Header Image (book)

aowheader.3.2.gif

Monday, January 24, 2011

Obama Invokes Ronald Reagan

Desperation just before the State of the Union Address? More revisionist history? Typical Leftist hypocrisy? In the final paragraph, Obama states:
When the future looked darkest and the way ahead seemed uncertain, President Reagan understood both the hardships we faced and the hopes we held for the future. He understood that it is always "Morning in America." That was his gift, and we remain forever grateful.
Is Obama actually promoting American exceptionalism now?

Read the op-ed essay (note byline), and decide for yourself.

44 comments:

  1. Yeah, that Obaka, he's just breaking the sound barrier going to the "Right," isn't he?

    Particularly considering he's going after MORE SPENDING in his SOTU speech tomorrow, the arse.

    Yeah, again, that massive spending, it's sure working out, isn't it??

    BZ

    ReplyDelete
  2. We all know that Obama is a MORON and hates America, but watch closely tomorrow night, see WHO on the GOP side falls for the bulls*it and sits with the Dems, intermixed as if there's no difference between the 2...

    Wait, as of late, there IS no difference.. Dem and Dem Lite...

    ReplyDelete
  3. In my many years on this earth, I've learned to believe what people do over what they say.

    Obama may promise much to bring up his flagging approval numbers, but I'm going to wait and see how he follows through.

    From his track record, I'm not hopeful.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Note to TexasFred, You are on the money with that one. There isn't any difference between the two. At their core they are all (save for maybe a handful) statist globalist fascist pigs.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hi AOW.
    I was expecting he would be using Reagan pretty soon and i do mean USING !

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/hawaii-vacation-obama-reads-reagan/

    ReplyDelete
  7. This prom stuff for Tuesday night sickens me. It is sucking up the air when the Republicans should be responding and on the offensive. Classic stuff. They have us on the defensive now, for not being nice.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Obama's been ALL OVER this kind of PRO AMERICAN stuff for a few weeks now, kind of shocking. He's trying a new tactic; "I like America now!" (ya, right)
    I have to admit I was stunned when both the Obamas knew all the words to the patriotic American song they all sang at the Tucson Memorial...not sure which song it was but they had ALL the words down and never ONCE looked at each other rolling their eyes :-)

    ReplyDelete
  9. Z, the words were on the BIG Screen I think. They might know the words to some hip-hop rap carp song but doubtful that they even know the first line of America the Beautiful, The National Anthem or any other patriotic song.

    Oh, yea, the fools are fawning all over his "move to right of center". Every damn RINO in the House and Senate will be jumping up in their seats Tuesday nite. I'm watching, with sound muted, and taking names. I'll read what he has to BS about because I can't stand to listen to the sob more than 10 seconds without needing to puke.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Once an a$$ always an a$$, quoting Reagan just makes him a unoriginal a$$..

    ReplyDelete
  11. At the risk of sounding completely opinionated, President Obama has no business invoking Ronald Reagan. The difference between the two is so great, as to be unmeasurable. Daylight and dark, cold and warmth, the analogies could go on and on. I think you get my point.

    ReplyDelete
  12. What epiphany did Mr. Obama have that suddenly caused him to swerve to the right? I don't believe any of it for a minute. You don't toss your lifelong learning and avowed beliefs (of which you write a book) in the space of a few weeks. Rhetoric is the easiest thing for politicians to manipulate. Actions are what count and that can only be proven over an extended period of time. Only if Obama is consistently leaning Right for the next two years, and lose all his backing from the Left will I believe it.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Ticker said:

    the fools are fawning all over his "move to right of center".

    The mainstream media have been drumming away on that the last several days-- in the print media.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Alligator said:

    What epiphany did Mr. Obama have that suddenly caused him to swerve to the right? I don't believe any of it for a minute. You don't toss your lifelong learning and avowed beliefs (of which you write a book) in the space of a few weeks.

    Exactly.

