Obama criticized for Reagan reference

Source: CNN



Read more: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/01/18/obama-criticized-for-reagan-reference/

---

https://www.johnedwards.com/action/contribute/form/

That was precisely Obama's point, which effectively devalues him as a talking point for the Rethugs. Well done, Obama!

:headbang:
rocknation

BTW-why do you hate America? Why do you hate women? Why do you support terrorism? If you aren't for HRC then you must be FOR Al Qaeda

among other things...so start buying, LOL!

:rofl:
rocknation

not change...that word is to innocuous.

I've listened to it and it certainly did not sound like a critique to me.
:eyes:

"Reagan's dead! Good!"

Too bad he died of natural causes and not executed for treason over the Arms for Hostages deal.

I still like Nancy though. She has that vacant (Wha? Who, me? I just spend the money.) appeal that Laura Bush pulls off so well.

How much do you suppose THAT hairdo cost????? :shrug:

and the implication that they adore St. Ronnie of the Magical Hope & Optimism. :eyes:

Ronnie and his friends (the shrubs and all, and even many Democrats we thought were on our side!) are absolutely fucking goddamned evil! WRongy Raygun is alive and well today in our fucked up government! I take a look at those fucking pictures of that inflated bastard and I WANT TO HURL!!!

doesn't allow thoughtful discussion of issues - does everything have to be a bumper sticker slogan? I think it is shallow for Democrats to jump all over Obama for this. And Edwards did a nice straw man argument there. Obama never said he agreed with what Reagan did - in fact he said he disagreed with Reagan - what he did say is that Reagan was successful because people wanted change and Reagan offered it - and that is absolutely true. If we are going to slam politicians for thoughtfully discussing issues just because they say something that is not negative about one of our bogeymen we are in big trouble as a party, imo. I think less of Edwards for trying to make political hay out of this. It is beneath him and us.

People wanted a change, and they didn't examine the policies that they were voting for with Ronnie. And Ronnie was a disaster for this country.

Obama needs to talk less about change -and more about his policy proposals.

People wanted change in 1980. Reagan offered that and that is why he got elected. That is a fact. People want change now and if the Democrats can't articulate real change they will not get elected. That is another fact. Obama is talking about policy, you are just not listening. Slamming him because he mentioned the name of Reagan in a factual way is not going to help Democrats articulate the change that is needed. And what good does it do to fight the policy battles of the 1980s over again? Talk about a losing strategy.

Oh yeah, Obama likes to pander to bigots and Reagan worshipers.

If we are going to jump on our candidates because they don't say everything exactly the same way we would choose to say it - even though they speak the truth - well we have a big problem.

invoked reagan, why couldn't he have just as easily said FDR, he had to have know what kind of reaction this would cause and if he didn't well he's a little to naive for my president.If these are the kind of gaffes his advisers let him make maybe someone should micromanage.

And how many people remember the election of 1932 vs the election of 1980? Get real. I don't want my president to be afraid to tell the truth - which is what you and others are beating him up for. This is the Democratic Party, not the Republican Party. We don't muzzle our candidates.

under the Reagan regime.Telling the truth is one thing,cherry picking is another. He totally ignores all the bad Reagan did. You still didn't answer my question. Why couldn't he have used FDR?

long list and we are dealing with corporatism because of that filthy fascist McCarthy mole Reagan.

to manipulate the public.

Because that is what it boils down to.

Reagan offered not change but repackaging public discontent while he eviscerated our infrastructure.

If Obama is too naive or too self serving to get that, that would seem to be his problem.

either uninformed or a republican in hiding to praise that old fascist pig who started the corporatist state we are now trying to change.

able to see that. Honestly! There are hundreds of examples that BO could use to get his point across, but this has to stop.

I suppose Obama was going after the so called "Reagan Democrats" with this reference.

Raygun was all about invading and destroying other cultures, especially weaker, 3rd world nations. If Raygun had decided to invade Kenya and some goat herder was tortured and disappeared because he was on a suspected commie list, like happened in Central America to hundreds and thousands of innocent indigenous people, do you think Obama would have had such a lavish and high opinion of The Great Prevaricator? Let him go to the mass graves of Guatemala, Nicaragua and El Salvador and wax eloquent about the genocidal lunatic.

I think praising Raygun was tantamount to a praising a reckless warmonger, Raygun was all about war, make no mistake about it. So now Obama has lost his peace image in my mind, he is on par with the other 2 candidates who voted for an illegal invasion.

"Carthage must be destroyed." Cato the Elder

Which party has been on the ascendancy since about 1972? Who has been in relative decline? Obama's merely acknowledging what is clearly the case. That doesn't mean he's advocating it. J

bs the repukes were in ascendency. This is the problem. The 'people' need leaders, need representatives, need honest polls. That empowers newsmedia. A public broadcaster that was free of political influence and reported the news honestly would inform the public, and allow choice in elections etc, but...since the 60's, the reactionarky began taking over the newsmedia (there are a million stories about this- ever heard of Alan Berg?) and defunding public broadcasting. This is what happened. There was no 'call for change' as result of the counterculture, anti-war 60's era; this is a fiction. Real truth? Regan was a crime, in effect. If democracy means anything, then regan was not only an aberation, but an imposition, by the killers of JFK.
And obama should go know who was his enemy

"Beginning with the election of Ronald Reagan, many Democrats in power drifted away from the core values of the Democratic Party and started running as “Republican-lite” candidates. They started trying to compete for corporate campaign money by permitting awful trade agreements that undermined the health of the American economy and weakened the American middle class while helping the economic elite become even more powerful.


Some Democrats playing footsie with Republicans and large corporations failed working Americans and the poor by letting the obscenely wealthy start paying much lower percentages of their incomes in federal taxes than the middle class majority. Many Democrats started turning their backs on some common sense elements of the Roosevelt tradition of having those able to pay higher taxes pay them. We call this progressive taxation. The rich pay should be paying higher tax rates since they have more influence on government policies and benefit more from them.


They completely abandoned our federal government commitment to preventing monopoly control by large corporations of many important aspects of everyday life. Price-gouging has become routine. Insider trading and excessive executive pay has become routine in the corporate world. Wealthy foreign corporations are often having more impact on government policies than the needs of average Americans. Media consolidation has blocked out almost all non-corporate voices in the discussion of public policy issues. Edwards wants less corporate control over everyday life and has specific programs in mind to move in that direction." more...

Edwards is FDR with a Southern Accent
December 23, 2007 http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/print_friendly.php?p=opedne_stephen__071223_edwards_is_fdr_with_.htm

By now, he should know that people of bad faith would misrepresent his comparison, and that dumbasses would misconstrue it. As comments on this thread demonstrate so fully. He should be more careful in the future. I hope he learns from it.