The "excesses of the '60s and '70s."

So Obama thinks that Reagan's election was a response to the "excesses of the '60s and '70s."

Just what "excesses" was Obama referring to?

Was it the assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Medgar Evers, James Cheney, Michael Schwermer, Andy Goodman and the countless other martyrs to the cause of civil rights and justice of that era? Was it the illegal, unwinnable, purposeless and endless War in Viet Nam? Was it the killing of innocent students in the war protest at Kent State? Was it the illegal surveillance of peace activists including no less than John Lennon? Was it the Watergate burglary and the subsequent cover-up?

Many or, depending on your opinion, all of these crimes were committed by right-wing extremists or their agents. All of these crimes were motivated by hatred, prejudice and disrespect for the rule of law and the rights of others. They usurped a vibrant, democratic movement and replaced it with the politics of fear and despair. Reagan's election was not a response to these crimes although they were the true excesses of the '60s and '70s. It was merely the continuation of them by "legal" means.

Reagan's inauguration signaled the end of the era of change that Jimmy Carter's administration promised to begin. Reagan's removal of the solar panels that Carter had placed on the roof of the White House symbolically aborted the birth of environmentalism as government policy. Similarly, Reagan's reduction in the funding for social reform ended the dream of the Great Society. Reagan made it impossible for millions of disabled Americans, particularly mentally ill Americans, to obtain Social Security benefits and eventually forced them to sleep in cardboard boxes in the coldest of winter in back alleys and under the bridges of America. Reagan began the assault on Social Security. Reagan fomented wars in Central America resulting in a flood of Central American refugees across into Mexico and the U.S. Reagan began the bankrupting of our treasury with his borrow and spend economic strategy. Reagan attacked unions and set off the downward spiral of American wages. Reagan introduced the idea of free trade which led to the exodus of American manufacturing jobs and the downfall of the American working class. Reagan was a colossal mistake. He was the beginning of the end of our democracy and our country. He brought us Bush.

Obama is a moving orator, but he is not ready to be president of the United States. It isn't his chronological age that is a problem. It is his lack of knowledge about the past of America. It is his lack of humility and appreciation for the horrible price that heroic Americans had paid for two centuries to keep the American dream alive. Obama owes an apology to all the heroes of the '60s and '70s. They made it possible for him to live the life he enjoys.

Reagan was no hero. He came to office, not on a wave of hope and optimism, but on a tsunami of crime and fear.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/18/us/politics/18edwards.html?ex=1358312400&en=23220b3052308da2&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0503-22.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medgar_Evers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_Civil_Rights_Workers_Murders
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal

What other American city has seen this?? My Dad was a Steelworker fortunately a few years from retirement. I will never forgive what Reagan did to my city.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9802E6DB1E39F934A35757C0A965948260

"Greed is Good."

the 60's and 70's had a 'save the world' momentum to them

the 80's were 'me first'.

Carter was trying to curb our excesses - our wasteful energy consumption and consumerism. It's why he was seen as such a failure. No body wants a Pessimist in the White House. Carter was big downer, a buzz kill.

The 1980's were about greed - heck, I don't think that's changed, if anything it's gotten worse. If it feels good, buy it. Bigger house, bigger car, bigger credit limit...

Fuck Reagan until his horse squeals.

in Afghanistan in their war against the Soviet Union ... those freedom fighters who later became Al Qaeda?

billions of dollars funneled to radicals to attack civilian targets - directly a result of Reagan's policies

Jimmy Carter funded and founded the Taliban in June of 1975 at the behest of Zibigniew Berezinski, as a temptation for the USSR to get bogged down in the area in a war that couldn't be won. The Taliban did not arise out of the soviet war; it was funded BEFORE the soviets got there.

Al Quaeda was funded and founded by the CIA for covert "wet work".

The Northern Alliance was funded by the USA (and Russia, oddly enough) too, in order to reign in the excesses of the Taliban...

It's called "blowback."

Unintended consequences, in any event.

To found the Taliban three years before the PDPA even took power in Afghanistan, and a year and a half before he himself was elected President.

1979. July of 1979 was the date of the directive signed by carter. NOT December, please note; the "official" history is flat wrong. The British KMS and the Israelis had a hand in training these folks, too, and that started even earlier.

First one trains the insurgents, then one works at counter-insurgency when the insurgents decide who the enemy really is, and then......

That was all.
Carter had a plan for the country to become energy independent. It involved work. Reagan spun fairy tales and appealed to people who didn't want to face hard facts. Now the facts are harder and we have to work harder to overcome the unreal economy these jokers have created.

Did nothing to bring about a cure for AIDs and left them to die in order to get rid of it.

