Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
Always quick to patronize your mentors aren't you.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
no, just pointing out that Obama wouldn't be the first dangerous lunatic boasting a Harvard education...the speech is just shameful and an American embarassment...but perfectly in line with what we've come to expect from your mentor...btw-WashPo(no conservative rag) gave the speech "Three Pinnochios"
"But such is the way of this White House. Facts are dependent variables, history the president’s Pool of Narcissus, reflecting his own glory. Hence, Obama cherry-picks TR’s “new nationalism” as a justification for his own agenda and proof that today’s Republicans are extreme.
After all, was not TR a “Republican son of a wealthy family,” as Obama put it?
Well, yes, he was. And then, he wasn’t. TR left the Republican party to promote his “new nationalism” philosophy and run as a Progressive — a “super socialist,” in the words of the New York Times in 1913.
As a Republican president, Roosevelt had been a “trust buster.” As Progressive gadfly, Roosevelt believed in making the trusts bigger, stronger, and more entwined with the federal government, orchestrated by an all-powerful “Federal Bureau of Corporations.”
“Concentration, cooperation, and control,” he explained in his acceptance speech at the 1912 Progressive convention, “are the key words for a scientific solution of the mighty industrial problem which now confronts this nation.”
It’s no surprise Obama would find the Progressive Teddy so reasonable. Nor is it shocking that Obama would fail to explain to today’s generation the true intentions of that “Republican son of a wealthy family.”
you aren't all that well informed Spence...maybe 1/2 "well informed"
the money quote from Krauthammer was this...
" the classic reflex of reactionary liberalism — anything to avoid addressing the underlying structural problems, which would require modernizing the totemic programs of the New Deal and Great Society."