    All of this is calculated for political gain.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Will,
    Thank you for reminding us about the book that BHO was carrying around on vacation in Hawaii. I had forgotten that!

    BHO is "on stage" all the time. His handlers do know how to manipulate his image, that's for sure.

    Did he actually read the book? I doubt it.

    For that matter, I doubt that he wrote the op-ed in USA Today.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if BHO mentions Ronald Reagan tonight in the SOTU message.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Z,
    both the Obamas knew all the words to the patriotic American song they all sang at the Tucson Memorial

    My view: if they did actually know the words, then the Obamas were well coached in advance.

    As you can tell, I'm completely cynical when it comes to Obama.

    In truth, I'm very cynical about ALL politicians. They are actors on the political stage.

    ReplyDelete
  18. The title of Obama's op-ed is "Obama: Reagan saw that 'we are all patriots.'" I hardly think that Reagan would see Obama as a patriot as Obama has advocated redistribution of wealth.

    ReplyDelete
  19. " I hardly think that Reagan would see Obama as a patriot as Obama has advocated redistribution of wealth."

    Let's get off the revisionism. There have and has been so much polishing of Reagan it's laughable. He was a fine leader at a pivotal time but let us disabuse ourselves of the silly notion that Reagan was something he was not. He cut tax rates all the while spending like a Vegas gambler. Of course as the story goes that spending "broke" the back of the Soviets in their effort to compete with SDI/Star Wars. More revisionism of course as the Soviet Union had been well on its way to economic collapse due largely and almost exclusively in part to their war with Afghanistan.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Missed my other point about Reagan and redistribution. On July 18, 1984, Reagan signed Public Law 98-369 (H.R. 4170), otherwise known as the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984. This increased the EITC (Earned Income Tax Credit) benefit to 11 percent with a maximum of $550. Then, beginning with the 1987 tax year, the EITC escalated. Public Law 99-514 (H.R. 3838), signed by President Reagan on October 22, 1986, as the Tax Reform Act of 1986, increased the EITC to 14 percent with a maximum of $851. The figure then rose steadily to a maximum of $953 in 1990, with a partial benefit available for incomes up to $20,264.

    Granted the EITC was introduced under Ford, but it increased under Carter, again under Reagan, again under Bush Sr., and skyrocketed under Clinton.

    Case none are privy, the EITC is unquestionably one of the biggest welfare/wealth redistribution programs at present.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Soapster,

    Video about Obama's philosophy on redistribution of wealth.

    BTW, you'll never catch me advocating all aspects of Reaganomics.

    Until recently, Obama made a point of denying and negating American exceptionalism, something that Reagan sincerely believed in.

    In my view, Reagan was a pragmatist in many ways. Some of that pragmatism was indeed ill-founded. But not all!

    ReplyDelete
  22. Soapster,
    the Soviet Union had been well on its way to economic collapse due largely and almost exclusively in part to their war with Afghanistan

    Probably so. But Reagan did give nice nudge to the fall of the Soviet Union.

    However, the breakup of the USSR did have negative consequences, including the rise of Islam in the former Soviet Socialist Republics.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Quote from Obama from the above-cited video:

    But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.

    And to that extent as radical as people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you, it says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted. One of the I think tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributed change and in some ways we still suffer from that.

    ReplyDelete
  24. That wasn't necessary. I'm privy to it. I do however want to take you to task on your statement that the breakup of thde soviet union had negative consequences (Islam). That is without question a broad generalization and an unfair one at that. It lumps the good with the bad much in the same fashion that Limbaugh and Palin do it only to then cry foul when they are lumped in collectively as somehow culpable for the actions of a deranged lunatic. Are there radical aspects of Islam? Yes there are. Would it have been preferable for people to not have religious freedom and instead be under the boot of communist Russia? Depends who you ask I suppose.

    ReplyDelete
  25. You asked: "Desperation just before the State of the Union Address? More revisionist history? Typical Leftist hypocrisy?"

    I'd say all three.

