Now we have Obama offering us Reaganmics again as

[INdemo]

he prefers Reagan style politics over Clintons (Bill Clinton that is).....With Clinton we saw the largest economic boom.The most jobs created,and the least amount of unemploymet in nearly 60 years.and a balanced budget.......Now with Reagan we saw him try to destroy unions,and rob the middle class in favor of his rich Republican class,and his trickle down economy never seem to trickle down.....So now we have Obama approving of the Reagan style......What does this tell us about Obama...His political ambition over shadows his support for middle class America and that all this talk about change...Well .we might see change but only to have a Reagan Democrat replace a corporate Republican...So is there a difference?
I must say before I heard this I was content with the thinking that "Well maybe we could live with Obama,at least he is a Democrat"..Looks as if I was wrong about him....He sure doesn't sound like a Democrat..A Republican lite maybe but not a Democrat..I'm more convinced now that John Edwards is the only true Democrat we have running..

[AzDar]

1. Welcome to The Light!

Go, Johnny GO!!

[peacebaby3]

2. Do you have a quote from Obama saying he prefers" Reaganmics" ?

I heard him say that the 1980 election of Reagan had trajectory unlike Clinton which is absolutely true. Reagan's election and time in office moved the country to the right of center where it has been since then. Do you not agree? Why would you mind any candidate discussing that problem and hope to move the country back in the other direction?

I think you should listen to the entire interview before jumping to conclusions. There is a link in one of the numerous threads already on the board about this.

[Blarch]

7. Of course not.

The OP implies Obama came out in support for Reagan and against Clinton, ...this is getting absurd.

[peacebaby3]

14. I know. I used to think liberals held the upper hand in intelligence,

but lately the majority of the posts on this board make me wonder. I visit and post much less often than I used to.

Some of these people are pathetic. Unfortunately, the reactionary, stupid comments are becoming the norm.

[hfojvt]

26. or honesty

but hyperbole has long been the norm. We just don't notice it when it is directed at FReepers or Repukes or Talibornigains.

[peacebaby3]

30. Very true and you make a great point.

It's much easier to look past the Bush=Hitler posts.

[ZinZen]

17. Of course not!

Most of these posts are absurd and you are getting in a tizzy all about nothing. Most American voters who are not political junkies will not care one whit about this issue. The economy and healthcare and the Iraq war are on their radar.

[peacebaby3]

20. I didn't realize I was "getting in a tizzy". Do you mean the OP? n/t

[doc03]

19. I have listened to his comments several times

and I got the impression that he thought Reagan changed things for the better. He said people were ready for a change from the excesses of the 60's and 70's referring to the growth of government and other things. So it sounds to me like he would have been all for making ketchup a vegetable and he probably thought the Unions had become too powerful and needed busted too.
Obama makes a great speech about change and hope but the more I here him talk about actual issues the less I like him. Both Hillary and Obama just sound like Bush Lite to me.

on edit: fixed typo (60' and 70's) not 70's and 80's

[peacebaby3]

25. Not what I got at all from listening.

What I got from the comments is that Reagan was able to take advantage of the change that people wanted from that time period to swing the country in the right of center. I'm not sure about what excesses you are talking about from the 80s since Reagan was elected in 1980, but there had been some very hard times in the late 70s with the economy, and the Iran hostage situation was a huge issue in that election.

By your comments, I'm not sure you are open for objective discussion because if you think Hillary or Obama are "Bush Lite" you are very biased. There is hardly any difference in any of the top 3 candidates. Kucinich is different, but Obama, Clinton, and Edwards all have their pros and cons, but they are nothing like Bush.

[doc03]

27. No you better listen! I made a typo he said the excesses

of the 60's and 70's (not the 80's) and talked about how government had grown and there was no accountability. And what I got from it he believed the change was a good thing.

[peacebaby3]

29. I have listened and what I heard was that Reagan was able to use the

American public's view of the excesses of that time to get elected and change the trajectory of this country. He's right and it did happen. He also mentions that Kennedy was able to do the same thing before Reagan. He didn't support the policies of Reagan at all. He recognized how his election and the change in this country happened and believes the country is ripe for it to happen again, but back to the left this time.

[doc03]

32. He said how Reagan had given America

a dynamic, an optimism and a sense of entrepreneurship again. That certainly isn't a criticism of Reagan's record in my book.

