GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

No, Time Magazine, Obama does not “Heart” Reagan*

by

Well, maybe the “news” magazine is trying to do some p.r. for the prez now that a one-time correspondent for the periodical is taking over as White House Press Secretary.  Jay Carney, currently “communications director for the Vice President . . .  reported for Time Magazine from 1993 until 2008, based in places such as Moscow and working his way up to Washington, DC, bureau chief in 2008.”

So, this guy goes from Time to the Obama-Biden White House  only to have his one-time employer tells us that Obama Hearts Reagan.

First, talk about a revolving door, fascinating how many folks from the mainstream media go on to jobs in Democratic Administrations.

Anyone who think that Obama is like the Gipper has virtually no knowledge of Reagan’s political career or philosophical bent.  Just compare the speeches which catapulted each man to leadership in his party.  Reagan’s, in 1964 on behalf of Barry Goldwater’s bid for the White House, outlined a series of conservative principles to explain his support for that year’s Republican nominee. Obama’s in 2004 to the Democratic National Convention was mere fluff, offering uplifting, but ultimately empty words of praise for that year’s Democratic ticket.

Or compare the Gipper’s first inaugural address to Obama’s most recent State of the Union address.  The Republican, the most successful domestic policy president of the last century, reminded us that “government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.”  The incumbent, by contrast, believes we need more government spending, er, investment, to get out of the current economic malaise.

To be sure, both invoke American exceptionalism, but only Reagan understood the concept.  He knew that we didn’t need a government initiative to meet the challenges of a dynamic society.  Obama, by contrast, can’t seem to imagine a pressing social problem that doesn’t require additional federal intervention.

Can any contrast be greater?

*He may be attempting to emulate the great man’s image, but he derides his ideas.

UPDATE:  Donald Douglas reminds us that barely two years ago, Time was comparing Obama to FDR, with a cover touting “‘The New New Deal.'”  Guess they want to make the Democrat correspond to the current national mood, or at least what they consider the current national mood.

Comments

  1. and that’s the whole point. Reagan had style but was about substance. Obama truly believes that his problems are one of style because that’s all he ever was. He wasn’t elected due to his vast experience, numerous accomplishments or novel ideas. He was elected because he was good at giving speeches.

    Health care is an example. He still blames failed communications for why people don’t like Obamacare. In other words, messaging, not message was the problem, whereas people understood what Obamacare meant and didn’t want it.

    If he thinks that by emulating Reagan’s style (if he even truly knows what that is) will win him re-election, he will be sorely mistaken. It’ll take a lot more than a photoshop pic and some MSM puff pieces to get it done.

  2. Agreed, that Reagan’s philosophy was the mortal and polar opposite of Obama’s. Time is just trying to help Obama, by glossing that over, and by tying Obama (who increasingly looks like a failed President, even to them) to a good President.

  3. First, talk about a revolving door, fascinating how many folks from the mainstream media go on to jobs in Democratic Administrations.

    …and vice versa.

    The cover and story are shameless propaganda, Obama trying to perversely co-opt the mantle of Reagan as he perversely tried to co-opt that of Lincoln.

    Neither man would approve of ANYTHING Obama has done.

    The blatant, shameless, and eager activism of the MSM is worse than I have ever seen it. It truly is the “State Run Media” as Rush calls it. I have no doubt there is major collusion going on between the two institutions. The Ministry of Truth is fully operational.

  4. President Obama is the anti-Reagan in virtually everything. The is the White House PR attempt to Obama re-elected for 2012. I think it will backfire because the comparisons are false. How is Ron Reagan’s book doing? Obama will have a similar result trying to ride Reagan’s coattails. This is proof Obama’s BIG GOVERNMENT agenda is a failure.

    Besides, most people know Obama hated Reagan & wants to turn back all of Reagan’s policies; therefore, this is another contradiction exposed.

  5. Ugh, don’t you guys ever get tired of slobbering over Ronald Reagan?

    Something to realize, since you guys are once again in hysterics over the deficit – it was $1 trillion when Reagan took office in 1980. Today it’s $14 trillion, and we’ve had Republican Presidents for 20 of the 30 intervening years (and a Democrat was in there running surpluses for a few years, too.) Now if deficits are the biggest problem in the entire world, and the Republicans are the ones most responsible for running up the deficit, then how come you guys are Republicans? Why is Reagan so extremely fetishized when he’s the one that started off this spending spree?

    Oh wait – I remember. It’s because you really don’t care about the deficit except outside of using it as a cheap and insincere attack against your political opponents. Of course, if we were to apply logic to your labeling of Obama as a socialist, Reagan would deserve the same label. Anyone willing to go so far as to be consistent? Or shall I continue dismissing conservative arguments out of hand due to a complete lack of credibility and intellectual honesty?

  8. 6.Ugh, don’t you guys ever get tired of slobbering over Ronald Reagan?

    Funny, who’s on the cover of Time slobbering over Reagan, praising Reagan in his speeches, and so forth?

    Oh, that’s right, Levi’s Messiah, the Barack Obama.

    The hilarious part is that anyone who’s ever read Dreams From My Father by Bill Ayers knows that Obama thinks Reagan is Satan incarnate. But of course, Obama knows that his idiot followers like Levi will believe anything he blathers, so there you have it.

  11. since you guys are once again in hysterics over the deficit – it was $1 trillion when Reagan took office in 1980. Today it’s $14 trillion,

    We didn’t have deficits anywhere near $1 trillion until your beloved dear reader Chairman Obama became president. You’re confusing debt with deficit, dumbass.

    (and a Democrat was in there running surpluses for a few years, too.)

    Which party controlled the House, dumbass?

  14. You know what I never get tired of? Bitter leftist queens who can’t stop themselves from whining when respect is given to the president who put the USA on a course for a generation of prosperity and defeated the Soviet Empire.

  16. Hey, GP take a look at the flipside of that TIME Magazine cover shot. Courtesy of the folks of iOwnTheWorld.com. I believe that it is a more accurate depiction.

    I Just loooove this picture of President Reagan holding a wine glass in a toast. Happy 100th, Ronaldus Magnus.

    Yes, indeed. Soviet Union delenda est!