Obama: Fuck Reagan, lets talk Bush

From the Audacity of Hope



Can you say Jump The Shark

obviously after calling him messianic, he isn't going to praise Bush's policies any more than he praised Reagan's.

The only thing that has jumped the shark lately is DU.

There is no praise here - there is a judgment that Bush and his Administration are trying to do the best for the country. How any Democrat of sound judgment could make such a statement is beyond me.

NO DISSENT ALLOWED.

The DLC has spoken.

First of all, this is not a new quote.

Second, it makes the perfectly valid point that Bush may seem likable on the surface, but he's really a zealot when it comes to his beliefs.

Third, one can say that someone is doing what they thought was best, and still say that they did a great deal of evil in the process. (As a matter of fact, it doesn't take a great deal of historical study to realize that many if not all of the most notorious figures in history were convinced that they were doing what they thought was good for their country and/or the world.)

No, I don't think Bush is intending to do evil, or that he thinks his actions are doing anything other than serve the cause of good. But I am reminded of a quote by Andrew Greeley, who said "a nice guy who truly believes that 'error has no rights' can do a hell of a lot more damage than a total bastard who believes the same thing."

And I'm getting tired of the witch hunt being carried out by Hill's Shills here, wherein, if anyone has ever said anything other than that every Republican is a black-hearted demon from the pit of hell who chooses their policies on the explicit basis of what would do the most harm and cause the most suffering, then that person is a "traitor" to the party and the nation. Ironically, that's exactly the attitude of those in power you claim you wish to replace.

And, personally, I'd be less worried about candidates who, on occasion, say that Republicans are not automatically evil or subhuman, and a lot more worried about candidates who, on the most crucial issues, decide to cast their votes in favor of the policies of those Republicans, even while hypocritically distancing themselves from the very policies they themselves helped bring about.

:grr:

The Bush Administration is clearly trying to benefit a privileged elite 'the have and have mores and corporate America. How you can say they are trying to do the best for the country, is beyond my short-time comprehension.

Reading comprehension for the win!

Talk about rubbish :eyes:

as opposed to the top 5% and Exxon, Haliburton etc etc etc

obama believes they think that is whats best for the country. As apparently does the half of it that voted for it twice. Doesn't mean they are right. in fact thats was his whole point but you have proven your reading comprehension is limited so ill try to forgive you.

Obama is either shamelessly pandering to them, or he seriously lacks judgment.

They think they're doing what is best for the country. They're totally wrong, but they think they're doing what is best.

for the country.

Along the lines of "What is good for General Motors is good for the country" though, he may very well think that what is good for the rich benefits the country as a whole. Obama may think that this is Bush's attitude. Others may think that Bush is simply corrupt and self-serving. Doesn't mean that either agrees with Bush's policies.

"And, personally, I'd be less worried about candidates who, on occasion, say that Republicans are not automatically evil or subhuman, and a lot more worried about candidates who, on the most crucial issues, decide to cast their votes in favor of the policies of those Republicans, even while hypocritically distancing themselves from the very policies they themselves helped bring about."

:applause:

The Bush Administration is trying to do the best for 'the country', despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

and his conciliatory comments in his book over any other candidate's cheap talk and special-interest, politically driven votes any day of the week.

Without hesitation.

:)

And in 2005 he found those same "not malevolent" principles when he got to view the Bush Administration close up. The were trying to do what they though was best FOR THE COUNTRY. Bull Shit!

In all the public speeches Barak Obama has given, all the votes he has cast, all the stands he has taken on record, even when they were unpopular, as was his 2002 vote against this despicable war, it's amazing that I missed his Bull Shit and took him for sincere until now.

:wtf:

I am so glad I have been shown the light. That one book quote negates everything else I've observed about Obama in the past several years.

:patriot:

I get you.

I never once agreed with any comment regarding "well-meaning intentions" of the GWB administration.

Rather, I said that on balance, I still find Obama to be the candidate worthy of our support. That one conciliatory comment does nothing to sway me in any other direction. His record speaks volumes more to me that one cherry-picked quote presented in the worst possible light ever will.