[peacebaby3]

33. He said that Reagan had been able to tap into what people were

already feeling - that they wanted clarity, optimism, a return to dynamism and entrepreneurship. They did and that's why Reagan was elected because he was able to run against the people's perception of Washington and the state of this country at the time. Don't you remember the "It's Morning in America" spin? It has nothing to do with Reagan's policies or record. It has to do with how Reagan was able to change the trajectory of this country.

Edit: typo

[doc03]

38. And he credited Reagan for those changes, end of

discussion I know what he said I listed to it several times.

[peacebaby3]

40. No he didn't. He used those words to describe the feelings of the American people in 1980.

The only thing he gave Reagan any credit for was tapping into those feelings to swing the country to the right. I know sometimes it's hard to hear, but knowing and understanding the truth of how we got to this point in our country and in politics is important. We have to know our history in order to change our future.

[INdemo]

23. I will find the quote and post it,then you decide......

I know exactly what I heard him say and I was kinda shocked ........any way give me a minute and I'll find the quote........

[Clarkansas]

3. Give me a freakin break.

This Reagan crap is every bit as ridiculou as all the Edwards haircut/big house threads a few months ago.

[balantz]

11. This Obama/Reagan issue not ridiculous, though the haircut and big house are ridiculous

The O.P. is correct. This recent light thrown on Obama makes me now more certainly have no candidate to fall back on.

Is Edwards your candidate?

[peacebaby3]

12. How did Obama endorse the politics of Reagan with his comment? n/t

[balantz]

16. See for yourself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBeTJmHA43I

This progressive who experienced the Reagan administration as an adult used to think Obama might suffice as a second choice. Now after seeing this video I have no second choice.

[peacebaby3]

18. That's a video of John Edwards talking about himself. Can you answer my

question?

The OP that you said you agree with stated that Obama supports "Reaganmics". I'd like to know where he has endorsed or supported the policies of Reagan?

[balantz]

22. Sorry, wrong video

This one has Obama praising that murderous Reagan and talking about the "excesses of the liberal 60's and 70's", "big government programs" and also dissing Clinton's successes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TfCOX22g2E

I fear that Reaganomics style economics would continue if Obama is president because he would try to work with the corporate-elitist power structure entrenched in Washington. Like Edwards says, you can't make deals with them, you have to fight them.

[peacebaby3]

28. I've seen it and no where in the video does he praise the policies of Reagan.

He says that Americans were tired of the excesses in government during the 60s and 70s which is absolutely true and Reagan used that to get elected and change the trajectory of this country politically to the right of center. He also mentions Kennedy changing it before Reagan and he thinks that the time is ripe now to swing it back to the left.

Do you disagree that the country has been to the center right since Reagan? Where in the video does he say he agrees with the policies of Reagan?

Edwards and Obama are very similar candidates and seem to like each other even though they are both running to be president. I wish their supporters could do the same.

I think Obama follows the plan of Lincoln who said "I defeat my enemy when I make him my friend." It's either changing hearts and minds or killing those that disagree. I'm not a killer nor is it feasible to believe that you will change the entire foundation of this country in a presidency even with all people on the same page. Any candidate can tell you what you want to hear, but that doesn't make it true.

Edit: typo

[Avalux]

4. Why are you convoluting specific policies with a statement regarding influence?

Obama never said he agrees with Reagan's policies. NEVER. He referenced Reagan's ability to get people to work together and get people to vote for him from all political spectrums. Whether you like it or not, it's a valid point.

These reactionary posts are infuriating.

[Le Taz Hot]

5. Shouldn't this be in GD-P?

The reason most of us stay away from that forum so we don't have to read this partisan waste-of-time shit.

[Buzz Clik]

6. Nice job of morphing a comment taken out of context.

I won't bother to comment any further -- you Edwards fans seem to be happy throwing shit into the blades of the fan today. So, let's leave it at this:

[Nickster]

9. Careful with the broad brush there. I think this story and the OP are full of crap as well.

[peacebaby3]

15. Thank you. n/t

[DJ13]

8. Obama is referring to Reagan's broad appeal that led to big GOP gains

Obama wasnt talking about the economics of Reagan.

This hits at the weak spot of Bill Clinton's Presidency, because for all his popularity he couldnt translate that appeal to the Democrat Party, which actually lost ground under him.

