I suppose maybe I'm just blind.

[Mythsaje]

I don't see Reagan as "transformational." I saw right through him. I was what--fourteen? The old bastard made me sick to my stomach. I was raised in a Dem household--my Dad loathed Republicans, always told me they were for the rich, and gawd, isn't THAT the truth?

The whole "Greed is good" mantra didn't fly with me. All I EVER wanted was to be an author. Sure, making a few bucks from it would be awesome, but it's the story that matters the most. That's what it comes down to.

I don't want a mansion. I don't want to be the richest guy in the world. I'd settle for a nice two or three room cottage someplace friendly and a reliable car to take us in to town every so often. Enough money to keep my pets in good shape and little more.

I never bought into the conspicuous consumption routine.

Let's say I missed the whole point. Someone who grew up under the influence of a blue collar construction worker and former small business owner, a life-long Dem, who believed in sustenance farming and who's biggest dream was to build a windmill and live off the grid. Never managed it because the mistakes he made in his personal life screwed him, but... :shrug:

I grew up knowing what Reagan preached was wrong...from the inside and out. Now people are trying to say I'm disingenous because I don't agree that he was special, that he did something transformational. I disagree because whatever he had didn't touch me in the least. For over half of my adult life, everything that meant anything to me could fit in a decent sized trunk. I didn't acquire anything solid until I was nearly forty, when my wife and I decided to buy a house for our dogs.

So maybe I miss the point. Maybe I don't see it. Maybe I'm just blind to it. But Reagan's mantra pushed me the other way. Just like Nancy Reagan's message did. Anything THEY said was good, I took as bad. Anything they said was bad, I took as good.

So they managed to fool most of America. They crafted a fine illusion and we're still paying for it today. They unified the Republicans and even brought some Dems (DLC anyone) on board with their nonsense. But it's STILL nonsense.

It's not "whoever dies with the most stuff wins." I don't care WHAT they say.

My wife and I don't even really buy gifts for one another. We pay for experiences, not things. We buy things for our house and our dogs, but rarely anything for ourselves except books. My most prized possession is my laptop...because it's specifically a tool for my writing. We don't even own a video game system, other than the PSP she won in a contest.

Conspicuous consumption has never attracted me. And I don't see how it ever good.

So, yeah...I suppose I miss the point.


edited for clarity

[cali]

1. Conspicuous consumption has never attracted me either

From the time I was young, I always wondered why "making sure our children have more than we do" was always about stuff. But I don't see that Obama was saying anything at all about any of that. He was saying that coalitions have power, that a shared vision has power. His subtext (to me at any rate) was that people are persuadable- and that's a fundamentally strong belief of mine. Most people ARE persuadable. If history has any lessons to teach, that's surely one of them.

[Mythsaje]

4. For me it was never about stuff

but about the things that matter. Personal security. Food on the table. A place to call their own. That sort of thing. I suppose that last could be considered "stuff," but it's also more than that as well.

And my objection to the whole them is that how he pursuaded people was by appealing to the worst part of their natures--saying that what was bad was good and what was good was bad. It was a grandiose lie, a massive illusion...the idea of everything going into the future without any thought to conservation, or discretion. More, more, more. It was a big lie. A Grand Illusion, as Styx called it.

He should be being castigated for feeding America that shit sandwich. The smiling grandfather figure who led us cheerfully down the path to our ultimate destruction, setting the stage for the Republican revolution and George W. Bush.

Did I mention how much I HATE that guy. Mr. "I can't recall?"

And, yeah, I hated Papa Bush just as much. I was paying attention to the Iran/Contra case and I put two and two together and came up with four. Hold the hostages until the election and we'll sell you arms. Use the arms to fund black bag operations in S. America. All part and parcel of the same thing.

It all led us to THIS point.

[CyberPieHole]

2. Good for you...

Kick and recommend

[FrenchieCat]

3. The problem with your entire essay is that you miss

the point that Obama was making nevertheless.

Otherwise, well written.

pity. :shrug:

[jackson_dem]

5. The point Obama was making is he is claiming he will do what few presidents have

And many of those who did were able to do so because of a major event, like the Civil War, an assassination of the previous president, or the Great Depression. The rest were almost all ultimately shown to be all-time influential presidents. Obama thinks he is going to be vying for Mt. Rushmore. Give me a break.

Transformational presidents

Jefferson 1800
Jackson 1828
Lincoln 1860
Roosevelt 1901 (maybe)
FDR 1932
Reagan 1980
Obama 2008? :rofl:

Other presidents like LBJ once had large majorities and were able to have success for a while.

[FrenchieCat]

6. Interesting that you leave JFK off your list....

LBJ was only a bi-product of JFK....who is the one who stirred a nation's imagination by challenging us to aim for the moon.

[jackson_dem]

7. JFK/LBJ were the logical extensions of FDR

They didn't realign our politics more to the left. They continued what FDR started, Truman followed. Eisenhower was an aberration in the middle like Clinton was in the Age of Reagan. The list I posted is of presidents I believe transformed politics and realigned them for a few decades. It isn't a list of the greatest presidents.

People remember JFK's challenge. Bush 41 challenged us to go to Mars. How's that coming? Bush 41 was also a bipartisan leader. ;)

A common theme I am seeing from Obamites is an assumption that Obama is going to be a great or near great president. How many have we really had who wound up being great or near great?

[cali]

8. I have no idea if Obama will be a great president

I think he has the potential to be a good one.

[jackson_dem]

14. I do too, as do Hill and Edwards and Bill was good in my eyes

Good isn't enough to be transformative or realign. Clinton was good. He gave us 8 good years but no lasting majority.

