Regan, The great communicator , Obama, Great Divider

[Raider Ronnie]

That's how I feel about the last 4 years.
Anyone else ?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Raider Ronnie

That's how I feel about the last 4 years.
Anyone else ?

Agree. Reagan had a message of unity through founding principles. Obama is ramping up the "transformation" (destruction) of those founding principles by pitting groups and classes against each other.

[Jim in CT]

Obama has called Romney a bullsh*tter, has said Romney has "stage 3 Romnesia" (ha ha, that's rich!) and has called him "Romney Hood in reverse", stealing from the poor to give to the rich (despit eth efact that Romney gives millions to charity, but why inject facts into a good liberal attack?)

Nah, that's not divisive.

He's the most divisive president in my lifetime, and the biggest jerk to hold that office in my lifetime. How many times has Obama been on stage, and attacked those who were there, but who could not defend themselves? He did it to Bush at his inauguration, he did it to the Supreme Court at the State of the Union, he did it to Paul Ryan during an economic speech...

[spence]

Reagan's real legacy wasn't his adherance to founding principals, it was his desire to seek the best deal he could...

Jim, for Obama to make fun of Romney's flip flopping isn't being divisive.

Sure, you can make claims of class warfare against the President, but the sustained an unified effort to portray Obama (and by association the entire Democratic party) as an alien socialist incompatible with true American values has certainly been the most divisive strategy I've ever seen in my lifetime.

I think it's less about the personalities and more a symptom of the political climate. Back in the 1980's differing opinions would go hash out a plan over drinks...Reagan had no problem cutting a deal he thought moved the ball forward. they don't do that any more.

-spence

[Swimmer]

NOBAMANOS

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Reagan's real legacy wasn't his adherance to founding principals, it was his desire to seek the best deal he could...

-spence

His getting the best deal he could was the only way to inch toward reversing the "trajectory" of the nation that was heading away from the founding principles. His belief in those principles was why he switched parties. His speeches dripped with those principles. He was not a "centrist" because he believed in centrism as an idealogy, rather, he used centrist methods to change course and head in a different direction. You would probably view his personal ideals as "extreme." When you speak of his "real" legacy, you are speaking of method, not purpose.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Reagan's real legacy wasn't his adherance to founding principals, it was his desire to seek the best deal he could...

Jim, for Obama to make fun of Romney's flip flopping isn't being divisive.

Sure, you can make claims of class warfare against the President, but the sustained an unified effort to portray Obama (and by association the entire Democratic party) as an alien socialist incompatible with true American values has certainly been the most divisive strategy I've ever seen in my lifetime.

I think it's less about the personalities and more a symptom of the political climate. Back in the 1980's differing opinions would go hash out a plan over drinks...Reagan had no problem cutting a deal he thought moved the ball forward. they don't do that any more.

-spence

"for Obama to make fun of Romney's flip flopping isn't being divisive. "

For Obama to call out Romney for flip-flopping is not divisive. For him to resort to name-calling is divisive, un-dignified, and un-presidential. And speaking of flip-flopping, it's also the opposite of the unifying approach Obama promised us.

"Sure, you can make claims of class warfare against the President"

Thanks, that's big of you. That's like saying I can "make claims" that Obama is male.

"the sustained an unified effort to portray Obama (and by association the entire Democratic party) as an alien..."

As usual, you are wrong and/or lying through your teeth. The mainstream conservative movement doesn't spend any time on Obama's citizenship status, that effort is driven by the kook fringe. Those people don't have any influence. Let Donald Trump make an ass out of himself. The President should be above that. Obama clearly is not.

Spence, Obama has based his entire re-election on division. Class warfare...the war on women...the 1% versus everyone else...wall street versus main street. Are you going to deny that with a straight face?

"Reagan had no problem cutting a deal he thought moved the ball forward. they don't do that any more."

By "they", can I assume you mean republicans? Or do you concede that democrats are just as guilty of obstructionism when they are in the minority? Oh. I forgot, when liberals are obstructionist, they are being patriotic. But when conservatives are obstructionist to proposals they feel are bad for the nation, they are just being jerks. Do I have that right, Spence?