Its a valid point.

[natrat]

10. whole thing is such a joke

gop has a year to slam him so that by election time he stands no chance with billybob in the booth -what a joke--and all these democrats act like he's the second coming-he will be picked apart so easily, he probably knows this and is on board with it ala john kerrey -politicians truly suck shit so good luck with this charade

[DogPoundPup]

13. Sick of the Clintons and the Bushes, not an Obama fan...

Blue-Collar Jobs Disappear, Taking Families’ Way of Life Along
"he was astonished yet again to find himself, at age 49, selling off his cherished Harley and most of his apartment furniture and moving in with his mother."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/16/us/16ohio.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

[blues90]

21. Obama is out of his mind ! They're all out of their minds .

First he places some sort of bashing statement on the boomers I read on this site not long ago and he hints with words about Reagan but never spells out what he means by this statement so it can be interpreted several ways depending on what age group and political position you hold on to .

All three of the Dems have lost me and we are not even close to the end of this crap .

I can't find any sort of positive or excitement in any of them and the repugs are freaks .

Problem is bush lowered the bar so damn low that almost anyone sounds and looks better and this is the crime of this election because all one has to do is look to bush as the example and most know what that is .

Just taking corporate money alone is one big problem from my point of view . also this Iraq occupation is left out as if it's now suddenly a success when it's far from over or even close to any sort of success story .

They can talk about bringing back this dead economy all they want and the real picture for anyone who's looking is bleak at best so it's just talk for the big win . As far as change , what change , describe the vision because from where I sit I don't see it even sitting here barely hanging onto hope . The change seems to be rid society of the weak and poor and old and in the way and put all effort into the next generation .

[Strelnikov_]

24. Please provide documentation that Obama is 'offering us Reaganomics' n/t

[INdemo]

31. Chech this out

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/16/16934/4585/421/437908


I said Obama preferred Reagan style politics vs Bill Clinton....now you can read into that anything you want to .....but what I am saying or at least what I meant to imply was this.... How could any Democrat running for President even compare the Reagan era to the Clinton era and understand where we were with Reaganomics compared to Bill Clinton's economic policies...It sure as hell wasn't giving tax breaks to the wealthy or trying to break the unions so corporations could therefore pay their employees' a poverty wage.
So Reagan united Americans and Clinton didn't? Clinton was hated by Republicans and they could never get over the fact that he defeated George H W..
...Reagan asked in 1980 if you were better off than you were......You remember...Now I'll ask this.. Were you better off in the 80's with the Reaganomics and paying more taxes than the richest Americans,or were you better off in 90's with Clinton economic policies......I'll stand by my statement that a Democratic Presidential candidate that prefers Reaganomics vs Clinton era policy just wasn't paying attention to what the middle class gained during the Clinton era.....and he is more of a Republican lite than a true Democrat...

[LanternWaste]

34. Not difficult to interpret

You also wrote, "now we have Obama offering us Reaganmics again..."

Not difficult to interpret that quote as Obama being a supporter of trickle-down economics, bleeding social programs dry and saying the homeless are that way because they want to-- as that was essentially what Reaganomics were.

However, if your quote means Obama doesn't support Reganomics, I'd be very keen on reading precisely how I inferred incorrectly...

[INdemo]

36. Look,If Obama supports Reagan style politics meaning they united Americans

than he couldn't be more wrong...

[LanternWaste]

37. Yet the OP stated he supported Reaganomics in addition to politics

Yet the OP stated he supported Reaganomics in addition to politics-- I'd like to take the economic aspect first-- precisely how does Obama support Reaganomics? When did Obama state that?

[donkeyotay]

35. I will never forget being ground under Reaganomics,

We tightened our belts, lost our houses to that fed chief bastard whose name I can't think of - 21% interests rates, lost our jobs to the Chinese and lost our minds to the hate radio take over. Compete! The free market! What we have today is a direct result of those policies. More of the same? No thank you.

Any liberal who wants to invoke Reagan's name the theme of unity doesn't appreciate that many of us - the silenced left if you will - hated Reagan and everything he stood for. A poor choice of models for any democrat to point to.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

39. ROFLMAO At How You Deceitfully Twist Context To Suit Your Purpose!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

My god is it disgraceful how fans of one candidate can post republican-like smears of the others. It's pathetic.