Posted on 09/28/2014 11:53:42 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The rationalizations for Obama’s failures are already beginning, and Tom Friedman employs the laziest of all strategies, tearing down a great man to make a small man look bigger. In his Sunday column in the New York Times, Friedman makes a number of highly dubious points.
These days there is a lot of “if-only-Obama-could-lead-like-Reagan” talk by conservatives. I’ll leave it to historians to figure out years from now who was the better president.
On the question of the domestic economy, there can be little doubt. Reagan inherited far higher unemployment and high inflation, and within a year or so had the nation back on track for high economic growth, which continued basically through the remainder of his two terms. Obama, in contrast, has managed the slowest recover from a recession ever since economic growth has been measured, has shrunk the workforce, and his economy has seen virtually all gains going to the top one percent, while median family income has declined.
Btu Friedman completely ignores this realm, and focuses on foreign affairs, his realm of alleged expertise. Here, he rationalizes away the winning of the Cold War that had lasted 4 decades by saying, in effect, no big deal....
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
The Left was certain (in the US and UK) that Reagan (and Thatcher) was going to take us to a nuclear war with the poor misunderstood Soviets.
Even today they take their pride in their paranoia.
And to think they called the Red Menace a false “hysteria”.
Tom had it way easier after marrying into money.
Reagan inherited a much worse economy, higher interest rates, higher inflation, and numerous messes left by Carter including 400 American hostages.
Tommy needs to change his Depends more often.
Tom Friedman...Democrat ass kisser!!!
Tom Freidman is the Paul Krugman of political analysts.
BTT!
I then ask them if they are admitting he wasn't up to the job?
A good manager may appear on the surface to have an easier job, but that’s only because he has found and appointed competent lieutenants whom he can trust, and to whom he can delegate responsibility to carry out the mission objectives.
Poor managers, in contrast, seem on the surface to be working harder, but that’s only because they haven’t been able to properly delegate and/or have people under them unable to carry out the tasks required, thus leaving the manager to have to do nearly everything.
Reagan: excellent manager
Obama: lousy manager (in actuality, not a manager at all, but a figurehead)
If Reagan had done anything about the bombing of the Marine Barracks in Beirut we would not have had a fraction of the trouble we have had with Islamists.
220 Marines, 18 sailors and 3 soldiers. Then, a few minutes later 58 French paratroopers were killed in an attack on their barracks.
Reagan did nothing..... but pull out. Hezbollah under the direction of Iran declared war on us and by doing nothing, we told all Islamists that we would be their punching bag.
That’s because President Reagan made it look easy. Barry has to work hard trying to come off as being an American.
He is a vicious self hater who despises Israel, too.
President Reagan had to pick up the pieces left behind after Carter’s failed and dysfunctional Administration.
I always wondered how he got so wealthy. I don't think the NYT could ever afford to pay enough to support his extremely high-end lifestyle, even back during the Clinton years when people still took it seriously.
The hypocrisy is astonishing.
.
I thought he is a ‘kept’ MAN.
Didn’t he marry a wealthy gal and lives in her estate?
You know why Obama has it harder? Because, first and foremost, is the fact that President Reagan loved America.
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.