Which requires a complex multipolar mind...
Posted on 10/01/2009 7:46:16 AM PDT by SmithL
The Obama revolution, and there was the hope of one, might still succeed. But only if Barack Obama follows the model of the incredibly successful Reagan revolution and heeds the political base that made his presidency possible.
Love him or not, Ronald Reagan had at least one outstanding political virtue - his respect for the concerns of those who placed their trust in him. And whenever the political vultures that feast on power tried to lead him astray, they were fired at the insistence of Reagan or his remarkably savvy wife, Nancy. Hopefully Obama and his no-less-impressive mate, Michelle, will do the same.
The first obligation of Obama as president is to be a peacemaker, because he as a candidate seized that mantle, successfully exploiting his early opposition to the Iraq war, which his closest rival, Hillary Rodham Clinton, had supported. Obama, as opposed to her flirtations with U.S. imperial arrogance, has stuck to a vision of a complex multipolar world in which the military option is to be chosen only as a last resort.
In that regard, the president is making some progress, particularly with his decision to stop provoking the Russians . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
The difference between Reagan and Obama is that Reagan actually had virtue.
Hmmmmm....so the lefties are concerned that Zero’s an empty suit, the moderates are figuring out he’s an empty suit, and the conservatives are convinced that he’s an empty suit. What’s the common denominator here, students?
That old commie Sheer is still alive? Go figure.
There is one huge difference between Reagan’s revolution and 0bama’s. Reagan represented the majority of the American people, so appealing to his base meant never being upside down in the polls.
0bama’s bolshevik revolution’s goals never had the support of the majority of the American people. To appeal to his base means certain political defeat unless he carries out the slogan of “all power to the worker’s and soldier’s soviets...er...I mean...ACORN and the SEIU!”
Reagan didn't heed the view of a political base, he created a political base that shared his views.
Afghanistan is only one of Obama’s “disastrous errors”.
Wish I could say that were true, but Reagan was sub-50 during the 1982 recession, as well as from much of the period from 1986-1987 (thanks to Iran Contra).
Barak Obama is an empty suit, so let’s stand together and give him the boot.
Mmmmm...Mmmmm...Mmmmm.
Reagan's base worked for a living. Obama's base are leeches and the mega-rich. He has to constantly pay both of them off or they drift away (a large number of his leeches drifted off without hours of getting their free booze, cigarettes and walking around money on election day).
The more he pays off the leeches and speculator class, the more people in the middle class become actively against him. He can't win unless he destroys the middle class. He is doing his best to do that but he won't be able to pull it off. This isn't Russia circa 1930 or China circa 1949.
"Sure, Robert --and after that we can all save the Carter Legacy!"
Obama’s wife lost her lic. to practice law. FWIW
Bob, I remember Ronald Reagan.
Bob, Barack Obama is no Ronald Reagan.
Has the reason Mrs. Zero lost her law licence been revealed yet?
Just wondering...
“In that regard, the president is making some progress, particularly with his decision to stop provoking the Russians . . .”
Please explain to me what the hell this idiot means by this?
And given his behaviour, I'm getting more and more suspicious about the "American" (as opposed to "Russian" or "Cuban") part.
You can't govern by the will of 10% of the people.
The Communists shot themselves in the foot: their Barack Obama mole should have been Hispanic, since they are the true up-and-coming "minority victim" group. As it is, black American's numbers will continue to dwindle in relative terms: and in wealth as well, since many Hispanics still follow the American dream of hard work and small businesses, followed by professional education for their children. Compared to the gangsta-rap, whining-about-racism, and 3rd to 4th generation welfare queens too prevalent in the inner cities' black populations.
Racist? No.
People from India have had it worse than the blacks for centuries: and yet they used a combination of education, low wages, nepotism, and fast talking to take a lot of the high-paying jobs away from middle-class white America.
Cheers!
LOVE IT!
Which requires a complex multipolar mind...
“In that regard, the president is making some progress, particularly with his decision to stop provoking the Russians . . .”
Please explain to me what the hell this idiot means by this?
Unlike his predecessors, our Dear Leader loves to bend over for the Ruskies!!
Ronald Reagan had an entire successful career before he got into politics. Then he had two successful terms as the governor of a state the size of a country through one of the most turbulent times the nation has ever known. Through it all, he continually wrote and commented on world events, politics, society, and the nation, amassing an enormous body of lucid, insightful, coherent work. Then he went on to become the most dominant force on American society in my lifetime, literally turning the American psyche around, rebuilding confidence and pride in our nation and in our society, restructuring the American economy, setting it on a path of prosperity which would endure for 20 years, all while standing firm against fascist worldwide Communism, eventually forcing the cracks in its structure to rupture and the Wall to crumble.
