What do Obama supporters think of Reagan?

Curious if they agree with Obama on his statements about Reagan.

And secondly, would like to hear from those who lived when Reagan was president, and not those who are so young that only know Reagan from a school history book.

I realize this eliminates a big majority of Obama supporters.


Edit: Thanks for the responses, I have read all of them so far and it is refreshing to see politeness and honest answers here.

But he was successful in pushing a conservative agenda.

You nailed it! :thumbsup:

:kick:

As a Prez, he began most of the problems we have today! More power to corps. Destruction of unions. Although I don't remember this part, apparently he fueled the fundi revolution in the Pub Party.

Nixon gets the credit for awakening the religious revolution amongst the righties with his Southern Strategy. But it was Ronnie who really awakened the lust for power seen amongst the Pat Robertson/James Dobson crowd.

His mind was clearly going before the end of his first term. He was merely the front man for the dastardly deeds going on behind the scenes. Iran-Contra will be but one of the hallmarks of his administration.

But I still don't have a problem with what Obama said.

IMHO he said nothing. Come on bud I want to vote for you but give me a reason why! You just took up my precious time finally listening to this clip. I just got angry at everyone who tried to justify using Reagan's name and so called legacy (a legacy of lies, deceit, and funding right wing death squads in Latin America) because of you. What now? Your Yes Men who surround you should be dismissed for this monumental faux pas.

Or just the clip?

If you genuinely want what you say then don't rely on a snippet.

For anyone interested:

http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080115/VIDEO/80115026&oaso=news.rgj.com/breakingnews

As much as the man disgusts me, I really have to admire Reagan's skills in strategy and communications. It takes an amazing amount of talent to piss all over the middle class and have them still love you.

I was not a voter during his presidency, but I was politically aware in his second term. First term I've read up on.

I can't rewrite history and minimize his influence because I dislike him.

... and three decades later most of us on the Left obtusely refuse to admit why:

He crafted a convincing narrative for the nation that made people optimistic about the future. And we've been so pissed at him ever since that we stubbornly refuse to nominate anyone who wants to do remotely the same thing (Big Dog came close, and I seem to recall he did fairly well in Presidential elections).

NOTE: I don't need to hear how evil his policies were. I know how evil they were.

He was not a good president, but he was not evil incarnate either.


He was obsessed with ending communism and did some things that seriously damaged this country to hasten the inevitable fall of the Soviet Union. Maybe it was the McCarthy Era that made him so nuts on the subject, dunno for sure. I suppose he thought that the end would justify the means.

I honestly believe that he was planning on re-investing "the peace dividend" (after ending the cold war) back into the social programs that he gutted so he could afford his huge military build up.

That never happened. Republicans decided to continue cutting social programs and cutting taxes for the wealthy.



As far as Sen.Obama's comments are concerned.....

They seem pretty short on praise and even took a shot at his economic legacy. I think that we Obama supporters like the fact that he can.... Disagree Without Being Disagreeable ....(unlike Hillary.....JUST KIDDING....kinda)

;)

not his yrs as President. It would be nice if people actually listened to stuff before they jump to conclusions.

they listen to NOTHING else but what the almighty msm says. They will hear Obama likes Reagan PERIOD!! Then they will vote accordingly never mind what he really said or meant to say or anything else.

He made Nixon look good.

He created the crisis of homelessness in our society by driving the mentally ill out of institutions and on to the streets.

But he was also a master politician who charmed his opponents as he succeeded in destroying the New Deal and laying the groundwork for conservative America.

I understand what Obama is saying - we do need a Democratic Reagan - someone with vision who can bring about a broad liberal realignment of American politics.

"we do need a Democratic Reagan - someone with vision who can bring about a broad liberal realignment of American politics."

Why should this even be controversial? Of course we need this.

The late 70s were a time of enormous inflation, high gas prices, financial insecurity, and anti-arab fear (a lot like today).

Most people in my family didn't hate Carter, per se, but they thought because they were living through these times that Carter was incompetent. They wanted to feel some sort of sense of security and safety in their lives, and here was Carter on the TV wearing a sweater and telling them to turn down the thermostat. He made a convenient scapegoat.

When Reagan came into office, he did change the mood of the nation. Why do people even try to deny this? He did change the mood of the nation, in almost exactly the same way that "Professor" Harold Hill improves the mood of River City, Iowa in The Music Man. He filled people with false bravado, but when you've been down a long time, false bravado feels better than none at all. He filled people's heads with a lot of anti-government nonsense, and with a sense that, if nuclear war were on the horizon, we weren't going to be the victims. We'd be the winners.

