Obama is Not a Democratic Ronald Reagan
My apologies for slow blogging these past few weeks. I had a meeting yesterday with my dissertation adviser and spent the better part of Tuesday preparing for our get-together. As I organized my thoughts, I realized I was far ahead of where I had thought myself to be, but still behind where I need to be.
As a result, I haven’t had as much chance to stay up to date on the news — and blog commentary thereon — as I would like.
In following the transition, I am largely impressed with the president-elect’s appointments (save Susan Rice to the UN, Tom Daschle to Health and Human Services, Eric Holder as Attorney General) as they evidence a more moderate team than Obama’s record would suggest. Yet, these appointments further muddy the waters about the Democrat’s intentions. He has tapped some pretty competent individuals, but we still don’t know what he’s going to do.
He’s keeping us guessing.
And that’s where he differs most profoundly from the Gipper. While at the Reagan Library on Saturday, I bought the DVD, Ronald Reagan: “The Great Speeches”. The ideas he puts forward in those addresses are consistent with those he had been campaigning on since his first bid for elective office in 1966, consistent indeed with “The Speech” he had delivered two years prior to that on behalf of Barry Goldwater’s presidential campaign:
While watching the DVD (which does not include that speech), I took note of this line, “Our government is too big, and it spends too much” from his April 28, 1981 Address Before a Joint Session of the Congress on the Program for Economic Recovery. That short expression nicely encapsulates the Gipper’s ideas on domestic policy, helps us understand his overall political philosophy.
Yet, how could we encapsulate Obama’s agenda? With the word, “Change” or “Hope”? But, in a political context, what does each word mean? Has the transition given us any clue?
Twenty-eight years previously, we had a pretty good idea what the Gipper was going to do once he took office as he didn’t back off from his campaign promises nor from his long-expressed vision of containing the size and scope of the federal government.
43 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
So far, the cynics about Chairman 0 are being proven more right than the glassy-eyed cultists.
Comment by V the K — December 11, 2008 @ 8:57 pm - December 11, 2008
Why am I seeing more Comrade Obama bumper stickers now than before the election? Is that some sort of insurance against being loaded up on the cattle cars to the gulags?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 12, 2008 @ 1:21 am - December 12, 2008
To expound further, a recent plumbing job at home sent me to Walmart and Home Depot multiple times the past two days. I’ve seen a whole mess of Comrade Obama stickers in both parking lots.
I thought liberals hated Walmart and never would have guessed liberals would lower themselves to actually do work themselves requiring a trip to Home Depot.
One sticker, I noticed, was on a Toyonda Pious parked in a handicapped spot. The driver clearly wasn’t, unless you count voting for Comrade Obama.
I now return you to Dan’s obviously racist post asking questions about the messiah.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 12, 2008 @ 1:26 am - December 12, 2008
3/4ths of the cars I see with Comrade 0 bumper stickers are driven by middle aged women who look likemembers of the teacher’s union.
Comment by V the K — December 12, 2008 @ 8:12 am - December 12, 2008
Yesterday I saw a Prius with an Obama sticker being towed. What’s up with that?
Comment by heliotrope — December 12, 2008 @ 10:26 am - December 12, 2008
I confess, I smile whenever I see a car with an Obama sticker pulled over.
Comment by V the K — December 12, 2008 @ 10:58 am - December 12, 2008
My eight-year-old nephew was more than a bit upset at seeing my “Veterans for McCain” bumper sticker. I explained that I voted for McCain primarily because he was a veteran.
I assumed that an eight-year-old would be able to understand that — which is more than I can say for most Zero-bama supporters.