Spence, Obama is the president, and he is leading the charge in dividing the country on wealth and gender. The conservatives leading the charge about Obama's citizenship are not taken seriously anywhere. The president is supposed to raise the bar, not lower himself to the lowest of the low.

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by spence

I think it's less about the personalities and more a symptom of the political climate. Back in the 1980's differing opinions would go hash out a plan over drinks...Reagan had no problem cutting a deal he thought moved the ball forward. they don't do that any more.
-spence

Interesting point. Some thoughts are:
When did we go off course and into this "great divide".
Why don't "they do it anymore"
Who is most responsible for this new "climate"

[Jim in CT]

I also think it's interesting that Bill Clinton found himself faced with a Repubilcan majority (led by Newt Gingrich). Clinton seemed to be able to wok with Gingrich to set in motion a gargantuan economic recovery.

Clinton and Gingrich worked together for some huge accomplishments. Obama and Boehner, not so much.

I also find it interesting when Clinton stumps for Obama. Seems to me that if Clinton was honest, he'd say "when I was prez, I cut taxes, cut spending, balanced the budget, and kicked millions of dead-beats of welfare. After I did that, the economy took off like a rocket".

Between Romney and Obama, which guy's economic plan more closely resembles what Clinton did?

[Scuttlebutt]

[QUOTE=Spence, Obama has based his entire re-election on division. Class warfare...the war on women...the 1% versus everyone else...wall street versus main street. Are you going to deny that with a straight face?[/QUOTE]

Perfecto!

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Sure, you can make claims of class warfare against the President, but the sustained an unified effort to portray Obama (and by association the entire Democratic party) as an alien socialist incompatible with true American values has certainly been the most divisive strategy I've ever seen in my lifetime.

I think it's less about the personalities and more a symptom of the political climate. Back in the 1980's differing opinions would go hash out a plan over drinks...Reagan had no problem cutting a deal he thought moved the ball forward. they don't do that any more.

-spence

Both candidates have said that this election is about two fundamentally different views of the role of government. I don't know how you hash out that difference over drinks. Unless you get so drunk that you can't tell the difference. Or unless neither believes what they say. I think they do believe it. Reagan also understood that over 30 years ago. You can see and hear that understanding in his " A Time for Choosing" speech in support of Goldwater. It is why he switched from Democrat to Republican. You can hear it in all of his other major and most minor speeches. He didn't cut a deal in order to come to some middle ground between those two fundamental differences. He did so because it was the only way to move the ball forward in the direction of his belief in government based on our founding principles. He knew (as the pragmatist you claim him to have been) that he didn't have the power to entirely change in a single stroke the direction of government from what he clearly stated was toward socialism back to free market principles and the garantees of individual freedom granted by the Founders' Constitution. He never hedged on that difference and expressly, clearly, and constantly stated his purposes and beliefs. He knew that as those principles were incrementally eroded they would have to be incrementally restored. One deal at a time. He probably knew that eight years would not be enough time to accomplish it. He knew that it was imperative, before it was too late, to begin the process of restoring original government, and hoped that the process would continue with the succession of President's and Congresses that followed him. Listen to and watch the you tube videos of his speeches, not only the "A time for Choosing," but the later ones, the "Evil empire" and his farewell speech as well as several others in between.

He started a brief shift back toward founding principles, but, unfortunately, those that followed had neither his strength of character or ideals nor his charisma or "communicating" powers. A great deal of those powers lay in the content of what he communicated, and his successors either didn't believe in that content or were too weak or were too willing to compromise to "move the ball forward" in a socialistic, centralized government direction. He was despised by the centrists and leftists of his time who hated that his predictions of a resurgence and growth of the American economy and the ensuing spread of prosperity came true under his policies, and they tried to depict him as a stupid actor who slept his way through his presidency. Now that he is looked upon as one of the greatest presidents and beloved by the people, his "legacy" is characterized as being a pragmatic compromiser and recognized as having restored some optimism in the American people. But the basis of and goals for his compromises and the fundamentals of what informed that optimism are passed over as if they didn't exist.

