| Big Govt | Breitbart to AG Holder: Investigate ACORN or We’ll Release More Tapes Just Before 2010 Election |
0 |
| Politico | 0 | |
| Ras. Reports | 0 | |
| Patterico | L.A. Times Columnist Uncritically Quoted Star of Latest ACORN Video |
0 |
| ABC News | Major Hasan’s E-Mail: ‘I Can’t Wait to Join You’ in Afterlife |
0 |
Audacity of Truth
Uh oh: Barack Obama praises Ronald Reagan over Bill Clinton
Via Ben Smith at The Politico:
Obama, in his interview with the Reno Gazette-Journal’s editorial board, made the case that his movement is as much about a national moment as about him as a “singular” individual, and he drew a rather odd analogy for a Democrat: Ronald Reagan.
“Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not, and a way that Bill Clinton did not,” he said, describing Reagan as appealing to a sentiment that, “We want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.”
As expected, the left is very unhappy with this development.
Senator, I admired Ronald Reagan, I’ve read about Ronald Reagan, Ronald Reagan was a hero of mine. Senator, you’re no Ronald Reagan.
Yeah, ok, I know – not terribly original, but fitting all the same, I think.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
10 Responses to “Uh oh: Barack Obama praises Ronald Reagan over Bill Clinton”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
Hey, he’s not even Jimma Carter!
Heh, heh.
I suspect that Barack Obama is using Ronald Reagan as dead fish to beat over B.j. and Mrs. Clinton’s heads Mrs.Clinton has billed herself as as agent of change. Omama is showing that B.J. Clinton was not an agent of change, and therefore a third Clinton adminstration would not result in change either.
It does have the left riled.
Obama is a young guy, and probably figures “what have I got to lose?” Many Presidents ran twice for their party’s nomination.
People, TThat was the SMARTEST thing Obama has said / done, in this campaign. He basically stated that Clinton is not a candidate for change, because her husband wasn’t even a candidate for change, so why put them back in the White House ?
Very shrewd on Obama’s part.
History has rendered its judgement on Reagan’s presidency as one of the greatest in our history (and in my opinion, the greatest of the 20th century). The left will never admit its mistakes, even the ones of biblical proportions. Therefore, the smarter ones on the left (no, not you, Kos) will do their best to somehow associate themselves with Reagan’s success and hope some of it rubs off on them – even if they fought tooth-and-nail against every one of his initiatives. I seethe inside every time I see one of these leftists mouthing faux praise for a man they hated when he was alive.
That said, Fat Tone is right. It’s shrewd. Since everyone knows Reagan was optimistic, successful, and right, you’re supposed to conclude the same thing about Obama.
I’d love to see someone ask him, “Senator, since you’re praising Reagan, do you plan on cutting taxes, increasing military strength, and forcefully rolling back islamofascism using all means necessary?”
Give me a break. Here it is in a nutshell: Barack Obama talks about being an agent of change, but he’s full of it. When it comes to needing endorsements, he’s the same kind of politician as the rest. He did a little “pandering” in order to get an endorsement from a conservative newspaper (and he got it, by the way).
Ronald Reagan’s term wasn’t optimistic for the vast majority of the American people. Wake up. He did the same thing as the Bushwhacker: Took care of his rich friends. Tax cuts for the rich. Trickle down theory. Sound familiar? Didn’t trickle then and it isn’t trickling now either.
As for Barack Obama, I’m a liberal Democrat and I’m not the least bit interested in supporting him at this juncture. He’ll have to set his admiration sites a lot higher than Ronald Reagan before I’ll do that.
Sorry Deb. There are opinions and then there are black and white facts.
EVERY quintile had real income improvement between 1982 and 1989 (the effective years of Reagan’s policies). That means the bottom fifth, the second from the bottom, the third from the bottom, etc all had real improvement in their standard of living.
If you break it down by race even. African Americans had very significant gains during those years as a population. Not minor. It’s ok to “feel” how you “feel” but it’s really not ok to distort the record. It’s called lying.
The reason why every group had real and large improvements is because of the tax cut policies which allowed the private sector to once again flourish. JFK, Reagan and Bush proved with their policies the theory has good results. When the private sector flourishes (are you against that?) jobs are created and the unemployment rate goes down and revenues into the government increase dramatically.
From 1981-1989 the revenues into the government (because of economic growth) almost doubled from 550 BILLION dollars to 990 Billion dollars. At the same time there was less dependency on the government because every group of the population had real improvement to their standard of living.
These are not debatable. These are in statistics in black in white and easy to look up. It would only be negligence on your part to continue with the same tired rhetoric.
Laziness and negligence is not a failure on anyone elses part but yours.
Sorry for the tone but you need a little tough love rhetoric here. I know the deal. We’ve seen it at this site too many times. The liberal Democrat will get mad and continue the negligence….. Will you?
Didn’t RR beat Mondull in a landslide in 1984?? RR won 49 outta 50 states?? You would think that a “vast majority” of Americans would have voted RR out of office if the above statement was even remotely true. Seems to me that the American people were very optimistic, that is why Ronald Reagan won the presidency a 2nd time in a landslide no less. – Lorica
Seems like every 4 years the liberal left feels the need to drive a stake through RONALDUS MAXIMUS. They’re terrified out of their minds that another amiable, like minded politician may rise to unite the American citizenry.
