What kind of Democratic Presidential nominee makes Reagan/Nixon their model for foreign diplomacy?

Moving beyoind the spat.

I am curious as to who on the Obama team thought it wise in the primaries to state that your guy's foreign policy would be in the mold of Reagan and Nixon while relying on an appluase-o-meter to justify it?

He has used them a few times and IMHO it is not a good way to attract Democratic primary voters. Reagan, while a beloved figure among right wing repubs, is not looked at as a role model for Democrats, nor should he be.

I will be surprised if Obama keeps talking about Reagan as the campaign continues forward. Someone is not giving him good advice on this and it needs to change.

Because Obama gave a debate answer which could have been more nuanced but was hardly some huge mistake(and yes I know my girl is pounding him on it) while this is defensive spin.

I'm a fan but he needs to tighten up. He also needs and answer on gay marriage that is more like Richardson's and less like Edward's.

The only two things I give credit to Ronald Reagan and Nixon for are pulling out Marines from Lebanon after the barracks bombing and opening China to drive a wedge between them and the USSR and opening up new avenues to getting out of Viêtnam. Yes, I'm saying Ronald Reagan "cut and ran" from Lebanon.

:rofl:

you're off the hook :blush:

just seemed like a lot of 'ands' in a list of two things.

that maybe pulling out then was not such a good idea. But now it is being held up as a reason to stay here forever.

out quick (after of course some 240 of them were killed in a suicide bombing).

JFK is far the better model here. His handling of the Cuban missile crises was masterly. He showed the U.S.'s undeniable force in the Caribbean, got the approval of the other countries in the hemisphere (the OAS), and sent the right people to Western European leaders to make the case against the Soviet Union and their missile expedition in Cuba. He brought in an extremely wide and expert group of advisors. His blockade of Cuba by U.S. Navy ships was restrained yet showed our strength. It was one of the scariest moments of the Cold War and JFK did everything that W would NOT do. THAT example is what our Dem candidates should be holding up as an example of restrained, informed American policy.

Reagan first sent them over there to intervene in an ongoing civil war for no reason that was ever clear to me.

so I didn't hear him say that, but Reagan and Nixon are two names I never want an association with. Bad move.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6802286,00.html

I mean you have FDR, JFK, Carter, Clinton. You have these guys who met with various foreign leaders that we were not buddy buddy with.

The example was even used in Star Trek by Spock.

the two camps over the debate question, but it's absurd for Obama's camp to bring Nixon and Reagan in to argue their position.

Actually, it was brilliant and it's too bad the Hillary people can't see it - and that the Obama campaign doesn't get how fucking brilliant it was.

They didn't do a damn thing in the 90's to correct the ridiculous notion that Reagan saved America. Just like they didn't do a damn thing to correct the notion that Bill did nothing on terrorism - until it was necessary to help Hillary.

"Just like they didn't do a damn thing to correct the notion that Bill did nothing on terrorism"

I think Hillary hating truly is a disease because it seems to affect the parts of the brain that determine what is fact and what is fiction.

Because I don't know how you can pretend that the Bushie charge that 9/11 happened because the Clinton did nothing went unanswered.

and didn't agressively disavow Reagan or Reagan's foreign policies. They were the ones who had the opportunity to guarantee we never went down that failed course again. Instead, they just implemented the same policies with a happy face. They also did not answer the 9/11 bullshit until Clinton went on Chris Wallace, which was way way way too goddamn late. They are the disease on the Democratic Party.

You guys slay me...you really do.

Its just a strange tactic to embrace if only in name Nixon and Reagan when he has worked so hard courting the anti-war contingent of the base and progressives in general.

I get it in his speeches when he talks about solutions not in partisan terms but as solutions.

Just this name drop thing has me scratching my head.

he can capitalize on the right's hatred of her, so he's trying to score points with them.

Not that its a pleasure being on the receiving end but it is yet another example of the Obama team hitting back when they get hit. Maybe it didn't land like the McCain or Edwards parries but the attitude is important. It lets me know he will take on the GOP BS.

Obama also had some "nice" things to say about Reagan in his book, although to be fair he also did criticize him in the book.

==Obama is touting a new and unconventional brand of grass-roots politics, but his strategy borrows from precedents set by a previous generation of Democrats such as Jimmy Carter and Gary Hart. His advisers also invoke as inspiration a surprising Republican: Ronald Reagan.

"Now, it is blasphemy for Democrats," Obama pollster Cornell Belcher said of Reagan, "but that hope and optimism that was Ronald Reagan" allowed him to "transcend" ideological divisions within his own party and the general electorate.

The upbeat message, Obama advisers say, won't prevent the candidate from stepping up both veiled and explicit contrasts with Clinton, who he hopes to portray as an old-hat conventional politician whose varied positions on the Iraq war reflect calculation rather than leadership==

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0707/5097.html

Yea, he could have used other examples but maybe that's the first thing that came to mind.

Apparently a model for Obama's "unity" and "new kind of politics" is Ronald Reagan. :rofl:

I could see an off the cuff remark but this is becoming more than that.

And Reagan talked to the Soviets after he employed brinkmanship not seen since the Cuban Missile Crisis.

to 'show' people he can relate to the middle and to middle-leaning repukes, as well...which usually isn't a bad strategy...I think he and the other DEM nominees will need that middle vote to help them get elected but I don't like how obvious he is being to try and attract these voters. It's a bit early to do that, imo.