Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson
Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
Even that article says Obama was "describing Reagan as appealing to a sentiment that, "We want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism nad entrepreneurship that had been missing.""....
In examining the qualities of a leader, one could argue that Reagan communicated an ideology of optimism and faith in the American experience.
Obama can certainly point to that ideology while still contrasting himself to the policies through which Reagan enacted that vision.
Reagan's legacy was that of the great communicator...a leader with a vision for America that inspired prosperity on the economic front, and projected America onto the world stage in a manner that equally weighed the balance between diplomacy and military force.
Granted, there are some blemishes on Reagan's record, and he was in no way a perfect President...but there is a romanticism to Reagan as a leader, and Obama is attempting to capture that dynamic in his attempt to cross party lines and attract independents and even Republicans...something Hillary will be unable to do as the more polarizing of the two candidates.
Bravo!
End of thread.
What we don't need is pandering, and a democrat saying something good about Reagan is pandering.
(I'm not talking here about he legitimate ability to see the good in Reagan, I'm talking about the exploitive faux-bi-partisanship to get Republican support, not unlike the way Reagan himself constantly quoted JFK to make himself seem less a right-wing radical, or the way Bush was happy to use the word 'compassionate' for himself and say various things pandering to popular liberal causes to increase his appeal to moderates. Remember *candidate* Bush on the need for a 'humble foreign policy' and 'integrity in government'?).
This is an example of Obama coming across as a 'phony', lacking in real values - and his playing 'the game' well.
The problem is, it's a consensus building on sand - it's not actually resolving the differences and the issues, it's simply talking about agreeing in principle. That paves the way for a prolonging of the issues remaining unresolved, and for the real policies to be done behind closed doors without the disucssion that makes them more democratically resolved, much as Reagan himself would use the frag and meaningless phrases about 'morning in America' while actually piling up the debt and funding death squads in Central America.
I don't see that as a good thing for our country, I see it as an example of the exact sort of infantile political culture that has led our nation downhill, as the candidates who actually deal with the tough issues are losing and those who put a smile and nothing more on the issues are rewarded.
People I think well of are jumping on the Barack wagon, and that's the best thing I can say about him so far. I *hope* he's got the substance they think he has, for all our sakes.
All I see so far is a cult of personality who is far too willing to compromise for the gains of 'inclusion'. Does he have an agenda beyond winning power? I'm not clear on that.
Whenever we elect the 'blank slate' candidate who is not offensive because everyone fills in the blanks on who they want him to be, the nation sets itself up for disappointment.
I don't think that's what we need right now, and I'd rather someone who stands for the values I think we need were winning than someone who simply 'plays the game' and may well be about as corporate-friendly as Bill Clinton, who was part of NAFTA, the Telecommunications Act, and other measures arguably not in the public interest.
I'm also concerned whether Obama can stand up to the right as we need. An Al Gore could, a Dennis Kucinich could. We don't need another Jimmy Carter situation.
When the Republicans led the nation to ruin in the 1920s, a great president who did a lot of good was elected, FDR. When the Republicans led the nation to a bad place in the 1970's, the nation elected Jimmy Carter, who was far less effective, and unfortunately paved the way for Republicans to return - and begin the downfall for the nation yet again, culminating in the disaster of GWB, and the nation ready for a backlash.
I'd like to see an FDR, not a Carter, elected. I'm unsure which Obama is, but I don't see him saying much to get excited about yet.