Gave amnesty to nearly 3 million illegals to help his business clients have cheaper labor. (In my view he approaved slavery again)

He should have made research on AIDS a top priority. People commonly thought it was a disease that only affected gays. It was sheer meanness.

Finding the answer will give us great insight into who he is and what he truly believes and stands for. It sounds like he agrees with the basic DLC frame of the 60's and 70's except he seems to be more negative toward that era than someone like Bill Clinton.

view them in a less than positive light.

I do think that you really had to be there to see it as I do, or as Bill can.
I don't fault those who see it differently.

It was a time of great extreems- Of dramatic change, and excesses- good and bad.
Everyones perspective is influenced by their experiences. For Obama, coming to maturity in the Nixon/Ford/Carter era, his view would be very different than my own. Not 'right'- not 'wrong' simply different. Is there no room for that?

I have yet to hear anyone show that Obama approves of Reagan's politics- I hear admiration for the way Reagan was able to "lead"-
not for the path that he took the country ON. Big difference.

I can admire the precision with which a classical piece of music is constructed, yet really dislike the sound of it.

peace~

When you said Obama is a moving orator....I thought, yeah, his speeches move from barely left to right wing neocon. lol!

I do not believe that we know the full story behind the assassinations of the Kennedys. History has shown that such assassinations are usually just another form of a power struggle. It makes no difference because the Kennedy assassinations threw the Democratic Party and trust in our system into chaos. And the anxiety and disorganization in the Democratic Party that those events caused allowed the extreme right-wing to fill a void. Certainly, there is no dispute that the other assassinations and killings were the acts of right-wing fanatics.

I suggest you read Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine. Social and political upheaval is fertile ground for extremism. Democracy like most cooperative social constructs requires trust among the participating parties. Any upheaval feeds fear, anxiety and distrusts. Thus right-wing fanatics have learned to capitalize on and, yes, perpetrate, social unrest in order to gain control.

That is why it is so important that our government be secure and peaceful. We have become a warring nation. It is certainly not all the fault of Republicans. LBJ did his part. But we need to end it. Sitting down with the Republicans and negotiating piecemeal solutions to problems will not bring peace to our nation. We need to actually prosecute those who violate our laws -- including those in the Bush administration who have violated civil rights and destroyed evidence and started an illegal war without adequate evidence.

shot by National Guardsmen sent in after 4 days of riots. Those guardsmen were under trained and were not sent in with
directions to kill people. The 3 civil rights activists were killed by some really bad people in Missisipi, really bad racists. Racists back then were in both parties and many were in the Democratic party.

haven to these criminals. The shooting at Kent State was completely unwarranted as was our involvement in the Viet Name War. It was the hate in James Earl Ray that assassinated Martin Luther King, not the thief, unless you are suggesting he was paid to do it.

I went to high school in Mobile, Alabama and went home to Mobile for college vacations. If you had lived in the south at that time, you would not need to ask that question.

i.e - don't be ashamed of your hate - let it out - it's good for you!

his Obamites cannot discern fact from fiction.

It seems to me he panders for this reason. I could be wrong.

with Reagan tapping into people wanting "clarity, optimism,...and accountability," I tend to think Obama meant spending on social programs. He may have meant a more transparent government too as a response to Watergate (?) Of course Reagan was secretive too, so if people wanted a scandal-free government, they didn't get it. The Iran-Contra Scandal uncovered secret military operations under Reagan.

he mentioned the liberals being more into entitlements than responsibilities...
That would also fit the "social security is in crisis" meme

In the 60's my Mother had an operation to remove a tumor from her reproductive system. She pleaded with the doctor to give her a hysterectomy. He told her no, that she was still a young woman (at 35 divorced with a 16 year old!) and might still want babies someday. She died 13 painful years later after having her third operation for cancer.

Because of the womens movement and the knowledge that became readily available to us because of it, when my doctor discovered pre-cancerous cells in a routine pap smear there was no question of letting me have a complete hysterectomy. Ten years later I'm alive and never had any cancer.

My body, my decision, saved my life. Could've saved hers. Thank god for the 60's

He speaks with admiration of Reagan, says the Republicans were the party of ideas for 10-15 years, that people were ready after the excesses of the 60' and 70's. He says he didn't 'come of age in during the battles of the 60's and is not so invested in them', that he is not anti-war and his frame of reference is not Vietnam, that it's a 'generational' thing', and (his philosophy, campaign) isn't like 'some 70's LOVE-IN'. He disparages Baby Boomers and refers to us and the era as if we are now old and irrelevant.

That does it for me. Done.

nt

was killed, many of the over the top excesses had yet to come.

It is not only unfair to link the Civil Rights movement with the "excesses" of the '60's and 70's- it is disingenuous.