O Bama, on the other hand, did nothing, wrote nothing, is nothing.
Is this communist comedy?
LOL!
*snort* These folks weren't quite so approving of Nancy, back in the day. ;o)
This is political analysis about as deep as a bottle cap.
If there were EVER any two American Presidents who could not be compared on ANY level, they are Ronald Reagan and this new overconfident dolt, Barack Obama.
Scheer is trying to make a case that Obama should “do as Reagan did”, and recapture “his base”. Well, Obama’s base was (I stress was) considerably more complex than Reagan’s:
Obama did not come into the Presidential Campaign with any history, or any need for one: such were the ethereal ‘demands’ of his useful idiot followers.Don’t forget those seminal moments, delivered in more than a few speeches , in which he told “us” that his bid for the Presidency was not about HIM, it was about US. No one seemed to notice , amid all the positive head shaking in agreement, that that cynical little phrase absolved him of ALL responsibility for what he was about to do,should any of it turn bad.
All of America,
on the other hand, knew Ronald Reagan like they knew their favorite pair of shoes. Obama, Global Man of Mystery with No Agenda except Remaking America, presented himself as the precise fulfillment of the fondest dreams of whoever felt America needed Remaking. This project was presented, as it had to be, as Post-Partisan, and the vehicle through which that could be achieved, he himself, Barack Obama, was presented as Post-Racial, though he never let you forget he was “black”. America was invited to “make history” and watch as they themselves helped create an Inaugural Moment they’d set themselves up to cry over. Obama’s non-ideological posture quickly turned blatantly Leftist, with hints of an actual clumsily forced
‘revolution’ about to be attempted, as the entire wish list of leftwing dreams showed up immediately after he took office. His entire Presidency should have carried the caption “TRUST ME”, because there was never any indication that he or his Democrat Power Structure felt any desire or need to negotiate ANYTHING, or had anything other than
tired old un-worked out plans and worldviews to implement. EVERYTHING became a matter of the greatest urgency, and that particular mantra continues to the present day, and it’s not working anymore for larger and larger numbers of people including his supporters, then and now.
YGBFSM
That was easy to do for Reagan, since he ran on, and was elected on, a platform that clearly articulated his principles. Everyone that voted for Reagan, did so because they agreed with most or all of those principals. In other words Reagan could be true to his base, and all of his voters, by sticking to his guns.
Obama on the other hand, got elected by hiding his principles and beliefs. While the left wing base, no doubt, saw through the smoke and mirrors, probably 1/3 or more of Obama’s voters were simply voting for a “historic” candidate, who got no more specific than promising “hope and change.” These voters, with the help of the media, remained blissfully unaware that they were voting for someone whose true ideology was 180 out from their own.
So the dilemma for Obama, is does he abandon all pretense of being a “moderate” and pander to the lunatic left that makes up his party's base and alienate all of those normal voters that only voted for him because it seemed the “cool thing to do at the time”. Or does he continue to try and compromise just enough to keep the middle from openly revolting and thereby alienate the Daily Kos / George Soros crowd. Either way he's screwed.
Reagan could keep his base happy by telling them the truth about where he stood and by advocating for those positions. Obama, since he got elected by being all things to all people is in the unenviable position of trying to maintain a voting coalition made up of people with diametrically opposed political ideologies. A skillful politician can do this on the campaign trail by speaking in platitudes, but once you are in office people expect specifics, and this is Obama’s Achilles heel. Every time he reveals his true position on an issue, he alienates the middle. When he tries to hide his position, he alienates the kooks.
That line about trying to lead him astray makes me think of Peggy Noonan.
Has the reason Mrs. Zero lost her law licence been revealed yet?
Just wondering...
NO,BUT YOU CAN GOOGLE TO FIND THE INFORMATION.
Reagan vs the AntiReagan
Exactly. One of the most amazing things to me is that Mr. Scheer can find ANYONE to pay him to write his thoughts and opinions. There must be just TOO MUCH money in the world. Best guess.
That's one. Other differences: Reagan meant what he said. Reagan didn't have to lie about his real agenda to get elected. Reagan loved America.
Amazing how flexible Scheer can be, drawing a positive analogy by using Ronald Reagan as a model. I’m sure that Reagan never did anything that Robert Scheer approved of.
ThnX!!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.