Comment by Julie the Jarhead — December 12, 2008 @ 11:19 am - December 12, 2008
Dan, you’re missing the fundamental point in the comparison some (most?) make between Reagan and the promise of Obama… it’s not that their unique messages were/have been consistently communicated, nor that they clearly telegraphed where the R or O Administrations were a’heading… in fact, many thought that R didn’t have a plan beyond some lofty, airy, great sounding bits of rhetoric about restoring the “promise of America” –sounding a lot like the O, eh? And some within the GOP thought that R was moving the Party too far to the Right and political suicide; that didn’t happen either. R contended throughout the 80 campaign that he’d wholesale eliminate Energy, Education, reform the IRS, downsize the deficit, shrink govt, stop the nation-building nonsense, return the military to a security force instead of a humanitarian mission agency, restore the 600 ship Navy, etc. Every Democrat who changed parties in that early era were viewed as “proof” that the country was going GOP and R was the reason.
Some of that, now, looks a lot like smoke and oakum.
The broader comparison is most apt when it comes to the notion that O may do for the liberals and Democrats what R did for conservatives and GOPers… a restructuring of American political passions. And no, Air America isn’t proof of anything other than stupid doesn’t sell… but then neither was the FoxNews/Rush attempt at lampooning liberals on that failed TV show of last spring nor the MichaelMoore spoof of this fall.
We’ll need the 2010 and probably 2012 elections to test out that comparison… certainly there hasn’t been enough time on the clock to test the notion given we’re only 1/2 way thru O’s transition period.
You can see R as some true-to-the-core, stick-to-his-guns ideological touchstone but the truth is that he failed in much of the broad agenda he outlined during the 76 primary battle and 80 primaries and general. R’s greatest asset was his apparent connection to voters, use of the media, and picking bright minds for leadership positions and then getting out of the way. Plus he had a wife with barracuda teeth.
R and O may be a fair comparison on how they re-set the American political landscape; time will tell.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — December 12, 2008 @ 11:19 am - December 12, 2008
If you think Obama is keeping us guessing, you can imagine what his staff meetings are like. These people have no idea what to do.
Comment by Ignatius — December 12, 2008 @ 11:42 am - December 12, 2008
“Change” and “Hope” mean: the Democrats get to do what they want. Nothing less, nothing more.
Will they repeal DADT or DOMA? Nope. Will they create massive new government obligations that will force future tax increases, reducing everyone to a poverty of utter dependency on the government? Yes, because that makes the Democrats more powerful. Will they sell Senate seats? If they feel like it. (Only a Fox news station recently broke the story that Obama’s staff was, in fact, having discussions about the seat with Blagojevich.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 12, 2008 @ 1:11 pm - December 12, 2008
Reagan’s words from 1961 sound like he’s talking today!
I predict we’ll be hearing the same from Democrats again – if we haven’t already.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 12, 2008 @ 1:12 pm - December 12, 2008
#4 – I couldn’t agree with you more. That’s what I see here in Houston. The only men who have O stickers on their cars also have “HRC =” bumper snickers on their cars as well. Surprise, surprise.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — December 12, 2008 @ 4:23 pm - December 12, 2008
Even MSNBC characterized Obama’s comments about Blago gate as “stumbling and stammering”. MSNBC was wondering about the promises of transparency and openness………crickets. It is good to know we were right all along.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — December 12, 2008 @ 10:31 pm - December 12, 2008
#5 helio…..the bailout for late care payments won’t occur for another couple months. But fear not, they are on the way.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — December 12, 2008 @ 10:32 pm - December 12, 2008
I dunno, Obama laid out a ginormous public works program in pretty scary detail in his radio/YouTube address last weekend (since when do presidents-elect give radio addresses??? the mans manic eagerness to wield power should be a red flag to us all) Seems that, his massive new spending proposals, his promises to disarm us, regulate the energy industry out of business etc give a pretty clear idea of what he intends to do… turn us into Venezuela.
Comment by American Elephant — December 13, 2008 @ 3:15 am - December 13, 2008
Hopefully Obama won’t sell rockets and guns to Iran, or allow the CIA to get back in the drug trade…
Comment by gillie — December 13, 2008 @ 10:42 am - December 13, 2008
#15 – Really, gillie? Anyone that you PERSONALLY know or can document as doing such?