People are getting so bent out of shape about everything- Likely there are those, coming of age in this time, who will look back and speak of this much differently than we would.

Obama has never claimed to not be invested in the cause of Civil Rights- but I believe you know that.

:(

That's what the battles of the 60's were about, and later the war.

He linked it all together in his remarks, the battles of the 60's, the 'excesses' of the 60's, the 70's....not me. He mushed it all together and distanced himself from it, even disparaged the era, the people who did come of age then.

So, yes, I was/am 'bent out of shape' about it.

It was uncalled for and insulting.

I think the "excesses" they referred to was the sex and drugs and rock and roll they so deeply resented because they weren't getting any-think "Footloose" with anyone under thirty as Kevin Bacon and Ronny and company as a bunch of hypocritical moral prigs making judgements from their dotage....

they don't come close to matching the REAL excesses of the Bush regime, everything from bankrupting the country to illegally invading and occupying sovereign nations to ignoring the Constitution . . .

You seem to act like we discuss about aliens on another planet. Bush and his election stealing wouldn't have been possible without Reagan who set up EVERYTHING bad bush accomplished. You may as well say "Whatever the perceived "family values' of the Bush regime, no skin of my nose.
It's a continuum - and you fail to see it - that's the problem.

nt

hope...change...hope...change...hope...change...hope...change.
get the BAM...forget the words, dare to hope for change. reagan was great, but not really...he ushered in positive change on the right trajectory when the country was depressed and defeated anyway. so reagan's change was bad...who cares about that...it's the past! he united the country and delivered us from the excesses and that's what we thought we needed. so what if we were wrong...those excesses were making us sooooo depressed and defeated. we needed hope and change then too.
i want to have a beer with obama because his use of rw talking points gives me hope...for change. he wants to unite with republicans who've consistently fucked us for years...perhaps he can BAM them too with his message of hope and change. i've heard that if he touches you, you get the BAM, then you can pass it on to others. maybe he can BAM bush and cheney and get them on board with hope and change too.
:sarcasm:

:applause:

It sounds almost like Obama is trying to project his own mispent youth onto an earlier generation.

An earlier generation that had made real progress, had real heros, and had fought hard against all the Reagan setbacks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange

It seems like Obama doesn't realize that he would not be senator from Illinois if there had been no civil rights movement and no person of color had ever taken that step into a newly integrated classroom.

His Mom sounds like a real '60s type even though she was a couple of years too old to be a boomer technically. Do you suppose that he has serious unresolved issues with her and her life?

I don't doubt it. Not would I doubt any politician exploiting that.

It has also been suggested that there is a generational war between the earlier baby boomers and those born after, say, 1960, particularly those born in the mid'60s to 1970.

I think that the berzerk Clinton-hatred evidenced by some Republicans and younger Democrats is a symptom.

I think that Obama is exploiting both the cultural and demographic splits, which is very unfortunate in my estimation. I see the country going through some tough economic times, and we will need all the unity we can get.

Your use of the words "It's been suggested" suggests to me that you haven't lived here all your life. Two of my roommates are non-citizens and they see things very differently from me.

But more than a few non-citizens have remarked that I see things as though I wasn't.

They've been working to reverse any sixties ideas and policies and programs that have improved life for most Americans. Eight years of Reagan did a lot of the job, and now with eight years of bush, even more has been accomplished to that end. These folks also bad-mouth sixties ideals every chance they get, they revise history when they can. They want to wipe it away completely. They've had much success toward that end, which is giving them the opportunity--and they also have the power--to work on their other major goal: to reverse all the good things that FDR did to make Americans' lives better.

and that was spear headed by his hand picked soon to be VP, George H. W. Bush, another one of Obama's inspirational mentors. I wonder if Obama is even aware that interfering with the release of the hostages when the Carter administration was trying to negotiate their release, was a blatant act of Treason. When I heard his statement the first thing I wondered was who taught him history, and how much independent reading of history and politics has he done? He seems to be either conveniently naive of the darker moments in the careers of some of his inspirational republican political mentors, or he is a shameless pandering politician confused of which party his ideology is best aligned.

I fear he will take the party farther right, than Hillary might be inclined. The only impression I have of him and his campaign, is how an empty rhetoric filled sack of emotive energy can be taken seriously by anyone who has followed politics. Any hope of the party respecting the views of left of center politics, I fear, will not be realized if he is the leader.

Disclaimer for anyone who thinks this is from the Clinton camp, my vote escapes her as well.

edit: correction of improper pronoun

Otherwise, this is pure speculation as to what he meant and partisans on both sides are going to read into it and embroider into it whatever they want.

he believe the country was ready for reagan's "change."