We were lucky to have Gorby at the helm of the USSR at that time. If we'd had an old-style Soviet hardliner, Reagan's fearmongering and saber-rattling might just have pushed us into WW III. Living under Reagan and under the spectre of nuclear war was terrifying.

Having said all that, I basically agree with Obama, and don't understand why so many people seem so determined to demonize Obama for making a pretty obvious generalization. Reagan won in 49 states, people liked him, and he did transform the mood of the country. That doesn't mean he was a good president, because he wasn't. The nightmare we're in today can be traced directly back to Reagan. But I completely understand what Obama means when he talks about getting beyond the framing of the 60s, getting beyond Vietnam, and all the limiting frames of baby boomer politics. I think Obama definitely could be a figure that does what Reagan did --- but without the anti-government, partisan nonsense politics. Who wouldn't want that? I know I do.

lived under both of his terms as President.

I lived in Berkeley, so there are very few that I know who liked Reagan's policy. Some called him the great opportunity Equalizer, because under Reagan, even White people could find themselves without a job.

I recall when he closed a lot of the mental facilities in California as a Governor.

That being said, Reagan has to be recognized for his effectiveness in getting his agenda through. He was able to get done a whole lot of what he proposed for the conservative cause. As far as America at the time was concerned, he was called "the Great Communicator".

If Barack can get done for the liberal agenda, what Reagan did for the conservative one, then we won't have to wait forever to actually experience that agenda.

PS. I was just starting out as an accountant, and prepared taxes when Reagan's tax code changes were enacted. I clearly understand the profound changes (for the worse) that he got through.....(with a Democratic congress at that!)

What Barack states makes so much sense, until I got shivers when I heard him articulate his point in reference to utilizing Reagan's model to accomplish our liberal agenda. One doesn't have to be that sophisticated to understand the difference with what Barack is saying and what Barack distractor want to believe that he said. It's a pity that they want to fail to understand.

It's like being handed a golden opportunity and shitting on it.

I don't know how to make the point more effectively. The reason we got welfare reform is because of Ronald Reagan ranting about it in the 80's.

:shrug:

Barack Obama passed legislation to track welare recipients to see the fall-out.

If people don't get the difference between the three of them with just that little bit info, it's because they don't want to.

He was talking of his optimism. His ability to move the people with words. Anybody denying that of Ronald Reagan is either:

1) Uneducated

2) Deceiving themselves

3) Lying

Cross post


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2702606&mesg_id=2702606

Can't see any moderates voting for Rodham in November.

I thought he said he united people to vote for him. If this is the case, it is true: MA voted twice for him, for example. He beat Mondale by a landslide and beat Carter clesrly as well.

If, however, he said Reagan was a great president, I disagree.

And, yes, I am that old. I was there for the Reagan Revolution, before, during and ... well, it hasn't stopped. What we are seeing today, the almighty greed, over-consumption, constricted opportunities, corporate rape and pillage goes in a direct line back to Ronald Reagan. And he smiled all the while he fucked you. What Obama wants to do is put a stop finally to the Reagan Revolution. It's about goddamned time somebody wanted to do it. The country is more than ready.

I don't think Obama really wants to be like Reagan. But you have to admit that Reagan was an agent of change. (for the worse) I was a year short of legal voting age in 1980, so I couldn't have my say in that election. If I could have, my vote would have been Dem. Reagan started a huge downward slide in this country. But his time is still known as the "Reagan era". That admission shows that he was a transformational president. I think Obama wants to bring about a big transformation as well, but in a much more positive direction.

I'm not kidding.

Folks want to have a fight over his legacy, but it's pretty much set in stone at this point...

Dems attacking Reagan on details of his actual Presidency are akin to those going back to attack somebody like Lincoln on the details of his actual Presidency. NOBODY CARES. There's a legacy and we're sticking to it.

Nobody wants to hear about the gender biases of Martin Luther King, Jr. Nobody wants to hear about the racist contradictions of Thomas Jefferson. Nobody wants to hear about the narcissism of Ghandi.

Sorry, but it's true.

Reagan's legacy has been kinda set in stone. It's not to say we can't validly talk about the issues of the day and to even challenge the legacy. But in a context of a presidential campaign, trying to challenge such a legacy is a mistake.

Ask Ron Paul. Oh wait, don't...

Maybe in a generation, when the only folks alive who actually lived under Reagan are all retired or nearing retirement, but I think now is a great time to challenge that legacy before it sticks.

In fact had he beeb a lame, one-term putz he would not generate as much animosity among progressives as he does.

but he was tremendously effective in doing it. reading Barack's analysis, don't you see it's a huge spin to say he's admired the guys policies? He wasn't even talking about that.