http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120070269576401879.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
When are you folks going to learn? When the WSJ op-ed pages likes something, isn't that a good sign to take the opposite point of view?
Let me make one thing perfectly clear: I did not like Ronald Reagan. I voted against him twice. I'd rate his presidency as Fair-Minus. And I'd vote for Carter and Mondale again without question. But Ronald Reagan's presidency was not George W. Bush's, which is absolutely the worst in U.S. history by any measure you care to use. Bill Clinton I'd give a Good-Plus to Excellent-Minus.
I find it amusing and certainly neither shocking nor surprising that Obama not only identifies more with Reagan than with Bill Clinton, but also that Obama ignores the fews positives to the Reagan presidency, opting instead for a comparison based on one of the silliest aspects of the Reagan presidency, the "morning in America" shtick.
Reagan's rheortic including the "change" crap was loathesome. Not all of his actions were bad. Some were quite good, though I am not arguing on Reagan's behalf. Everything every blogger has written against the guy is absolutely right. I am arguing that Obama's an idiot or perhaps his internal polling is showing him a loss in South Carolina. Some of the good of Reagan's presidency:
1) End of high-inflation
2) Selection of J. Baker, Regan and Shultz as cabinet secretaries
3) Rapproachment with Gorbachev
4) Rapproachment with Tip O'Neill
5) Sensible reaction to Marine tragedy in Lebanon
6) Selection of C. Everett Koop as Surgeon General
7) Support for C. Everett Koop as Surgeon General when the fundie Koop turned out to be an AIDS and SAFE-SEX dove and a TOBACCO hawk
8) Support for George Shultz when Shultz defied adminstration philosophy and never wavered off his pro-legalizatin of drugs stance
9) Selection of Bruce Fein as Solicitor General
10) Selection of Paul Craig Roberts as Assistant U.S. Treasury Secretary
11) Selection of Robert Sweet to Federal Bench
But does Obama praise Reagan for any of that stuff? Of course, not. Obama probably hasn't even heard of any of that, let alone care. No, Obama compares himself to Reagan in terms of "personality." That the richest of all. Reagan was a doddering old fool and did more damage than good, but he did have a fairly opimistic and pleasant personality. Obama's a petulant cry-baby.
I think Obama should compare himself favorbly to Ghandi and Einstein next. How about Pablo Picasso? Jerry Rice? Jonas Salk? William Shakespeare? Plato? Arrogant and dumb as box of rocks. Doesn't the USA have a President like that right now?
Kelso's Nuts love you
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
could you imagine being in the same room when the Pope, waxing philosophical, was surprised to hear Reagan snoring.
Obama would stay awake and pray with the Pope, he might even convert before, of course, selling him a car.
I honestly think it is time...to consider changing sides Kelso.
Obama is sure to lose consecutive Primaries the racial politics did their job. The lines have been drawn.
Obama is officially uppity. At least to 'cracker' party dems.
Hillary just as intimidating to the sensibilities of aforementioned 'crackers' but a lot more digestable.
BTW He is the underdog you always go with the underdog-right?
In my work, it doesn't matter. However I can beat the price, I do.
In life, yes, because I've been there myself. I root for the defense in criminal trials, for example.
Obama's not an underdog in the sense that Kucinich is. He's a +$2.10 underdog in the betting, which is about right, maybe he should even be a longer price with MI and NV delegates now in the bag for her.
And as the son of diplomat father and blue-blood mother he is WAY less of a life underdog than Kucinich or me or you. Grow up like that and life seems pretty "post-racial," si o no?
I'm never going to convince you. You are never going to convince me. Look, if this were Scott or Watt or Barbara Lee instead of Obama, we wouldn't be having this disagreement. You and I would be with the same candidate.
I don't think that the Clintons have played racial politics at all. Obama, if anybody, has. In kind of a reverse way to prove his bonafides to Whites. So, I don't mean this recent dust-up. I mean his constant whining about "personal responsibility". And THAT is something I know you can read in neon or braille.
I just noticed that "cracker" thing. If preferring Clinton to Obama makes me a "cracker," I don't have a problem with that. I'll wear the T-shirt if you like. It would be the first time I've been called that and it would be kind of fun in a way.
If having to prefer a right-wing Democrat whose Senate mentor is Joe Lieberman who has specifically said that Democrats "need to find Jesus" (go to Katha Pollitt archives at thenation.com) whose candidacy is based upon collaborating with Republicans and who has Donny McClurkin representing him in SC is what's required of me to avoid the appellation "cracker," I'll take the "cracker" label, thanks.
I'm not saying that HRC is Emma Goldman or Barbara Jordan, but I do believe she's the best candidate in the race.
No, I don't think that Obama is "uppity." I think his mouth is writing checks his ass can't cash.
Cracker were tradirionally very right wing. Hillary has swayed so far to the center, along with Ba, it is just a matter of who can get the most Republican votes come November.
I thought it was very politicians job to write checks their ass can't cash
The American people always pay.
Ronald Fucking Reagan?
Do you think Obama knows Reagan was Governor of California, and more importantly, do you think he knows what Reagan did, specifically to blacks, while Gov. of CA?
Dave: We probably agree 90% of the issues facing the world today and much more in common than not. It's no fun arguing with you over which centrist is better when we both lean left. I hope you understand why I think that "YES WE CAN" sounds vacuous while HRC's "Brady Bond" plan to forestall the foreclosure crisis sounds a lot better. I know I understand why you feel it's all irrelvant so why not have someone "different" with whom you identify. I counter with "well, Dave, how much fun has it been for you to have Obama lecture you about your own problems being the result of a lack of 'personal responsibility.'" And you counter with "given your obvious anti-war, anti-death penalty, anti-corporatist stance, how can you support her so vigorously?" And so on....
To quote Jorge Luis Borges speaking about the Falklands War, our argument is like two bald men fighting over a comb.
Fairlane: While I think Obama is possibly bright but very limited in his intellectual curiosity, sadly I'm sure he knows Reagan was Governor of California and exactly what Reagan's position on the "Negro Problem" was. Moreover, I think that if you asked him what he DISLIKED most about Ronald Reagan it would not be his support for the dirty wars in Central America, nor his CIA's involvement in the "careers" of Messrs Ross, Barnes and Wells, nor Reagan's starting his campaign in Philadelphia, MS, nor Reagan's laying a wreath on the graves of fallen SS men (although I do give Obama credit for having a subordinate say that his "people" have been guilty in instigating phantom fights with Jews)...no, what Obama probably like LEAST about the Reagan presidency is that Reagan and Tip O'Neill were able to negotiate together the maintainance of AFDC.
With a gun to my head, I can't swear that Obama is more "liberal" than Ronald Reagan was.
I understand where you are coming from Kelso but I see your posts on Obama and the witty breakdowns and they irk me it aint personal its the power of your pen i respect and that.
true we do agree on 91.5% of the issues.
I am starting to lean toward fuedal states reliant on the talented ten percent..I mean 25%.
I can't help it kelso
Dave: You don't have to help it. It's a hell of a compliment to me that you think I write well enough and have enough influence that it pisses you off when I turn that writing against Obama.
I take none of it personally. In fact, I'm also flattered by your entreaties to "switch sides." And I know that there are going to be many issues way more controversial than Clinton versus Obama on which you and I will be two of a handful of lonely voices in a wilderness with the rest of the world against us.
Post a Comment