That's it.

What else ya got?

:D

or illegality in the interests of building as wide as possible a coalition, gravely bothers me. Calling out malfeasance, is not "old" confrontational politics, it is a lawmaker's duty.

The loudest and shrillest voices on any side of an issue very rarely belong to those who are actually able to get things done, those who are able to lead and facilitate change.

The strongest leaders are the ones who are able to find common ground without taking one step back from their own core principles. They are rare among us these days. And they are both undervalued and underestimated by too many people. I'd hate to see what kind of reaction the conciliatory words of Martin Luther King, Jr, or Ghandi, would earn among us these days.

Think about it.

But, as opposed to social movements, I don't see much sign of conciliation in the bloody history of American Politics. Those remembered as great leaders were anything but conciliatory. Republicans who can remember FDR revile him with more passion than anything unleashed on the Clintons.

That is not to see it won't work, but if Obama succeeds it will be a first.

Just said he would...

Your point is well taken, though.

:)

There's a BIG difference.

but Bush ain't one of them.

:)

Yep, I can say it type it, anyway.

Until the last couple days, I haven't paid much attention to Senator Obama. I think as a candidate, he is trying to bridge the hostility which is so pervasive in this failing empire. Since you alluded to Ronnie Raygun in your thread title, I will point out that RR wasn't harshly critical of Democrats; he subtly wooed them, and got a fair number to cross over and vote for him. If that is what Senator Obama is trying to do, and he has some success with it, it may make him a harder target for the right to attack in the GE, assuming he wins the nomination.

There are still a lot of people in the failing empire who were happy to vote for Bush, and even though they see the empire failing, and may be looking for a new direction, and someone to inspire them, they're not going to be won over by a Dem who is overly critical of Bush, and them, by association.

Not the elites and corporate cronies? Defend that.

Clean your fucking glasses

They are governing for the country right, not the wealthiest income earners and their favored corporate backers. Bull Shit!

you are making the same point he was.

" As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?


We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.

We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.


Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;


• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;


• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;


• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles. "

- from the PNAC Statement of Principles

Bush brought a lot of PNACers to the White House with him. Given that many of the people he brought were, like Cheney, (edit to insert) corporate elites, (end insert) it entirely possible they see "what's best for America" as identical to what's best for the corporate elite.

Just because they're wrong, doesn't mean they don't believe in their ideology.

Again, for Dem Presidential candidates to be harshly critical of the results of Bush maladministration policies is not helpful in trying to woo former Bush supporters in an effort to bridge the open hostility in this failing empire.

you are welcome to your belief. I believe they never met a corporation they didn't like as long as there was a large bag of cash to go round.

I'm not running for elective office, and so I don't have any particular reason to care what Bush supporters think of my opinions.

Senator Obama, on the other hand, is running for elective office, and if he is successful, he will be a much more successful President if he is able to woo Bush supporters to his cause, and in any event, if he becomes President, he will likely have to work with Republican members of both houses of Congress to accomp
I'm aware enough to consider that it doesn't gain him anything by antagonizing those people before he (possibly) has to work with them.

Why is your awareness lacking?

and is presented as the author's opinion or judgment, I have a problem. To be fair, Obama prefaced the statement with "I assume", but how one can make that assumption after the first term of the Bush Administration boggles the mind.

The kind of Democrat who wanted to continue the progressive ideals of the New Deal and the Great Society.

although my post didn't contain the words ...of a certain type...

Accepting he was harshly critical of Dems who wanted to continue the progressive ideals of the New Deal and the Great Society, he was able to lure a number of formerly Democratic voters to his cause, and for Dems of a certain different type, specifically, those who enjoy holding elective office and are not ideologists, he also drew them to his cause, as they follwed the voters they were representing.

The true liberals/progressives became more marginalized.

If Senator Obama is attempting to do a similar courting of Republican voters, and is able to win the nomination, and the GE by dong so, he may be able to draw elected representatives in his wake as weel, as officials of a certain type do still exist, and do still enjoy holding elective office.

