People, let's have a serious reality check and discussion about this Reagan thing

I think most of you have seen I'm not one to diss other candidates. Damn, I support the guy that most people take such great pleasure skewering, for crying' out loud, and gladly post them in long lists! ;)

This isn't about Edwards. This isn't about Clinton.

This is the first time I've felt really, really, really concerned about what one of the candidates has said/done during this campaign process.

We all know they're gonna move to the center, or that they're likely to.

But I am frankly stunned that anyone over the age of 35 would dare defend Obama's comments (which we've just seen plastered all over the news shows...with everyone, including Tucker Carlson, salivating over him) about Reagan.

Sure, you can parse it all you want and say he didn't say it was a GOOD TRAJECTORY. But damn, just listen...he was appealing to the Reaganites big time, at the EXPENSE of a Democrat: Clinton.

I don't expect a candidate to have blind loyalty and say the dems are perfect, yada, yada...but he hit on a HOT BUTTON issue when he involved Reagan. And he KNEW it. It was not an off-the-cuff remark. He knew what he was doing and it bothers me. It bothers me because he was my second choice and because he has a very good chance of being the nominee.

As many have been saying of late, we don't know 100% whether we can trust ANY OF THEM. Just read here and you'll see pros and cons about EVERY candidate, all listing many reasons not to trust what they're saying.

But my point is this: don't we at least need to AGREE WITH WHAT THEY'RE SAYING in large part as the first step? Whether they'll come through and act on it is the second part of the equation when choosing a candidate. That's why some people support Edwards not for HIM, per se, but because of the power of his message being to empower US...the citizen, seeing how so much have been taken from us since REAGAN years.

I'm not feeling empowered by anyone else right now and that troubles me as a Democrat.


IN ADDITION: If age is the discrepancy in reaction to the Reagan comments, that would be good to know. Because if anyone isn't appalled at the correlation to the Reagan trajectory with regard to domestic issues, they need to learn. I know he didn't say he supported Reagan's policies, but he sure as hell didn't discredit them either. Please don't parse this. I heard him, I didn't just read the quotes. It had a very favorable tone. Well, I should clarify that that was my interpretation. But, damn, it's a strong, clear one.

Your message is no longer fresh, its been rehashed to death.

Today is my first day calling into question something like this. And I'm only doing so because I feel it is very important.

But I acknowledge that's only my opinion, though it's strong enough for me to risk being attacked here.

I have also stated that age may be an issue, and I'm curious about that.

I do not know much about Obama. However, I saw some quotes from his book which were, if accurate, gravely troubling.

If Obama thinks the New Deal was anything other than one of the greatest things the Democratic party did in the 20th century then I can not help thinking that he is literally Republican-lite.

Obama supporters, please correct me if I am wrong in thinking that Obama disrespected the New Deal in his book.

Obama really stepped in the pig trough to even mention Reagan. Those of us who endured his two terms remember all too well the damage Reagan did. If this is Obama's hero for change, then Obama has really stumbled badly. This may be a fatal flaw for him to overcome.

Next thing you know, Obama will tell us what a wonderful guy Newt is.

and troubling to a lot of us. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt -- but I just think it was a very poor choice of words that could easily be interpreted as approval or at least acquiescence, even if that isn't what he meant. Reagan could have been kept completely out of the discussion, and it would have been a lot better for Obama. Invoking the name of Ronald Reagan in the context of a Democratic primary is not really very unifying for old-time party members.

I am very troubled as well.

the Reagan thing might not have been such a big deal... just a misstep.

But all of it together? Yikes.

The video is running in the background, waiting on the 20 minute mark. I want to hear this for myself.

:(

Its an ugly process, but very VERY necessary.

It's the defense of Reagan that is upsetting me. What I will give Obama is that there may have been people who voted for Reagan who were ignorant of where he would take the country. For them maybe it was wanting "clarity, optimism,...and accountability." But, I can tell you, the Republican Party saw Reagan as a chance to destroy our social programs and turn back the progress we were making on women's rights and affirmative action. They HATED seeing America becoming a land of equal opportunity.

these Reagan lovers. Reagan was quite overt in his seduction. Vote for me, and I'll put the WHITE MAN back on top. Blacks, women in their PLACE. He went to Philadelphia Mississippi to launch his campaign - known only as the place 3 civil rights workers were murdered for trying to help blacks register to vote.

So, Obama - how do you get those guys? Quite frankly, I don't WANT them.

on this. He appealed to the basest instincts in all of us. He took a people who had been working on social improvement and enlightenment and made it cool to be mean, base and cruel (or at least acceptable). After all, you gotta love yourself faults and all. No need to change.