We’re wating.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — December 13, 2008 @ 11:25 am - December 13, 2008
peter-
http://www.hulu.com/watch/19877/american-dad-ollie-north
I hope this is to your level!
Comment by gillie — December 13, 2008 @ 12:59 pm - December 13, 2008
the current scandal on the table is do Democrats sell one of 100 Senate seats for cash, or power. There is recorded proof that at least one sitting Governor of the Democrat party does it in spades. But to be a crook, willing to sell the seat, there have to be people lined up and willing to buy. It appears the Jackson family was going to pony up at least one million for the seat. If a bidding war had started, we need a list of the names of the others. What other Democrats are also guilty?
Obama, has a choice. Blow the lid off this, or be tainted by it as a run of the mill Chicago pol.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — December 13, 2008 @ 1:48 pm - December 13, 2008
I’m dissasppointed Fitz short circuited the investigation early. I think he made a decision to go public early before more highly visable Dems got mixed into this stew. If he’d have waited another month, yeah a corrupt Governor would have filled the seat, but we would then have a corrupt Senator to impeach as well as the Dem Governor. Plus all the others involved would be apt to go to jail as well. I for one would have liked a complete house cleaning. As it stands now only Blago and maybe Emmanuel will go to jail, possibly J Jackson Jr. By waiting Fitz could have had 20 or 30 Democrat crooks all in one fell swoop. Yes tramatic for the country and the Democrat party, but no doubt a cleansiing moment
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — December 13, 2008 @ 1:54 pm - December 13, 2008
Gene in PA – I totally agree! This was like going after the street drug dealer rather than letting him lead you to the drug kingpin. Maybe Obama was about to get dirty.
American Elephant – Hey, I think Obama’s Light Changing Engineers are a great idea. Think of all the new jobs changing lightbulbs and fixing the heat problems in public buildings. I mean Obama is going to save us millions while he spends billions. It’s just great!
Dan – I can see where people might be tempted to compare Obama with Reagan. They’re trying to do it with Lincoln as well. But as you pointed out, the fundamental difference is the core message and that is that government need not get bigger. Obama is going to blow this thing sky high no matter what his cabinet picks seem to show. Obama should be compared to Woodrow Wilson and FDR because those are the presidents he will emulate and King George seems to be paving Obama the perfect path.
Comment by dsgawrsh — December 13, 2008 @ 2:26 pm - December 13, 2008
I think this investigation could very well ruin Obama. Remember, it isnt just about the senate seat, its going to reach into a great many of Blago’s corrupt dealings, and Obama may be involved in all sorts of ways we dont know about yet. We know hes as corrupt as they come.
Comment by American Elephant — December 13, 2008 @ 5:32 pm - December 13, 2008
We are now hearing Obamas Attorney General pick, Eric Holder (AKA Steadman) is in trouble. His ties to the Mark Rich pardon should have already disqualified him, but many Senators are getting uneasy about his getting pardons for the PRI terrorists as well. His hearings could prove fertile ground for opening up all kinds of questions about how the process came about, possibly embarrassing Hillary and Bill Clinton. I have this same melody playing in my head….yes we can, change, yes we can, change for America……I wonder if lots of people are feeling foolish right now. A smaller note. Obama is a smoker. Did you see Brokaw put him on the hot seat about quitting. Obama set a record for stammers and stutters. The leader of the free world. A horrible example for youngsters. He doesn’t have the discipline to stop smoking.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — December 13, 2008 @ 10:48 pm - December 13, 2008
Hopefully Comrade Obama won’t give the finger to gays on more than one occasion. Hopefully Comrade Obama won’t turn a blind eye to Islamo-fascist terrorists. Hopefylly Comrade Obama won’t be too busy banging Mary Jane Rottencrotch to protect the country. Hopefully Comrade Obama won’t directly enable NoKo’s nuclear ambitions. Hopefully Comrade Obama won’t directly enable the ChiComm’s nuclear ambitions and allow our nuclear secrets to be frittered away for campaign donations. Hopefully Comrade Obama knows what the definition of “is” is. Hopefully Comrade Obama doesn’t fudge the books and pull a proposed 10 year budget surplus out of his ass in the midst of his own recession. Hopefully he won’t pardon terrorists and fugitives for political and financial gain. Hopefully we’ll be allowed to know who funds his library and massage parlor. Hopefully Comrade Obama won’t tell SF to burn in hell when they request assistance and equipment necessary to carry out the missions he might send them on. Hopefully Comrade Obama won’t gut the military to the point they can’t afford bullets for training.