What change he hopes to bring about, I'm not in a position to discuss, as I haven't been following his campaign, nor any particular campaign. I am a die-hard supporter of Congressman Kucinich, and I can accept his (DKs) flaws, as minor to me, in comparison to the issues he is right on.

He disagrees without being disagreeable.

deal with it

Whats good for Haliburton is good for America. Surely you jest.

Bushies are supply siders, Bush 41 called it Voodoo Economics but 43 is to dumb to figure it out.

In a way, yes, they believe that a strong economic base is important for the good of the country, The fact that our Veep funnels money to his friends in Halliburton is a separate issue. (one of corruption).

The way you phrased it is pretty extreme but is is somewhat accurate.


THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT I THINK THEY ARE CORRECT !!!

Neither did Barack

The did not put the interests of Big Oil above the national interest?

STOLE two elections....Supreme Court first, then electronic voting machines!

What he is saying is consistent with his desire not to alienate anyone. Obama knows Bush is a fucking criminal. And by the way, Obama has one of the most liberal voting records of any Senator. Does this apparent softness toward the Bush Administration really translate into poor judgment for some of you? And by the way, Obama was very critical of Reagan's economic policies in his writings.

.

I see why it may be considered a form a pandering.

I won't argue that.


It looks like he is simply trying to not be divisive, but if you think it goes to far then so be it.

I hope we can simply agree to disagree on this one, but not be disagreeable.






Was I just pandering with that last sentence? I don't think so, but then again maybe you do.

it's accomodation beyond *your* ability to reason.

If anyone has full context of the quotes above, I would welcome it.

in where I am giving you some of my thoughts as well.

I believe that what you have done is too easy, and is beneath you. If you haven't read the book, then you have no idea as to what it contains. We can all go hunting if we so choose.....but in the end, the only thing that we would capture is a sense that we are no better than the ones we are ordering Obama to hate on cue. OBama appears to be his own man, and does not pander.

Same thing goes for his 50 minute interview in where the Reagan references were harvested from. If one is not going to take the time out to actually read, listen and watch the whole offering, than one is not about doing justice.

I think it is self evident that Reagan transformed political landscape in the '80s and beyond. The book? Yes it's time I read it. Perhaps one thing not obvious in a confrontational post such as this is I have no final opinions. I'm of Irish stock. We fight as hard as we can while sitting on the fence, waiting to an opportunity to be proved wrong.

But I do believe it is the duty of lawmakers to call out malfeasance. From what I can see in the extract, Obama's position is not credible.

lamprey

Same way many described Adolf Hitler in the 1930s, when he was coming into a rom, the whole rom was "electrified" as one was saying it once

Diclotican

Sorry for my bad English, not my native language

if that's what you were implying.

lamprey


Maybe it is I am who are not good in English, But As I understand it, mr Ombama was referring to Mr Bush, as a man who manage to electrifies the publicum when he was coming in a rom.. And that was Hitler ca table of doing to...

I have no meaning of mr Obama for the moment. Because I don't know a lot of the man, and I guess he would a good president - worse than Mr Bush is it impossible to be...

Diclotican

Sorry my bad English, not my native language

as far as I know.

lamprey

okay, then sorry I wrote those word, I was wrong

Sorry my bad engelish, not my native language

she walks into a room and the whole room is electrified


I don't think that makes her Hitler

Tulkas

Don't know Jessica Alba either.. But as I was saying to the other man, I believed it was about mr Bush, and hes "electrifying" in the rom he was coming into...

Diclotican

Sorry my bad English, mot my native language

can't think where, oh now I remember, its kinda like himself.

to canvas as wide as possible range of opinions. I am sure the man himself would approve.

How can anyone expect this man to be President when he has taken on so many different positions in such a short space that he's practically spinning in a revolving door, he's playing musical chairs with himself.

We don't need that kind of positivity and open-mindedness in this country!

Oh no, we think like Bush now! Everyone who doesn't agree with us is evil and there's nothing you can do to change our minds!

(criticizing someone for obviously giving people the benefit of the doubt? Ladies and gentlemen, we have reached a new low in the Democratic party)