Add to what you already mentioned his back burner approach to the "gay plague". Many many people died because of his Moral Majority attitude.

The sweet doddering old man that everyone loved was a mean, angry, hateful man who rivaled this crowd in his cruelty. After all where did all these current folks come from? Most of them passed through his office at some time or other.

I'm not feeling empowered by anyone else right now and that troubles me as a Democrat.

I don't feel empowered by any of these candidates, except the one deemed "unelectable".

I will hold my nose and vote D in the GE, but it is a vote for being locked in the basement as opposed to a vote for being shot in the head.

:hi:

For me, it goes back to his misunderstanding of and lack of appreciation for the movements of the 60s ~ either he doesn't get it or he's conning somebody. Either way, it's rekindled the mistrust I felt when he first dissed the boomers.

Obama is very dismissive of the social movements of the 1960's.
The 1960's brought about great change in this country. That

Reminds me of the young women who diss feminists ~ they just don't get what other women gave them.

I don't know. Some people think there's a backlash because their mothers weren't around, and kids had to fend for themselves too much.

God! why would he ever conjur up Reagan, when most of the country is suffering hardships we have seen for decades? Obama really did not chose wisely on this one.

They loved Reagan. Scary thought!

and win back those Reagan Democrats - is doing what exactly?

This is really getting to be worse than the Kerry hatred and I didn't think that was possible.

if you want to have an adult discussion about it let me says this:


I personally dont think Obama was showing appreciation for Reagan's policies but rather evaluating the sharp direction change that he took. He was also observing his campaign style by indicating that reagan was running a positive regular guy kind of campaign. Personally , i think all of this is true but i also disagree seriously with the policies reagan believed in. Regardless of the flawed ideas, i think reagan truly believed that his ideology would be good for the country in contrast to what i think conservatism is today which is a simply lip service to hide a more scurrilous intent.

If we are going to change things, i think the only way to do it is a truley unifying message. Divisivness is the practice of GWB.

he was talking about the mood of the country and the way the country was ready to go in a new direction in the 80 election, just as he feels they are now (and in a way they obviously weren't in 92 and 96).

There is nothing--nothing--in his statement that supports any Reaganite policy, even tangentially.

but them trash them for not saying exactly what they want to hear!

doesn't raise any concern for you?

It's nothing I can help with. But your "concern" over Sen Obama's remarks is duly noted.

But we can respectfully agree to disagree. :hi:

Thats what democracy is made of. I do think that democrats slamming each other is bad for dems in general though. It has been our bane for many years. Its has only been recently that the GOP resinded its policy of no negative cross-candidate comments in the primaries.

You don't have to be particularly adept at "parsing" to see that Sen Obama's comments are about the mood of the country at the time, not about Reagan's policies. I think--and I really believe this--that to argue that he somehow said something positive about Reagan is itself dishonest. Why? Because he merely said that Reagan tapped into *the people's* desire for clarity and optimism, not that Reagan's policies themselves were optimistic.

First, I totally admit that, like many things, it's about interpretation. I watch that clip and see one thing (and I am NOT anti-Obama...today was the first day that extreme concern entered into the picture), someone else watches and sees something else. We can't avoid that.

Second, I understand he didn't say he agrees with Reagan's policies, and I doubt he does.

What is disturbing is that he invoked Reagan at all, and my feeling is that he did so knowingly to appeal to Reaganites.

And that would not bother many people, but it does me. Just my opinion, but obviously I feel strongly...it has really unnerved me a bit to see this done before the primaries are done..

Someone posted somethat that made me think that, perhaps because he is a professor and may think and speak in ways I may not always resonate with, this may play a big part in my misunderstanding, if that's what it is.

And I concede that my interpretation may well be wrong.

the ugly sentiments he touched in whites. As I said upthread, Reagan was very artful and specific in his seduction. He appealed to racism, bigotry, sexism, homophobia.

How does Obama NOT deal with that? It's akin to Farrakhan calling Hitler to "great man". What is Obama's point here? Some argue he's reaching out to these Reagan Dems. Promising them WHAT? I don't have any interest in getting racist Reagan lovers into our party. They already have their own.

What Obama did was either naive, arrogant, ignorant, or perhaps a bit of all that. And it leaves a very bad feeling in the belly.

not about Reagan himself, except insofar as Reagan managed to use the nation's mood--the intense desire for change--to enact policies that you and I (and Obama, if his voting record is any indication) feel are reprehensible. Sen Obama doesn't call Reagan a "great man" and, as someone who did community organizing among Chicago's poorest residents in the mid 80s, Sen Obama was certainly well aware of the horrors of Reagan's economic policies.

Finally, I believe for a second that he's trying to reach out to Reagan Democrats. I think, quite simply, he was making an historical analogy about people being fed up.

