David Bonoir-Edwards Spokesman- "Ronald Reagan Conned The Middle Class..."

"We can expect no change from Barack Obama..."

As per his phone interview on MSNBC

~

But my memory fades with age...He was responding directly to Obama's quotes about Reagan...

~

But whatever.

Who is being conned and by whom is questionable.

The ellipsis points were to indicate I couldn't transcribe everything he said...

He wants to be the Reagan of the left, a game changer who will effectviely end the Reagan Revolution by realigning the federal govenment in our favor just as Ronnie did for the Pubs. He is the only candidate who is aiming that high...that's real change.

But it is in its last throes. People are finally ready for more government, not less. But, as Hillary says, it takes a President to sell them on it.

:shrug:

Health care, energy, education, OTOH...

So was the massive Medicare enhancement - the corporate welfare to big pharma.

Also, he has taken a lot of shit from the base for LNCB and the drug bill.

They still revere Reagan and are trying to use him as a rallying point, but even they know at some level the game is over. Nothing will reinforce that point more than a popular Democratic president who goes over their heads and connects with most Americans the way Reagan did to the Democrats nearly 30 years ago.

that America is somehow just now ready for big gov't.

I guess you meant they were ready for Obama to come in and grow the social safety net... If he's counting on Independents / Reagan Dems for that... I dunno.

enhanced all the horrible things Raygun did - just wasn't good enough an actor to keep the "optimism" BS as cover...Flubbed his lines. The only difference, really.
But to be fair, even Raygun, had he not became senile - couldn't keep the BS much longer. It was hitting the fan copiously by the time he left.

he wants to be MLK...JFK....REAGAN....I have a huge problem with confused people running the White House...I case you haven't noticed ...we already have one of those! Really what's next....Madonna???

There's no other way they can do it. Obama has specifically said he doesn't agree with hardly any of Reagan's policies.

Although Edwards is now alienating his voters in the south, I hope they've thought their attack on Reagan through completely.

See what we are arguing about here? Not whether or not Reagan was good or bad, but whether it will help Obama get elected!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You don't really want to adopt that tone, or say things like that.

Let's keep the conversation at a higher level than Republicans would. Whattaya say? :pals:

it doesn't have to stay there. c'mon, nothing is impossible. certainly not this.

:wtf:

Who is he winning back in the south except the racists that Reagan peeled away?

I'm done discussing it. It's fucking vile.

It is no more okay Obama is going after the Reagan racists, yet people say that shit on this board on a regular basis.

:crazy:

I can't imagine how. Edwards supporters are racists?

Alerted.

and that's what Obama is supporting. How is that acceptable?

Supporting Edwards has nothing to do with him being a white male from the south, any more than me not supporting Condoleeza Rice is about me not supporting her as a black female.

Accusing us of being "likely racists" that supported Reagan is racist in and of itself! You wouldn't believe how much I campaigned against Reagan in the 80's and changed Joan Baez's Woodstock words "Ronald Raygun, ZAP!" all of the time!

and his support of Reagan's racist policies. Is that your position?

To be honest, I've not studied this Reagan quote much as others have here. I've tried to focus on looking at other less divisive issues that are more about substance than slamming people. If it was Obama that brought up Reagan in his campaign, he has to be prepared for the negative reaction of that. There are many here that any attempt to do so is an attempt to appeal to those that have been excluding us from dialogue for a decade or so and trying to marginalize and push us aside as "far left". What I am taking issue with you here is you generalizing that all of us supporting Edwards are there most likely for racist reasons, and that as being his big drawing card. That's totally unfair. There might be a few racists here, but I don't count myself among them, and I think their purposes would be better served by aligning themselves with another candidate.

I'm not saying that Obama shouldn't be one that can negotiate at times, but I think he needs to make MORE clear what issues that aren't negotiable than he has. Otherwise it appears as pandering. Even Reagan, when he negotiated with the Soviets would make clear his positions of being inflexible in some areas that he felt strong change was needed. And that's the only credit I'll give Reagan, since the fall of the Soviet empire had as much to do with Jimmy Carter's championing the U.S. as a country fighting for nations' human rights as it was an arms showdown. Former Soviet officials have said this.

Because people have absolutely said Reagan split the Dem vote by appealing to racists so that's what Obama supports.

You and others here are really extrapolating a lot here!

going into the south and peeling away the racists. Read more threads on this board. Read more history.

But I DON'T see Edwards people saying that Obama is mirroring EVERYTHING that Reagan did and in so doing, trying to appeal to racists! The quote at the top of this thread was about Reagan "conning the middle class". There's many other ways that aren't racist to "con the middle class", but you seem to be conflating those notions and labeling Edwards supporters as racist as result of that. That sir is unfair.

because it is absolutely being said.

Actually it is really quite significant...I've had family members tell me that they're supporting Edwards because he's a white male from the South and thus he can win.

There are many other white males from the South that I wouldn't TOUCH supporting. Now perhaps that affects his "electability". I think the important thing is that Edwards isn't trying to personally take advantage of and encourage some to vote for him because he's a white male, explicitly or indirectly. If he did I'd have a big problem with that.

Even your family, though voting for him because he's a white male, aren't doing so explicitly for sexist or racist reasons, but what they feel are tactical reasons based on what they perceive others voting patterns are.

Republicans like Reagan and Johnson appealed to racists, but they knew that wasn't enough. That's why they tried to appeal to Democrats on other lies such as "lowering their taxes", etc. to talk them into their fold.