And so we are again at a time for choosing. The road to socialism has progressed even further. The central government and its regulatory agencies (which he disparaged), as well as the amounts of money required to fund them, have grown exponentially larger in the few years since Reagan's time, and the difficulty in stopping the transformation of government power at the expense of the individual is even greater. Both candidates know that it cannot be hashed out and compromised over drinks. The difference is too clear.

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Both candidates have said that this election is about two fundamentally different views of the role of government. I don't know how you hash out that difference over drinks. Unless you get so drunk that you can't tell the difference. Or unless neither believes what they say. I think they do believe it. Reagan also understood that over 30 years ago. You can see and hear that understanding in his " A Time for Choosing" speech in support of Goldwater. It is why he switched from Democrat to Republican. You can hear it in all of his other major and most minor speeches. He didn't cut a deal in order to come to some middle ground between those two fundamental differences. He did so because it was the only way to move the ball forward in the direction of his belief in government based on our founding principles. He knew (as the pragmatist you claim him to have been) that he didn't have the power to entirely change in a single stroke the direction of government from what he clearly stated was toward socialism back to free market principles and the garantees of individual freedom granted by the Founders' Constitution. He never hedged on that difference and expressly, clearly, and constantly stated his purposes and beliefs. He knew that as those principles were incrementally eroded they would have to be incrementally restored. One deal at a time. He probably knew that eight years would not be enough time to accomplish it. He knew that it was imperative, before it was too late, to begin the process of restoring original government, and hoped that the process would continue with the succession of President's and Congresses that followed him. Listen to and watch the you tube videos of his speeches, not only the "A time for Choosing," but the later ones, the "Evil empire" and his farewell speech as well as several others in between.

He started a brief shift back toward founding principles, but, unfortunately, those that followed had neither his strength of character or ideals nor his charisma or "communicating" powers. A great deal of those powers lay in the content of what he communicated, and his successors either didn't believe in that content or were too weak or were too willing to compromise to "move the ball forward" in a socialistic, centralized government direction. He was despised by the centrists and leftists of his time who hated that his predictions of a resurgence and growth of the American economy and the ensuing spread of prosperity came true under his policies, and they tried to depict him as a stupid actor who slept his way through his presidency. Now that he is looked upon as one of the greatest presidents and beloved by the people, his "legacy" is characterized as being a pragmatic compromiser and recognized as having restored some optimism in the American people. But the basis of and goals for his compromises and the fundamentals of what informed that optimism are passed over as if they didn't exist.

And so we are again at a time for choosing. The road to socialism has progressed even further. The central government and its regulatory agencies (which he disparaged), as well as the amounts of money required to fund them, have grown exponentially larger in the few years since Reagan's time, and the difficulty in stopping the transformation of government power at the expense of the individual is even greater. Both candidates know that it cannot be hashed out and compromised over drinks. The difference is too clear.

Great post, well said

I hope it's not too late to get restoring

"But the basis of and goals for his compromises and the fundamentals of what informed that optimism are passed over as if they didn't exist."
That is sad

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

Great post, well said

I hope it's not too late to get restoring

"But the basis of and goals for his compromises and the fundamentals of what informed that optimism are passed over as if they didn't exist."
That is sad

Krauthammer expresses similar sentiments this morning...

"Government grows in size and power as the individual shrinks into dependency. Until the tipping point where dependency becomes the new norm — as it is in Europe, where even minor retrenchment of the entitlement state has led to despair and, for the more energetic, rioting.

An Obama second term means that the movement toward European-style social democracy continues, in part by legislation, in part by executive decree. The American experiment — the more individualistic, energetic, innovative, risk-taking model of democratic governance — continues to recede, yielding to the supervised life of the entitlement state.

Every four years we are told that the coming election is the most important of one’s life. This time it might actually be true. At stake is the relation between citizen and state, the very nature of the American social contract."




The Choice - Charles Krauthammer - National Review Online