Shall I go on?
Of course:
Well why not? The liberals don’t have a problem with a known terrorist who has something in common with al-Qaeda to teach “America’s future”, why not let a liberal cartoonist “educate” the masses as well?
I know, instead of that candy ass Daschle, why not put Kennedy in for HHS and move Daschle over to the FAA?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 14, 2008 @ 2:19 am - December 14, 2008
Oh one more:
Hopefully Comrade Obama won’t give up on our national airline/airport security with a half mil donation to the DNC.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 14, 2008 @ 2:20 am - December 14, 2008
“Our government is too big, and it spends too muchâ€
Whereas Chairman 0 believes Our government doesn’t do enough, and doesn’t spend enough.
As Amity Shlaes points out in this article, Japan tried the Obama formula of massive “Big Dig” type infrastructure projects to revive its economy in the 1990’s. It was a miserable failure as Japan remained mired in recession for ten years, ran up massive public debt, and at the end had nothing to show for it but Bridges with $30 tolls each way, tunnels no one uses because air travel is faster, and a multi-billion dollar airport that’s sinking into the ocean.
Comment by V the K — December 14, 2008 @ 8:27 am - December 14, 2008
Obama is the new Ronald Reagan. His eely promises of hopenchange are the shining city upon the hill.
Reagan spoke to conservatives who understood his message and were energized by it. Liberals thought he was a dunce reading a script to a confederacy of dunces.
Obama speaks to liberals and they read whatever they want into his taffy pulling promises of eliminating facial hair on women and ending cavities. Conservatives see him as a charlatan peddling political snake oil who is after power and the keys to the treasury.
Conservatives still have to defend Reagan. Liberals build a wall of aura and myth around their messiahs.
The point is that Obama is not our Reagan and Reagan was not their Obama.
However, Obama is my Chance the gardner. Now that Chance the gardner has a ticket for “Being There” in the Oval Office, it will be interesting to see what bromides are scripted to come out of his mouth. It will also be interesting to see what Chance the gardner says all on his own.
I look forward to the fleet of buses parked in the portico. It will be a busy fleet with all the people who are going to be thrown under them.
Comment by heliotrope — December 14, 2008 @ 10:35 am - December 14, 2008
#17: You use a freakin’ CARTOON created by a known plagiarist and Obama-fellater to prove your point?
Is there an even bus for kids too retarded to get on the short bus?
Comment by Attmay — December 14, 2008 @ 10:04 pm - December 14, 2008
#17 – Looks to me like this “evidence” you produced is more in gear to your IQ than it is to mine, gilltard.
You also obviously did not know that Bill Clinton was part of a drug-smuggling operation in Mena, Ark. about the same time that this fictional depiction of Oliver North surfaced, huh?
Try again.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — December 15, 2008 @ 4:33 pm - December 15, 2008
#17: You use a freakin’ CARTOON created by a known plagiarist and Obama-fellater to prove your point?
The left can’t understand anything that isn’t in cartoon form.
Comment by V the K — December 15, 2008 @ 8:25 pm - December 15, 2008
You are right- Obama is not REagan. Reagan was a principled man, a deeply religious man, and a man who knew who he was. He was a good man, an honest man, and an intelligent man. Read “Greatness” and you’ll see.
Obama is none of these things. He is an empty suit, a tool to be used by liberals and left-wingers, and a man who doesn’t know who he is. He will struggle to be independent- he will struggle to make himself into something- but at his heart, he knows that he is a nothing, moving through history.