Sometimes its better to focus on the good aspects of a person rather than pair up thier terrible failings as well. I dont mind him taking some time to reach out to conservatives. Personally, i feel that shrub spook about my ideals in a demeaning way. I want my candidate to be a moral and positive person and try to get as many people to listen as possible.


I realize that reagan was a douche, and that man people have much anxt about his policies, but very few people are all bad or all good. This goes for a racists, out of touch, spoiled, incompassionate, homophobe like reagan as well.

consider for a second wether we, as democrats, should be united in our hatred for republicans or united in a shared vision of progress and rights for all?


//can you hear that music in the background? :)

Reagan DID certainly change the trajectory of history. Obama did not say he was happy about the direction. But I don't see how anyone could possibly argue that Reagan was not a transformational figure.

Thats exzactly the point he was making and alot is being read into it. Just like the MLK statment that HRC made. Just because she may not have put enough emphasis on the proper names during an impromptu convsersation shuldnt be misconstrued.

This is just one of those hot button issues - just like Clinton's comment - and I have a hard time believing that in each case they didn't know what they were doing and who it would affect.

I know he didn't say he supported Reagan's policies, but he sure as hell didn't discredit them either. I heard him, I didn't just read the quotes. It had a very favorable tone. Well, I should clarify that that was my interpretation. But, damn, it's a strong, clear one.

Again, I am not one to diss and I am far from anti-Obama. This is my first entry into direct criticism, but it's because I feel so strongly about it.

I truly respect the fact that others may not, including Obama supporters. We can agree to disagree.

Posting this wasn't a way to diss him...this is the only place I can discuss politics with ANYONE, so I wanted to interact about it civilly. Thank you both for doing so.

I do thnk that obama was trying to reach across to conservatives and i, personally, am glad he did. Mccain seems to be a good possibility in the GE and he is somewhat centric himself. I would prefer almost any dem to Mccain so to beat him we need to attract some leaners. I can understand how, for some, this my be distastful. Feel free to keep posting, there are a large number of folks here that are willing to discuss instead of fight.

:hug:

The first button he pushed with me was ex-gay McClurkin. Then I read about his comment about "reforming" social security. And him appealing to the Reagan era as some golden age of politics pissed me off bigtime.

I'm a yellow dog dem, so I'm voting for our party's nominee. But, I doubt I would put the time, effort and Money into supporting Obama that I am with Hillary, and would certainly would John, should he become our nominee. And not that I'm that needed. Obama's followers will certainly be appealing and charming enough to bring people over to his side /sarcasm.

...of politics would also give. He talked about the political mood at the time, and how Reagan fit that mood.

His policies are very liberal, so why would you think he agrees with Reagan's policies? It's just foolish. He shows his disapproval of Reagan through his political positions.

I understand he didn't say he agrees with Reagan's policies, and I doubt he does.

What is disturbing is that he invoked Reagan at all, and my feeling is that he did so knowingly to appeal to Reaganites.

And that would not bother many people, but it does me. Just my opinion, but obviously I feel strongly...it has really unnerved me a bit to see this done before the primaries are done..

And, the fact that he is a professor and may think and speak in ways I may not always resonate with may play a big part in my misunderstanding, if that's what it is.

And I concede that my interpretation may well be wrong.

That's why I posted, for a post like yours to help me possibly see this in a different light.

and can't quite understand the reaction on here. I've been far more troubled by the history, and the comments of another candidate whom I definitely do not want in the WH (not Edwards).

I understood his analogy - I've also read up on Obama, probably far more than most people, except for some that back him. I understand what he was saying, and either a lot of people don't, or a lot of people are pretending not to.

already made up your mind and have taken this opportunity to 'show your disapproval', letting all of us know that you've heard all sides, and know what's going on. I don't know what that says about your candor or motives.

I have the utmost respect for you, babylonsister.

I just posted this above in response to Effie, and she mentioned it being similar to the blowback of Clinton's MLK comment.


"This is just one of those hot button issues - just like Clinton's comment - and I have a hard time believing that in each case they didn't know what they were doing and who it would affect.

I know he didn't say he supported Reagan's policies, but he sure as hell didn't discredit them either. I heard him, I didn't just read the quotes. It had a very favorable tone. Well, I should clarify that that was my interpretation. But, damn, it's a strong, clear one.

Again, I am not one to diss and I am far from anti-Obama. This is my first entry into direct criticism, but it's because I feel so strongly about it.

I truly respect the fact that others may not, including Obama supporters. We can agree to disagree.

Posting this wasn't a way to diss him...this is the only place I can discuss politics with ANYONE, so I wanted to interact about it civilly. Thank you both for doing so."

