That explains why low info voters wouldn't vote for Obama. He's just too smart for you to understand. If you looked at the whole interview instead of just a few mischaracterized phrases, you'd see he wasn't praising Reagan, but is usings Reagan's technique to get a major win for the Democrats. But don't let the truth stand in your way.
The fact that you posted anonymously doesn't make me take you too seriously, but I will respond.He's just too smart for me to understand? Wow. I can't even find anything to rebut a statement as silly as that.For the record, I'll post the entire statement here:I don't want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what's different are the times. I do think that for example the 1980 was different. I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.For the record, government grew, not shrank under Reagan, despite what he claimed to be for. What Reagan tapped into was racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. He represented, to reactionary white male Americans, a return to a past that never was, where everyone who was not a white straight male "knew their place." I've like Obama so far-- I do like the message of hope, etc., but I like comparing him to Kennedy, not Reagan. Having spent all of the eighties very active in politics and very active in fighting everything Reagan was for, I have nothing but negative connotations with Reagan and Reaganism. For what it's worth, I have both a Bachelor's and Master's degree in Political Science and read voraciously on politics and history. But hey, I'm not smart enough to get Barack Obama's blatant pandering to "Reagan Democrats."
I had not heard that JY, wow... Is he committing some form of political suicide here?
Go, Johnny! I'm liking Edwards more everyday. Too bad the media has decided that there are only two Democratic candidates in the primaries. At least, that's the way they make it sound.
This election will only be the second presidential primary I vote in in Georgia. It feels like my vote doesn't really count. In 2004 the Georgia primary was late so it didn't matter at all. I'm still thinking Edwards myself. I am really bothered by the idea of another Clinton simply because it's the continuation the Bush-Clinton dynasty.
I think the shotgun shot the wrong target.......
This is why I love you
Amen, brother. I already voted for Clinton anyway.Ronald Reagan was a jerk, lest not ever forget. It's weird to think there've only been two Democratic presidents since Nixon, isn't it?
Good comeback. I find as the campaigns progress and candidates become more tired and frazzled the more loopy their missteps becomes.
Dynasty? Damn straight! What did that second Roosevelt ever do for the country? We're just lucky that someone killed Bobby before we put a second Kennedy in office.I need to invent some kind of device that will let me roll my eyes at someone over the internet.What is it that makes otherwise sane people repeat Republican talking points?
Deadspot - sometimes a slap in the head provides an eye opener - point well taken.
Post a Comment
The ramblings and musings of a generally genial, but sometimes cranky baby-boomer and old punk-rocker