Comment by A Conservative Teacher — December 16, 2008 @ 7:44 am - December 16, 2008
Dan, while you’ve been spending time with the Gipper, I wonder if you re-read/listened to his 1st inaugural address –it was vintage RR. Delivered with a steely resolve, daring the federal govt bureaucrats to “make his day, make some more regulation” and trying to incite average Americans to take back their govt… RR up-ended history and the pre-Civil War concept of state nullification when he said “It is my intention to curb the size and influence of the federal establishment and to demand recognition of the distinction between the powers granted to the federal government and those reserved to the states or to the people. All of us need to be reminded that the federal government did not create the states; the states created the federal government”.
Sounded like the Compact Theory revisited. Lincoln and Henry Clay were probably spinning in their tombs at that moment and John C Calhoun and Jeff Davis were high five’ing it low, sideways and underneath. “It took a hundred years, but one of us finally won.”
Where I was sitting in the crowd, I also looked around when the Gipper was speaking about the “elites” in America running things and govt wasn’t capable of governing itself, let alone others… in front of me was the wealthiest man from Michigan with his kids and nannies, a few seats to my left was the 2nd wealthiest and his family, to my immediate right was a pack of Romneys… behind me was a slew of ivy leaguers and lifelong GOP leaders from Michigan, a gaggle of ex-Congressmen and business leaders… I wondered then which “elite” RR had in mind?
But it sounded good at the time, even though Reagan had more in common with Alexander Hamilton than with the nullifiers of the prior century. It sounded good and, as you’ve noted before, political propaganda is like cool FXs in movies… no substitute for plot or heavy lifting of reform. Luckily, RR embarked on some reforms and succeeded; he remade the political landscape for conservatives and the GOP… much like Obama might do for the liberals and Democrats.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — December 16, 2008 @ 10:47 am - December 16, 2008
Ah, that’s the MM I remember. Out to plant his little poison barbs, especially as regards Reagan and/or Reagan conservatives, while pretending not to. I love how MM ends on a false note of praise for Reagan: appearing to make a positive statement about him, but carefully restoring an Obama-and-Reagan comparison and ascribing the success of Reagan’s “some” reforms to sheer luck. LOL
And I love how some of MM’s little barbs are so often just senseless. Example of the latter: If you think the Federal government should be reduced in size and powers because it has grown too big since the Depression, well, now according to MM, you’re hardly better than Jeff Davis! a nullifying, antebellum Southern slaveholder! And hey, let’s gloss over the *inescapable, historical fact* that the States really did create the Federal government and not the other way around, in the years 1787-1789.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 16, 2008 @ 12:56 pm - December 16, 2008
I always fail to understand how people can compare O’s preinauguration speeches/actions to past administration’s postinauguration speeches/actions.
Compare April 1981 to December 2008? No, compare April 1981 to April 2009.
Comment by JT in the Army — December 17, 2008 @ 7:03 am - December 17, 2008
ILC, I see reading and comprehending are still “issues” for you.
You know, there are days you make Gryphon, raj and CowboyBob look logical and their antics seem mild in comparison. “Luckily” was referencing history and America’s good fortune… not RR’s skill set.
You got to get a life, bub.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — December 17, 2008 @ 11:25 am - December 17, 2008
Ah, more of the MM trademark poison. Keep ‘it coming!
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 17, 2008 @ 1:10 pm - December 17, 2008
P.S. MM, for the record: I didn’t just nuttily accuse small-government conservatives of being spiritually in bed with John C. Calhoun and Jeff Davis, in this thread. Um, you did. You might at least **consider** cleaning up your act. You know… before you tell others they need to. I’m pretty sure it’s in the Bible.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 17, 2008 @ 1:21 pm - December 17, 2008
ILC, you’re simply wrong on point and you still can’t read for comprehension -despite the lapdog antics.