...an issue that is being used in a racist fashion and a matter that is inherently racialized. The fact is that the contrast of race and gender in this election is more implicit than explicit. The fundamental notion is that we haven't had a woman or minority President and that therefore if one wants to win (why else care about a candidate) then certain presumptions must be taken as doctrine. I fail to see what the actual difference is between the two in practice. This presumes of course that the vast majority of the electorate is deeply aware of the significance of these factors. They aren't prejudiced, but they let race affect their thinking.

It is about what message they have. If Obama had Edwards' message now, I'd be voting for him in a heartbeat, since he already has a lot of support and has the charisma to boot. I know some will still cling to the notion that he can't win in the south because of his ethnicity, but I think that's a battle worth taking on in this day and age if that's the only difference that could keep him from getting elected by core mainstream Democrats. And I believe most Democrats and independents leaning to Democrats are ready to vote for a person of color these days.

Edwards might benefit *slightly* from being a white male on top of his message, but that's not what I'm trying to sell him for, nor do I think that really is the sole determinant of why he's doing better in head-to-head polling against other Republicans. I think it has a lot to do also with his populist message. I think that is also why Huckabee has more strength than your run of the mill religious right person in his party too. Because he's also touting more of a populist anti-corporate message as well there. I think that's a message that reaches across party lines moreso than the media would like us to realize.

I just wish that Hillary and Obama would also realize that and embrace a bit more populist approach themselves. I think you'd have a lot more unity if they did so amongst us Democrats (even if the corporatists and their bunch of lobbyists might get hung up on that).

You owe Edwards supporters an apology. I know it's hard to defend Obama's stupid statements, but you don't have to stoop to this.

We support someone who praises the guy who split the Democratic vote by appealing to race. You don't like it so much when the shoe is on the other foot?

You're conflating the racism issue. MANY Democrats - not just Edwards' supporters - are sadly questioning Obama's reference to Ronald Reagan. He called him a "great" and "successful" President. That's just BULLSHIT!!!!!

And if he wants to perpetuate this bullshit lie, then he needs to look at Edwards' own campaign theme which is that he's the won who can win the south. Who exactly is he winning back in the south if not Reagan Democrats? And why is DU saying they left the party?

Reagan was successful at setting his agenda and bringing people to his point of view. We wouldn't need to CHANGE THE TRAJECTORY if he hadn't been successful.

I am so sick of people who just lie right out their ass with absolutely not a trace of shame or remorse.

What I've said is that Obama is misrepresenting Reagan's optimism... his ability to unite. That is an outright fabrication. Reagan ran a nasty campaign that united bigots through fear. In my book, that is not optimism.

It also pisses me off because Obama is playing into the right-wing narrative of saint Ronnie. One of the worst most corrupt and stupidest president in history is being rehabilitated and I would prefer that self-avowed progressives not feed into the myth.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

I'll apologize when the rest of the board apologizes. I am sick of the lies.

The prize is fighting everything Reagan stood for. Reagan is why we are in the hellhole we are in now. No Reagan? No Bush 41. No Bush 41, no...

I think this "strategy" shows either a vast misunderstanding of history, or an underestimation of the desire of most of the American to make a better country. I don't understand stooping to this.

I'll never look to Hitler for "leadership" - or an example or anything positive. Nor will I look to Ronald Reagan.

But you just keep on telling it anyway.

meet Obamites.

Obama lovers, meet Cognitive Dissonance.

Edwards' best region will probably be the Midwest and more progressive states like Oregon.

that was really shocking. That's politics I guess. An Edwards-Obama feud can only help Edwards at this point.

I wasn't embellishing...

it's like it touched a nerve or something.

If this is what Edwards and his campaign want to slam Obama over, I think they'll have to find something more substantive. It was pretty clear what Obama was saying. Anyone who follows politics close enough knows he was talking about Reagan's election wins and not his stands on issues.

You cannot divorce the two, because this was Reagan's hailed strategical win:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4093463&mesg_id=4094269

Unfortunately and, like it or not, Reagan is viewed favorably by most Americans. If Hillary and Edwards pick this up and criticize him on it, they will drive votes to Obama.

I can't say that I'm particularly fond of this tactic by Obama. But he has spoken of this in his books, so I guess it makes sense to bring it up first so that he can in turn be seen defending himself against it (exactly what the Hillary campaign did with race). The "hardcore" Dems seem to be siding with Hillary anyway.

We'll see how this plays out.

primaries? in case you forgot, it's still the primaries...
And as you may have noticed on this board, the "most Americans" thinghie is a MDM meme like "we fight them there so we don't fight them here" or W's 91% approval after 9.11. democrats are DEEPLY adverse to reagan. Maybe not the 18 years olds Obama brought in - but the ones who LIVED during those times. Not brilliant in primaries. Not brilliant in GE either - Raygun lovers hate Dems, are racists and have better options.

He never praised Reagan. It's a complete fabrication, again.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4087189&mesg_id=4087491

Nevertheless, by promising to side with those who worked hard, obeyed the law, cared for their families, loved their country, Reagan offered Americans a sense of common purpose that liberals seemed no longer able to muster."

You don't have to agree with it to recognize it happened.

ORANGE COUNTY IS ON SICK PLACE.

I agree with David Bonoir.

And what about Edwards and Clinton ~ who are they conning?

of Obama Nation. They are the only people uniformly conned.

Sorry, but I don't vote for people that bash liberals regularly and appeal to the middle of the road.

The Reagan thing?

Obama as usual.....