There is a chance we may have a great president in our midst. They do come along every now and then. I am just looking at the odds. It would be great if our nominee wound up being the next FDR.

[girl_interrupted]

12. Mythsaje Top 5 Presidential Landslides, Top2 were Democrats

Top 5 Presidential Landslides

F.D.R . really stomped his second-term opponent. He won 60.8% of the popular vote to Alfred Landon's 36.5%. Here are the Presidents who rode into the White House on the biggest waves of popular support:

1. Lyndon B. Johnson (D, 1964) 61.1%

2. Franklin D. Roosevelt (D, 1936) 60.8%

3. Richard M. Nixon (R, 1972) 60.7%

4. Warren G. Harding (R, 1920) 60.3%

5. Ronald W. Reagan (R, 1984) 58.8%

Source: Vital Statistics on American Politics, 1994
http://www.timeforkids.com/TFK/teachers/wr/article/0,27972,94405,00.html

You aren't blind, but some people on this board sure are or just intellectually dishonest. And if Obama wanting to be like Reagan, because of his landslide victories, maybe he needs a refresher course in American History. But be that as it may, if it was only that, but it isn't. Obama went on:"Obama offered praise for the Gipper, lauding him for tapping into the country's concern with the growth and "excesses" of the federal government, and its desire to "return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship" Reagan cut federal excess in federal government? No, that would be Clinton and Gore. Successful entrepreneurship & dynamism? Again Clinton & Gore.

I detest Reagan for so many things, that I will not go in to here, because the list is too God Damn Long. But Obama heaping praise on this creep, turns my stomach. With so many other good democratic presidents to try and emulate, well I just feel betrayed.

I have been trying to be very fair, trying to learn about all the candidates, before I make a decision. I wanted Clark, in 2004 & was hoping Gore would get into the race this time. But those things were not to be, so I moved on.

But after tonight I don't know how I could ever pull the lever for Obama. I am disappointed beyond words.

Well,I still have 2 other candidates to chose from.

Your essay was beautifully written & touched my heart. Thank you for it.

[cali]

15. LBJ got a landslide victory for one reason and one reason only:

JFK's tragic death and the longing people had to honor him. Johnson was a legacy presidential candidate in 1964- and he had an opponent who screwed up his run big time.

FDR's victory was as a sitting president in 1936, as was Johnson's in 1964.

Apples and oranges as they say.

[sandnsea]

11. Ah, so Reagan was a transformational President

At least you finally admit that.

JFK took us from horse and buggy to space. From 8th grade graduate to college professional. From friend in need to global leader. Transformational.

Obama will take us from global leader to world partner. From self-absorbed to interdependent. From WASP to multi-cultural. From oil to the new age that we don't know exists yet. Transformational.

[jackson_dem]

13. JFK was awesome

The only reason I excluded him is because my list is about those who realigning our politics. I should call it a realignment list. JFK and LBJ were riding the wave FDR started, although they did transform our country for the good. That is something different and probably more likely than realignment.

I hope Obama can do that if he wins. Maybe I am a pessimist. I don't see a realignment in the cards yet. Realignment is a long-term change. Can we create something that will give us 25-35 years of Democratic dominance?

[Tulkas]

9. Maybe You Are A Little Young

You were what .. 14... ???

And your parents hated republicians......


OK, I can see why you are predisposed against all things Reagan.

Do you remember the Nixon Era? I was in D.C. (with my parents) the day Nixon resigned, and from my hotel window I was able to see his helicopter fly away. This was a dark time in America. Then Ford Pardoned Him!!!

In the long term it might have been the right move, but at the time the entire nation was disgusted. You could have run Charles Manson against Ford in '72 and Ford still would have lost.

This is how we got Carter. IMO Jimmy Carter was a good president but the oil embargo and the Iran hostage crisis (among other things) did him in.

This was the environment into which Ronald Reagan took office. Reagan looked good by comparison.
He used Communism the same way W uses terrorists and was able to unite the American against what we considered a common enemy. THIS IS NOT PRAISE ! It is a simple statement of fact. We were divided as a nation because of the failures of other presidents in the recent past. He united us. He exploited us, but he united us also.


Yes, we are still paying for many of the things Reagan did while in office. That does not make him Satan. It also does not make everyone who simply states that he was able to achieve his goals a supporter. We should be able to objectively appraise his legacy if only to protect ourselves from others who imitate him.

[FrenchieCat]

10. The way I remember it is that

Reagan was able to galvanize that middle class and was able to swing the pendulum to the conservative side...which is how the center became the left.

Clinton was a centrist who governed by appeasing the right more than the left.

The time is now to swing the pendulum back towards liberalism...but we are not going to be able to accomplish that by fighting them or by appeasing them. Instead, we have to offer them a new vision that is more beneficial to their personal interest. That is what OBama is talking about doing.

[Pacifist Patriot]

17. I was 12 in 1980 and my family was politically mixed.

Yet it was ME who convinced one of my family's Reagan supporters that he was NOT what she thought he was.

My 7th grade teacher gave us an assignment to follow the campaign in September and October. We were to compile a portfolio with newsclippings, tell her who we supported for president and why. I was the ONLY kid in my class to pick Carter. When she returned my portfolio she noted that I had almost, almost gotten her to vote for Carter instead of Reagan. I've always wondered how she votes now.

Edited for egregious typo

[lildreamer316]

16. Agree agree agree AGREE!!!!

I was beginning to think something was seriously wrong with my brain or something.
My dad was Republican, and even he didn't think Reagan was a good idea.
I was seven when he was elected, btw.