I think that most everyone has an opinion as this point and thats a good thing. His question was reasonable as was his delivery.

People read and interpret things differently, thats why discussion is good. Acrimony is not.

Thank you.

From that page alone and the beginning of page 32:

"That Reagan's message found such a receptive audience spoke not only to his skills as a communicator; it also spoke to the failures of liberal government, during a period of economic stagnation, to give middle-class voters any sense that it was fighting for them. For the fact was government at every level had become to cavalier about spending taxpayer money. Too often bureaucracies were oblivious to the cost of their mandates. A lot of liberal rhetoric did seem to value rights and entitlements over duties and responsibilities. Reagan may have exagerated the sins of the welfare state, and certainly liberals were right to complain that his domestic policies tilted heavily toward elites, with corporate raiders making tidy profits throughout the eighties while unions were busted and the income for the average working stiff flatlined.

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."


Pages 156-57

"The conservative revolution Reagan helped usher in gained traction because Reagan's central insight--that the liberal welfare state had grown complacent and overly bureaucratic, with Democratic policy makers more obsessed with slicing the economic pie than with growing he pie--contained a good deal of truth."

But i would say that these statments may be true.


Reagan was the last hope for traditional conservatives. He, in the end, veered into social conservatism when the economic conservative policies failed. The republican party hasnt been the same since. It now seems to be run by mostly the social conservatives(american taliban). I think ron paul is pretty close to the original conservative philosophy.

Remember supply side economics and the aptly named Laffer curve?

His supply side economic policies which consisted of tax cuts, WITHOUT MUCH SPENDING REDUCTION, created transformational deficits that we'll be paying off for the rest of our lives.

Social security taxes increased, which don't touch the rich, but with the need to pay down Raygun's deficit and Shrub's, social security, medicare and nursing home medicare will be cut dramatically.

Then there was "arms for hostages" and "Iran-Contra."

Don't forget ketchup on the fries being counted as a vegetable for poor kids' school lunches.

Yeah, Raygun was REALLY transformational.

Oh, and he got all those welfare queens in their Cadillacs, too, you betcha.

And he wasn't alone.

Read Paul Tsongas' "The Road From Here" and his speech to Americans for Democratic Action in 1980.

Read Gary Hart's book "A New Democracy".

Read Bill Clinton's 1991-92 campaign speeches.

I have read the Reagan remark. I am also old enough to remember Ronald Reagan. I will not support Obama with any donations ever. It comes close to keeping me home from the voting booth if Obama is the nominee.

I am also not a Hillary Clinton supporter but it makes me feel much better about her.

Hillary will win anyways, right?

I hope you actually listened to Obama entire interview.

Wouldn't want you just deciding on what you think your heard, right?

This was a calculated message for the so called Reagan Democrats many of whom, at least those I know are deceased or living in a shit hole nursing home.

Ronald Reagan had no redeeming qualities, he was as much a traitor as the current resident.

I have read two of Mr. Obama's books and was impressed. I will continue to support and my primary vote goes to John Edwards. Mr. Obama tempted, me no more. Mr. Obama's statement was and is jingoistic. Holding my nose I will probably vote for the more closeted Democratic neo-con if she makes it out of the primary.

This is the first time I've started a thread about something that involves another candidate, and it was hard for me to do so...I try to mind my own business basically. But, as I've said repeatedly, I'm only doing so because I feel so strongly and want to "talk it out": asking if age might be a factor, for example. In hindsight I see my wording was strong, but when we liberals are passionate, it's hard to contain.

There have been several responses which may help me possibly try to look at this differently, and that's what I consider honest discussion. I'm not backtracking from my original post...I still have a bad taste in my mouth about MY INTERPRETATION of what I saw and heard. Again, I concede it is my interpretation but NOT as an anti-Obama person. That's what the Obama people should try to understand here.

I am not out to attack Obama, at all, nor his supporters. But it's obvious that we all have various issues that REALLY hit us hard, yet these same issues are a "nothing" to others. Guess that's why we're the "big tent" party and why DU is insane. I mean no disrespect - honestly - but as a citizen during primary season, when something this intense comes along, and this is the only place I can interact, I wanted to put this out there for discussion. No hidden agenda or motive.

on DU. All it takes is for their candidate to say something favorable about Reagan and they've all come out of the woodwork.

Listen, defenders of Reagan and Obama, be very careful of giving over your good sense to a candidate. He IS just a politician, not a god.

nt

i would warn you to be careful of falling into the trap of black and white vision. It didnt serve conservatives well in recent affairs.

You seem to be suggesting that I look at the good part of Reagan---no one is ALL bad. If you lived to see the progress we made in the 70s, you would well appreciate the destruction of the Reagan administration.