    His phony praise for Reagan will only fool those who have not seen this from Obama's book "Dreams from My Father:"

    "When classmates in college asked me just what it was that a community organizer did, I couldn't answer them directly," Obama wrote. "Instead, I'd pronounce on the need for change. Change in the White House, where Reagan and his minions were carrying on their dirty deeds…"

    Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/01/new-op-ed-obama-praises-reagan-inspiration-95-autobiography-obama#ixzz1CBJ1rift

    ReplyDelete
  26. Someone's obviously told him that telling people they're too stupid to know how wonderful he is, isn't the best way to get votes in 2012.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Mike,
    Thank you for that link! I'll mention the information to my Government students.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Soapster and AOW

    I can tell you are both well versed on this topic of the rise of Islam and the fall of Communism.

    Of course I agree all credit does not go to Reagan for breaking up the Soviet for the essential tenet of capitalism is that communism will ultimately fail. Therefore yes most of agree communism was a hollow shell of an economy that would have imploded under strain. The invasion of Afghanistan and Reagan were but two strains on a flawed system.

    Although generally I would agree the fall of one empire leaves a vaccum for another, I believe you are taking this out of context and forgetting something huge. Oil

    Radical Islam had been practiced on the Arabia Pennisula for hundreds of years before Columbus even sailed. Some Islamic areas were under the yoke of communism and no doubt benifitted by its demise.

    However, without the wealth provided by oil production, islamic countries would have remained the marginal player on the world's stage they were during the time of Reagan's youth.

    The irnoy is in we help create the disparity of many in these countries because we refuse to harvest the energy available in abundance in our own country.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Something and I apology for length of these but I did separate them as they are different points.

    The problem with Republicans is compromise. They are far too willing on domestic policy to cave in and "reach across the aisle". This reaching always ends badly for the Republican. In this case it becomes the discussion point when mostly we are just saying Reagan at least made us feel proud to be American. His agreements with the Democratic Party controlled Congress were unfortunate but how do argue against an industry that paints you as a despicable person if you dont spend more on blanky blank blank? In more recent days both sides despised the No Child Left behind a biil sponsored by Ted Kennedy but Bush signed the thing.

    The fact is republicans have betrayed Conservatives many times. In my opinion Obama did not win the election narrowly rather Bush by agreeing to the first Tarp betrayed conservatives and many did not vote.

    Two decades from now a blogger will say but Bush signed Tarp legislaton 910.87 or whatever the number is of the bill and some other blogger will be trying to explain why Bush was still better than Obama.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Soapster,
    I don't know if you're still coming back to this thread. Let me know by posting a comment here.

    I overlooked your last comment -- or else it didn't show up in comment notification.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Blogginator,
    Many factors have contributed to the resurgence of radical Islam, both before and after the Iranian Revolution (1979).

    You are correct to mention how oil has played in. In fact, Dr. Tawfik Hamad has referred to Petro-Islam and the idea among the ummah that oil in Islamic countries, particularly in Saudi Arabia, is proof that Wahhabism is the right "branch" of Islam.

    Now, if the West were not so dependent on oil reserves under the control of Islamic nations, the world might well see an earth change in Islamic ideology, at least to some extent.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Blogginator,
    Right now, we are seeing numerous and budding revolts in several Islamic nations. Interesting! To say the least!

    ReplyDelete
  33. Soapster,
    Regarding your comment that it wasn't necessary for me to post that lengthy citation about Obama and redistribution of wealth, I'm used to proving some of my allegations because I teach expository writing and policy debate.

    Hold on. A delivery truck is pulling up -- oil delivery for our furnace, I hope. Back soon.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Soapster,
    False alarm. Not the oil delivery but rather the snow plow.

    Anyway, you said in an earlier comment:

    I do however want to take you to task on your statement that the breakup of thde soviet union had negative consequences (Islam). That is without question a broad generalization and an unfair one at that.

    In my view, the break up of the USSR is but one factor.