Yeah, you did say that exact thing here by wildly distorting my point postulating that segments of RR’s inaugural speech would resonate with State Nullification advocates of the prior century… it wasn’t about “if you think govt has grown too big then you’re a states right loon”. I didn’t say that, you did, clueless. That’s why I think you need to get a clue and get a life, ILC.
Start reading for comprehension –that’s not “poison”, it’s just a hope I have for you. You’ve been long accused of distortions and wild-assed misstatements here of the words of others’… it’s a page from the antics of the lower case clan, CowBoyBob, gryphon and lots of others.
You still need to get a life, bub. And now you need to get a clue, eh?
Comment by Michigan-Matt — December 17, 2008 @ 1:37 pm - December 17, 2008
With respect, I could see value in you stating that RR didn’t mean the states’ created the federal govt and, in a rightly ordered republic, the federal govt would be inferior & submissive to the states… but the truth is that RR often argued that the federal govt was out-of-control and it was merely “granted” certain powers by the states… the truth is that the first federal govt operated on that very premise and it failed, miserably… quickly. The second govt was constructed to be stronger and exercise powers that had been restricted to state govts… and it worked. RR spoke about that in his Inaugural speech.
We could debate what RR wanted to accomplish and what he actually did accomplish in power, but that would require you to put aside the venom, quit wildly spinning the words of others out of context and stay on task. Something that you show no interest to date in approaching.
I get it.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — December 17, 2008 @ 1:50 pm - December 17, 2008
Oh, and one other thing, Mr. Poison – I thought you didn’t even read my stuff??? I guess you do.
As for what you said, or didn’t say – It was pretty clear:
So, let’s see. Here is what the above “says” to any honest and reasonable reader – either explicitly, or by implication:
1) That Reagan got his historical facts wrong in claiming that the states created the federal government and not the other way. (Bzzzzzzzzzt. Reagan got his historical facts right. Check your history… the years 1787, 1788, 1789.)
2) That Reagan’s ideas on federal vs. State relations and reducing the size of the federal are tantamount to the Compact Theory. (A slander on conservatives, if there ever was one.)
3) That Lincoln would somehow disapprove of Reagan’s ideas… and that Calhoun and Davis would approve… putting Reagan, and his followers, morally or spiritually in the company of 19th-century slaveholders and secessionists (Calhoun and Davis).
If you now want to retract some of that, or apologize for mis-speaking or whatever, MM, that is fine. Do it. But, please at least **consider** doing it with a little more grace and honesty.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 17, 2008 @ 1:52 pm - December 17, 2008
Ah, I see #39 now – A partial retraction, I guess. Better than nothing.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 17, 2008 @ 1:53 pm - December 17, 2008
No. I would never put that thought in RR’s mouth. Because IT IS A HISTORICAL FACT THAT THE STATES DID CREATE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
Now, when the States created the federal government, they ceded key elements of sovereignty to it. They made it clear that they were henceforth just members of a nation. The Constitution sets up the Supreme Court as the final judge of what is constitutional – and not the States. And the States acceded to that. So, once the Constitution was ratified by 9/13 States (though they eventually got 13/13), the States were made inferior to the federal government. The federal government is above the States. No one denies that.
But, as a simple matter of historical fact, it did takes the States’ consent to make that happen. The States appointed the delegates who wrote the Constitution – then gave the Constitution effect, by approving it and even suggesting revisions (some of which were incorporated into the Bill of Rights). Simple historical fact.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 17, 2008 @ 2:13 pm - December 17, 2008
One last bit on MM’s malarkey:
Possibly – by people like yourself. People who say nutty things, then I happen to dispute them or call them to account for what, yes, they did write. As here. I’m pleased to be your target; it means I’m doing it right.
Second, MM, and for the record: It is a fact that my comments have never yet had to be deleted from GayPatriot. Yours have. I have never had to be threatened with a ban. You were, on one occasion I was present for. Don’t make me dig up the old references on that; it won’t come out well for you.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 17, 2008 @ 2:55 pm - December 17, 2008