACT that Reagan was president of the United States. It is also a FACT that he ran on ideas that were populist and reformist(it is also a fact that he used some of those ideas to screw things up completely). It is also a FACT that Newt Gingrich and the Republican majority came to power in the 90s on a similar message.
These are historic facts that can't be ignored when being asked to reflect on your campaign in a historical reference. Should he have from a political standpoint? No. But I would rather have a president look at the historical facts and base things on them over the way Bush completely ignores the facts. Hillary Clinton herself, in your quote, complimented Reagan's communication skills. Are you not going to vote for her because she complimented Reagan?
John - Did you live through this time period? Do you have any idea how divisive Ronald Reagan was and is? The "facts" you speak of are made up of a whole lot of myths, that over the years seem to have become even more exagerated.
I'd rather have a president that does not fawn over Ronald Reagan and the Republican party. It was a stupid mistake, and is clearly an indicator that he is simply not ready for the job.
BAC
I did live through this period of time, but it doesn't really count because I was too young to know what was going on. Reagan did become a very divisive figure. There is no argument about that on my part. Obama, and I, have been talking about his 1980 campaign which obviously wasn't divisive because he was elected by a large cross party majority. From wikipedia - "Reagan won the election, carrying 44 states with 489 electoral votes to 49 electoral votes for Carter (representing six states and Washington, D.C.)." He also ran on a platform of states rights and restoring the Constitution (two things he did the opposite of, but that isn't what we are discussing) which were populist ideas.
What I don't understand of your argument is where you change mentioning the name in a historical frame of reference to "fawning". I know I am not going to convince you otherwise because you came into the discussion with pre-conceived notions. I was just hoping that I could ask you to fairly assess his statement.
John - Reagan was ALWAYS divisive to liberals. It was a very difficult time for the country. I liked Jimmy Carter, and voted for him, but he largely won because of Watergate and the fact that Ford had pardoned Nixon. Nixon was on auto pilot for a long time, so by the time Carter took office the economy was in the toilet. Terrible resession, long gas lines, and hostages in Iran. It was a very difficult time.
ANYONE running against Carter probably would have won by a huge majority -- much the way I think Dems could win this year given how much everyone dislikes George Bush.
Reagan was an actor. He acted his way into the White House. Carter mentioned later that during their transition, when the former president tells the incoming president all the secret stuff that Reagan wasn't really interested. Carter knew then we were in trouble, and he was right.
My comment about Obama fawning comes from listening to him speak about Reagan, and Republicans. It doesn't take a leap of the imagination to discern that Obama was fawning over the guy.
John, this is one argument you are not going to win. So again, I think we need to simply agree to disagree.
BAC
Post a Comment