Posted on 10/01/2009 7:46:16 AM PDT by SmithL
The Obama revolution, and there was the hope of one, might still succeed. But only if Barack Obama follows the model of the incredibly successful Reagan revolution and heeds the political base that made his presidency possible.
Love him or not, Ronald Reagan had at least one outstanding political virtue - his respect for the concerns of those who placed their trust in him. And whenever the political vultures that feast on power tried to lead him astray, they were fired at the insistence of Reagan or his remarkably savvy wife, Nancy. Hopefully Obama and his no-less-impressive mate, Michelle, will do the same.
The first obligation of Obama as president is to be a peacemaker, because he as a candidate seized that mantle, successfully exploiting his early opposition to the Iraq war, which his closest rival, Hillary Rodham Clinton, had supported. Obama, as opposed to her flirtations with U.S. imperial arrogance, has stuck to a vision of a complex multipolar world in which the military option is to be chosen only as a last resort.
In that regard, the president is making some progress, particularly with his decision to stop provoking the Russians . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
The difference between Reagan and Obama is that Reagan actually had virtue.
Hmmmmm....so the lefties are concerned that Zero’s an empty suit, the moderates are figuring out he’s an empty suit, and the conservatives are convinced that he’s an empty suit. What’s the common denominator here, students?
That old commie Sheer is still alive? Go figure.
There is one huge difference between Reagan’s revolution and 0bama’s. Reagan represented the majority of the American people, so appealing to his base meant never being upside down in the polls.
0bama’s bolshevik revolution’s goals never had the support of the majority of the American people. To appeal to his base means certain political defeat unless he carries out the slogan of “all power to the worker’s and soldier’s soviets...er...I mean...ACORN and the SEIU!”
Reagan didn't heed the view of a political base, he created a political base that shared his views.
Afghanistan is only one of Obama’s “disastrous errors”.
Wish I could say that were true, but Reagan was sub-50 during the 1982 recession, as well as from much of the period from 1986-1987 (thanks to Iran Contra).
Barak Obama is an empty suit, so let’s stand together and give him the boot.
Mmmmm...Mmmmm...Mmmmm.
Reagan's base worked for a living. Obama's base are leeches and the mega-rich. He has to constantly pay both of them off or they drift away (a large number of his leeches drifted off without hours of getting their free booze, cigarettes and walking around money on election day).
The more he pays off the leeches and speculator class, the more people in the middle class become actively against him. He can't win unless he destroys the middle class. He is doing his best to do that but he won't be able to pull it off. This isn't Russia circa 1930 or China circa 1949.
"Sure, Robert --and after that we can all save the Carter Legacy!"
Obama’s wife lost her lic. to practice law. FWIW
Bob, I remember Ronald Reagan.
Bob, Barack Obama is no Ronald Reagan.
Has the reason Mrs. Zero lost her law licence been revealed yet?
Just wondering...
“In that regard, the president is making some progress, particularly with his decision to stop provoking the Russians . . .”
Please explain to me what the hell this idiot means by this?
And given his behaviour, I'm getting more and more suspicious about the "American" (as opposed to "Russian" or "Cuban") part.
You can't govern by the will of 10% of the people.
The Communists shot themselves in the foot: their Barack Obama mole should have been Hispanic, since they are the true up-and-coming "minority victim" group. As it is, black American's numbers will continue to dwindle in relative terms: and in wealth as well, since many Hispanics still follow the American dream of hard work and small businesses, followed by professional education for their children. Compared to the gangsta-rap, whining-about-racism, and 3rd to 4th generation welfare queens too prevalent in the inner cities' black populations.
Racist? No.
People from India have had it worse than the blacks for centuries: and yet they used a combination of education, low wages, nepotism, and fast talking to take a lot of the high-paying jobs away from middle-class white America.
Cheers!
LOVE IT!
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.