    Another factor: Ronald Reagan, focused as he was on the Communist threat, did not recognize that something serious could be happening in the Islamic world. I think -- and this is just my opinion -- that Reagan viewed Islam as a better alternative than Communism AND never imagined that a bunch of "savages" could ever harm the United States. Furthermore, he may have had some social dealings with some Muslims (Do you know?) and found them personable -- which many clearly are.

    I'll go a bit further. Reagan certainly believed in American exceptionalism and in freedom of religion. Frankly, I think that Reagan did not see Islam as a geopolitical ideology but as strictly a faith.

    You stated:

    Would it have been preferable for people to not have religious freedom and instead be under the boot of communist Russia? Depends who you ask I suppose.

    I did not mean to imply that I thought that being under Communism was preferable, However, in many respects, fundamentalist Islam is a boot, too.

    Question for you, Soapster: Is one ideology (Communism or fundamental Islam) more dangerous than the other?

    I'll stop here (no proofing) and click publish and wait for your response.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I don't find either Communism or Islamic fundamentalism anymore deletarious than the other to be honest. They both have at their core a deeply rooted collectivist premise (this is why I don't tend to make distinctions between socialism, nazism, communism, fascism, et al. because at the core of them all is the negation of individualism. They all sacrifice individual autonomy for the sake of the "greater good".).

    I do tend to think the Islamic threat is largely overblown for the sake of keeping the citizenry in a state of fear for the sake of building and expanding the military industrial complex/police state paradigm which I will further admit I believe is geared far more for the purposes of monitoring citizens than it is Islamic radicals.

    Communism does and has always fallen on its own sword. Of course China is rising and naturally we keep them afloat at our own peril but their boat will one day take on water. I'm sure of that.

    Anything else?

    ReplyDelete
  36. Soapster,
    You said: They all sacrifice individual autonomy for the sake of the "greater good".).

    I say: I agree.

    As for the Islamic threat, the kind of protection you mentioned isn't dealing with -- and cannot deal with -- internal Islamification.

    In my view, shari'a is creeping.

    I also say that I have considerable concern about Muslims not assimilating into Western culture, particularly in certain European nations.

    Communism does and has always fallen on its own sword.

    Yes. Of course, the cost in human lives has been horrendous. That fact was brought home to me recently as I'm preparing to teach One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich. My literature class just finished reading Crime and Punishment, which has a subtheme Russian culture under Czarist rule. Grim.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Soapster,
    I am enjoying this discussion with you.

    However, I need to sign off from the web right now. See my last comment at my top post.

    I'll return to this thread when my back settles down. **sigh**

    ReplyDelete
  38. The pleasure's been all mine. Take care of that back. I had lower back pain for about a week which was probably in part due to hockey and shoveling.

    I changed my sleep number from a 45 to a 70 and it's been better since.

    ReplyDelete
  39. I have a question....

    Is Obama every going to be Obama?

    I am serious this guy has invoked every other President and/or the media has compared him to every other President.

    Lincoln was during the campaign, now Reagan, Kennedy, and we even had the whole be like Clinton and move to the center thing.

    If it were me, I would say, I am not any of those people I am me.

    ReplyDelete
  40. I have a question....

    Is Obama every going to be Obama?

    I am serious this guy has invoked every other President and/or the media has compared him to every other President.

    Lincoln was during the campaign, now Reagan, Kennedy, and we even had the whole be like Clinton and move to the center thing.

    If it were me, I would say, I am not any of those people I am me.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Blogginator,
    The push is on through the mainstream print media to compare BHO favorably with Reagan -- and not in the usual way of slamming Reagan.

    Can Obama be himself? Well, I'm not sure that he himself has defined himself. And certainly, as pointed out more than once by liberal columnist Richard Cohen (WaPo), Obama lacks a particular personality trait: empathy. For that reason, some of his speeches really do fall flat in that they don't connect.

    ReplyDelete

We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective