Linkfest on Reagan

by: Matt Stoller

Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 17:51


In case you haven't had enough of me, Chris, and Paul on Reagan, here's some more good analysis, both pro and con.

Big Tent Democrat, Digby, and Rick Perlstein generally take the 'Obama doesn't get it' position.  Matthew Yglesias, Ezra Klein, and TNR's Josh Patashnik take what I'll call the 'double-clever theory of change' approach.

I'll note that I believe strongly that Matt Stoller, with his passionate hatred of Obama's candidacy, has clearly lost credibility.  I'm saddened that a blog like OpenLeft, which I once used to like, has sunk so low and is emulating the MSM.

UPDATE:  Here are more clips.  This one is Obama saying he opposes the 'anti-military 70s love-in' kind of approach to warmaking, and this one is Obama saying that the Republicans were the party ideas and were challenging conventional wisdom, though it leaves out the next statement, which is him saying that this is no longer the case.

I would comment, but I have lost credibility.  Besides I have an anti-military 70s love-in to attend.

UPDATE AGAIN:  Lots of great stuff in the comments, as usual.  Former Dodd staffer Matt Browner Hamlin has some more thoughts in his new blog, Hold Fast.

Matt Stoller :: Linkfest on Reagan

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Linkfest on Reagan | 63 comments
Thanks for the links (4.00 / 5)
I guess I'm of the Matt and Ezra persuasion, in this case.

Say, from what I understand, you actually know this Matt Stoller guy.  Maybe you can talk to him a bit.

Tell him, his heart's in the right place, and he's smart and passionate, and all of us love that.

But, the excessive progressive-ology, can be a bit tedious and self-defeating.

Not EVERY statement by Obama needs to be intrepreted, re-interpreted, in light of the "truth of progressivism".  Unlike Kreminology, or Greespan-ology, a candidate says a million things, as they go through a campaign.  You can't analyze and overanalyze every word.

Look at Obama's history, and what he VOTES for.

At any rate, tell that Matt guy, he's a good kid, we like him. He needs to relax, for big fight that'll be on in six months.

We don't want the primaries to make Matt lose his shit permanently.

sign me up for excessive progressive-ology (0.00 / 0)
The candidates don't need to pander to us.  But there's lots of good things Democrats could be saying that aren't "Yay Reagan!"

Honestly, I thought we in the netroots were all about proudly campaigning as Democrats.  What isn't wrong with taking time out of your busy schedule to talk up the Gipper?

[ Parent ]
Sign me up for double-secret theory of change, with a caveat. (4.00 / 3)
Reagan was an extremely conservative politician, who used charm, charisma, and some liberals-are-bad-for-you judo to get like 56% of the country to vote for him, who knocked out 12 Democratic Senators in his first election, and who then governed as an extremely conservative president. 

I think Obama wants to be a progressive, who uses charm, charisma, and some mean-politics-are-bad-for-you judo to win 56% of the vote, knock out 7 Republican Senators, and govern with a Democratic troika in DC. 

(Which party, after all, is notorious for mean politics?  If both parties had to play nice for six years, who would that hurt the most?  Obama's nicey-nice act does have some judo involved, because it takes the key Republican strength of the last fifteen years, attack-and-destroy politics, and disarms it... assuming he gets that 56% of the vote mandate anyway.)

The problem for all of us here is that Obama's record is much much thinner and more inscrutable than Reagan's.  So Reagan's supporters knew precisely what they were gonna get, and were ecstatic that he could use weird rhetorical strategies to get union men to vote for him.  We on the other hand have no real idea what we're going to get, so we don't know whether to be excited that he can win over independents, or scared shitless by his gooey rhetoric ourselves.  We have no way to just trust Obama in the way that conservatives could implicitly trust Reagan as one of their own. 

On one hand, if he were trying to run a stealth campaign to win the presidency with 56%, the Senate, and neutralize the noise machine, this is exactly how he'd do it -- that theory explains all the evidence.  On the other hand, if he really were a crypto-conservative who despised the liberal base, he might be doing exactly this as well, so that theory could conceivably explain all the evidence too.

Worse (4.00 / 3)
In addition to Obama's record being thin (true, but overplayed) what there is of it is pretty small beer.

Not bad, but certainly not visionary, and he's even on record as opposing visionary, because you can't get consensus on visionary.

In short, this is a record that says he has no ambition to be a progressive Ronald Reagan.

Near as I can tell, he wants to be Bill Clinton--modest, incimental, within-the-connsensus "progressive" change--with Reagan-like fluffing from the press so he doesn't get impeached for blowing his nose in public.  If he gets that, as the first black President, he gets certified gold in the official histories, and from where he stands, that's about as good as it gets.

Damn!  Whatever happened to raw ambition?

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
His proposals may not seem visionary to many progressives.... (4.00 / 1)
but they do to me. I think his open government proposals are visionary in their potential to enable the proliferation and implementation of visionary progressive ideas and mobilized citizen coalitions on multiple fronts--well beyond what has ever been seen in history (at least to my knowledge).  I know I harp on this in my comments, but I think its central to the meaning and significance of his candidacy...and also central to our potential to actually succeed in revitalizing our democracy, economy and community...IMHO, more central than the concerns and doubts I've so far heard raised by Obama's critics.

We need to understand and fight with 21st century tools and strategies.  That's part of the lesson we can learn from the Republican right, who came to dominate the cable TV era of roughly 1980-2006, thanks in part to Mr. Reagan muddling portions of the middle class and, more importantly, to the money, strategy and propaganda guys who funded and managed that path to dominance.

If I could, I'd edit Obama's comment in that clip to say that "Republicans became the party of 'selling ideas'".  Since we actually believe in democracy, our version of this strategy will need to be different.  And, fortunately, the nature of the Internet is much, much friendlier to a democracy-friendly realignment and governing strategy than was broadcast and cable TV, which are relatively friendly to top-down control, manipulation, distraction and deceit.

Obama's tech policies recognize key elements of the revolutionary potential present in this Internet-enabled moment in political history.  For me, the question of which progressive leaders best understand and most value this potential is as or more important than gradations of positions and statements regarding specific issues (depending, of course, on the specific issue and position).

I think Obama gets this and agrees with me regarding its centrality and revolutionary potential.

And I'm not just talking about an Internet-centric governing strategy as simply an expedient means to an end.  It is also a key element of the ends themselves--bringing democracy back to life, expanding global communities that support education, health and mutual understanding, collaborative creation of new solutions, learning quickly from mistakes and quickly revealing untruths, etc.--basically serving as the nervous system of a rebalanced global society that can deal with the many and serious problems we face.  Implementing it won't be easy, but my mind and my gut both tell me it'll be necessary.

Its good to be right and OK to feel righteous, but the most important thing, as I see it, is that we're able to turn this ship around before it hits (or rather melts) too many more icebergs.

[ Parent ]
Proceedural Reforms Are Great, But... (4.00 / 1)
The early 20th Century Progressive thought that procedural reforms were the cat's pajamas.  They did make some substantive reforms, too, but procedural reforms were their first love.  And the sad fact is that procreedural reforms are just not enough.

This is the main reason why the New Deal was so much more consequential.  It had procedural reforms, it had substantive reforms, and it had structural reforms.

And underlying it all, there was a different vision--that the common working person counted for something, and had an essential dignity that the state was bound to respect and protect.

Now, that's visionary.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Its broader than that, and internalizes the "dignity" vision (0.00 / 0)
My vision isn't of "procedural reform," its of an ongoing transformation of our political and economic systems that is inherently consistent with the "dignitarian" vision you refer to.  And I believe Obama shares that vision, at least to a large degree.  I think Edwards embodies important aspects of it, and with a lot of passion, and my sense is that Obama's vision and strategy includes enough room to encompass and empower Edwards' passion (in fact, I think they'd make a very effective "good cop/bad cop" political-change team).

That view of Obama is admittedly based on some extrapolation and speculation, but I think the alternative more doubtful view of him is as well.

But I do agree with your point about the need for a driving vision with regard to basic values.  My point is that technology-enabled systemic changes (backed rather than opposed by the Federal government) can give that vision a practical power it has never had before...and at at time when we have a lot less wiggle room than we've ever had before.

I'm probably not explaining myself very well.  For a much more thorough and eloquent expression of what I'm getting at, I'd recommend Yochai Benkler's book, "The Wealth of Networks."
http://www.benkler.o...
or, for some excerpts, you can check out an old diary post of mine from MyDD:
http://mydd.com/stor...

[ Parent ]
Then What's Stopping Him??? (4.00 / 1)
If Obama really does embrace a dignitarian vision, then what's stopping him from boldly articulating it?

If he did so, it could turn me into an enthusiastic supporter just like that.

I was already planning to discuss this possibility in a diary this weekend.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Winning the nomination, then the general (0.00 / 0)
Good question, and here's my guess at an answer: 

I think much of it is a positioning strategy to win the nomination when Edwards is already positioned as the populist and Obama is especially well positioned (by belief, temperment and age) to attract independents and some Republicans with his current emphasis. 

Once those folks help him win the nomination in a field where the best he can do among Dems is roughly an even split with Clinton minus Edwards' core base, he can focus more on the message that distinguishes him (and all progressive Dems) most dramatically from the Republicans. 

That message would be anchored in the dignitarian vision, which he, due to his heritage and history, has the potential to literally embody, and thanks to his oratory skills, has the potential to convey in an inspirational and inclusive way. 

This, in turn, will anchor the base that had previously been split among Clinton, him and Edwards.  It will also bring into clearer focus the "dignity for all" theme and other progressive values, perceptions and policies, which need to be more fully internalized and integrated over time by citizens involved in the realignment (e.g., indies and some Repubs).  You might call it a multi-phase "de-programming" process, after nearly 30 years of virtually no integrity and humanity coming from Washington and the DC media.

At least that's what I'd be planning if I was him or was advising him.

[ Parent ]
But He's Lost Ground To Clinton Among Liberals (0.00 / 0)
It's an interesting strategic theory, but I don't think it holds up analytically, since he's lost ground to Clinton among liberals, and an explicit dignitarian platform would not only probably have prevented that, it might well have gained even more liberal support.

It would also do nothing to lose independent support that I can think of, and could possibly even increase that support.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Good points. (0.00 / 0)
Makes me want to think about this more.  My comment did feel a little half-baked, even to me.  I'll put it back in the oven and see if yields anything further.
One tangential point I'd raise before getting back to tedious work I've got to attend to...
I just had brief exchange with Chris B in one of today's threads and the point he and others seemed to be making (and which made sense to me) is that liberal-moderate-conservative self-ID scales are increasingly useless as vote predictors in this primary.  The example cited that got my attention was that Edwards, arguably the most progressive (and certainly the most populist) candidate, gets a disproportionate share of his support from self-described moderates and conservatives.
Perhaps this speaks to your earlier posts regarding progressives and populists.
I don't have the brainpower to think about this right now, but I'd welcome your comments on this issue.
[ Parent ]
Low Info Voters Are Notoriously Unclear About Ideology (0.00 / 0)
Somewhere deeply buried I have a paper from some journal that goes into considerable detail about how little idea low-income voters have about ideology.  I should try to find it.

Or at least pretend to try.  It seems like now's the time to be doing it.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
You just articulated my hopes for Obama (0.00 / 0)
But they are just hopes. As you say, he is no Reagan and there are no guarantees with this state legislator.

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra
[ Parent ]
Gee, so much fervor for such a clever liar... (0.00 / 0)
Just what this country needs. 
[ Parent ]
Woah! Dude! (4.00 / 1)
I would comment, but I have lost credibility.  Besides I have an anti-military 70s love-in to attend.

You got your time-machine fixed!

Far out!

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

Another question for Obama supporters... (2.67 / 3)

........which they will pretend they never heard and make no reply to.

Lemme set the stage for those here who don't know me. I was at UCB from 1965 thru 1972. So I know St. Ronnie and his agenda pretty damn well.

I was in ROTC from 1967 thru 1968 when I resigned my commision after being told by an Army Ranger Captain, who had the Silver Star, that the only thing we were doing in ''Nam was killing people for no good reason, other than American exceptionalism, and that no military solution to the political problems in Vietnam was possible.

And yeah, some other things happened that year that caused me to search my concience.

I was immediately reclassified and drafted in the fall.

I refused induction and my name is still in the FBI files.

I dared the govenment of Robert McNamara and Dick Cheney to indict me.

They declined.

I commented extensively on Senator 'Dope's' stupid assesement of St. Ronnie in a previous thread.

Here's my current take on Obama. He's clearly ignorant of the political history of  the time. He's not much of a politician as he continues to put himself in the position of passing judgment on people and issues on which he is.....

Pretty much ignorant.

There is no way the anti-war movement of the 70s can be truthfully characterized as he tries to do.

I know. I was there. I helped participated to the highest degree possible.

So, once again I'd like to invite Senator Obama and his low-info followers to....

STFU!


Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

Umm... (4.00 / 2)
Maybe it's just me pretending, but that's not a question.

I've got a question for you though: Senator "Dope" is really pathetic trash-talk.

[ Parent ]
Make up your mind: (4.00 / 1)
Is it not pretend we didn't hear you and reply or is it shut the fuck up?  You obviously are another one who hasn't actually listened to the whole interview before commenting or else you could not make the contention he is passing judgement on people or issues, nor could you say he is characterizing the entire anti-War movement as an anti-military Love In.  But being a child of the 60's myself, and being aware that whole War could have been avoided if we had actually recognized Vietnam as an independent democratic state when Ho Chi Minh first came to us, and being aware that our part in that war could have been avoided if we had lived up to the Paris Peace Accords instead of subverting them, I am also aware that these two issues played little in the minds of many attending many of the peace rallies, especially the more Love-In style ones.  Not all rallies were the same, but many were based completely on pacifism, man, far out.  Which wasn't where Obama was coming from when he made his speech.  And no amount of your personal history will change what he was referring to.
[ Parent ]
And if pigs had wings (4.00 / 2)
they might fly.  You may be a child of the 60s, but if so, you are a dumb one.  It's true that if we had recognized Vietnam as a nation, and not supported the French in their re-colonization effort, the war could have been avoided.  But what the hell does that have to do with the anti-war protests and efforts to stop it?  Not one damn thing.

I fought in that hellish war and vigorously protested it afterward. Your dipshit Senator Kumbaya and you can kiss my ass.  If you cowards had the courage of your convictions on the Iraq war, there would be a real movement to stop it now instead of this pathetic shit on the internet.  Bitch, bitch, moan, moan and type in the 101st Fighting Keyboardists.  You're a real movement all right.

Without those messy fights in the 60s and 70s, Obama would be sittimng in the projects instead of running for president. His ignorance is amazing.  The only thing more pathetic is his supporters who would defend anything and call racist on anyone who disagrees.

Oh I vote for shut the fuck up.

[ Parent ]
Yeah! (0.00 / 0)
If you damn Obama supporters would just get out there and have a big protest, the Iraq war would be over! It worked with the Vietnam war!

Maybe if John Edwards and Hillary Clinton had had the courage of their convictions, and if more people had listened to Barack Obama, who actually had the courage to come out against the war when doing so was unpopular, the Iraq war might never have happened in the first place.

But then, I disagree with you, so I'm a bad liberal and should just shut the fuck up, right?

[ Parent ]
Clueless.. (0.00 / 0)
What do you think stopped the Viet Nam war?  Prayers and kumbaya?  Oh, they just all got tired and quit.  People who don't learn/know history are doomed to repeat it.
[ Parent ]
Well... (0.00 / 0)
If the protests were what stopped the war, why didn't it end in 1967? I mean, if you think Nixon withdrew troops from Vietnam because he saw a whole bunch of kids waving anti-war signs, I'd question which one of us is being starry-eyed.

Besides which, it's worth noting that protests were able to have the impact they had in the sixties because they were shocking: it was very startling to the establishment for so many young people to get together and denounce the government. Today, not so much with the shocking. It would probably help if the American people elected a government that was opposed to the war, or had reasons to want to end it. Until that happens, the war won't end.

[ Parent ]
I'm Mystified (4.00 / 1)
How does the treachery and folly of US policy in the late 40s and 50s connect with imaginary love-ins against the war?

Not all rallies were the same, but many were based completely on pacifism, man, far out.

Who organized these?  Where were they held?  What records exist to confirm their existence?

I mean, really, I was at love-ins, I was at be-ins and I was at anti-war marches, rallies and demonstrations.  And the differences between love-ins/be-ins and anti-war actions of all kinds were rather striking.  In fact, these differences were a continual source of anguish for many anti-war organizers, who only wished it were so easy to get the great mass of relatively apolitical--if not anti-political--antendees of the former to attend the latter.

There were pacifist groups, to be sure, especially in light of the Civil Rights Movement, which had been both an inspiration and a place of incubation for many of the earliest anti-war activists. The American Friends Service Committee was one such group.  I attended non-violence trainings that they ran.  That was for people preparing to get arrested.  Nothing, man, far out about that.  Going to jail is such a downer.  But that's where most of the pacifist anti-war energy went--to militant, non-violent action, not smoking dope in the sun.

From an article by historian H. Bruce Franklin:

DEMONSTRATIONS were one form of the attempt to go beyond mere words. Other forms appeared as early as 1965. Many of the activists were veterans of the civil-rights movement, who now began to apply its use of civil disobedience and moral witness. That summer, the Vietman Day Committee in northern California attempted to block munitions trains by lying on the tracks; hundreds of people were arrested for civil disobedience in Washington; and public burnings of draft cards began. Moral witness was taken to its ultimate by Norman Morrison, a 32-- year-old Quaker who drenched himself with gasoline and set himself on fire outside the Pentagon; the pacifist Roger La Porte, who immolated himself at the United Nations; and 82-year-old Alice Herz, who burned herself to death in Detroit to protest against the war. By 1971, civill disobedience was so widespread that the number arrested in that spring's demonstration in Washington--14,000--would have been considered a good-size march in 1965.

That's what the pacifists were doing to stop the war.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Thanks, and see ya later (0.00 / 0)
Thanks for all the good work you guys do on the Bush Dogs and other progressive issues.

I will be un-bookmarking OpenLeft and staying away from the site for awhile, for my own sanity. Too many ridiculous attacks on Obama. (Hey, he's not wearing his American Flag pin!!! What does that mean???)

I'll be back when the primary's over, whenever that may be.

Peace.

Weird! (0.00 / 0)
That you post this in a diary that contains links to both sides of a very crucial debate: to wit--what's Obama up to?

Not a diatribe diary, but this.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
I've been posting all over the place (0.00 / 0)
On this, in defense of Obama. But un-bookmarking is, uh, an overreaction. You'd think us DFH's with our love-ins would loosen up.
[ Parent ]
Have another hit....bro! (0.00 / 0)
[ Parent ]
My take (0.00 / 0)
is here. Unsurprisingly, I don't agree with the Open Left take.
liked what you said (0.00 / 0)
was just about to post your link. :)
[ Parent ]
Here is my take (0.00 / 0)
On the Obama/Reagan thing.

For what it's worth, I'm one of the dirty hippie bloggers who agrees with Stoller (and Taylor Marsh).

BTW, I share a life experience with Obama, we both basically missed the 1960s, me in Alaska, and him in Hawaii and Jakarta.

In the 1960s, before penny a minute long distance, the internet, and cable and satellite TV, Hawaii and Alaska were actually pretty remote from the lower 48.

Another Link (4.00 / 1)
Melissa McEwan's 10 Reasons Not to Invoke Ronald Reagan.

I tend to agree with a lot on the list, but I particularly like No. 1:

In a hotly contested Democratic primary for the presidency, following eight long years of a Republican presidency which has left progressive activists exhausted to their very bones with outrage fatigue and fed up to the bloody teeth with conservatives, trying to distinguish yourself by claiming to be Reagan's heir-even if it has absolutely nothing to do with Reagan's actual policies-is stupid. And infuriating. And bound to be misunderstood. Praising Reagan for being a transformative visionary, in spite of both his actual vision and into what he transformed the nation, demands a pretty rigorous patience of people who have an understandably negative visceral reaction to Reagan, as they tease out the precise nuance. And, in the end, "I don't like anything Reagan did, but I like the way he did it" probably isn't a statement with enough value to haunt progressives with Ronnie's specter, anyway. We don't like it-and rightfully so.

My Only Comment Is (4.00 / 2)
With a reason #1 like that, who the heck needs 10?

But what the hell.  This is America, land of excess.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Mhm (4.00 / 1)
We should probably all remember that this comment was given in an ed board interview. It isn't like he talks about Reagan in his stump or in debates.

Someone ought to get a clarification from the campaign.

[ Parent ]
This is the sort of situation were you get to.... (0.00 / 0)

....see the 'real' candidate. Obama is saying to the board, whom I would bet aren't big fans of unions, that he's the 'right' kind of Dem. He's saying, 'I'm your boy!'

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.
[ Parent ]
Invoking Reagan (0.00 / 0)
is extremely upsetting to me. It could be his growing up in Hawaii. Either way, like McEwan wrote, he's tone deaf on this matter.

Banned for posting five straight diaries.
[ Parent ]
REEAAGAAAN BAAADDD!!! (4.00 / 1)
eom (no room for critical thought)
I thought you were headed to Vegas (0.00 / 0)
to organize an anti-Obama crusade of partisan-seeking, angry writing, upscale progressive bloggers. I can see you now carrying the flag, marching en masse, down the strip into a caucus to tell those maids, and janitors, and cooks and bell boys to turn their backs on their unions' right-wing-talker, Reagan-lover, impure and barely progressive, never-meet-the-standard, hope-monger. Send video.
What Else Would An Anti-military 70s Love-in Do For An Encore? (4.00 / 1)
Go to Elko?

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
No....Paul... (0.00 / 0)
us 70s 'Love in' types, incidentally the only folks who used that label were hopelessly out of it, are on the road to the 'Lost Coast'.

All puns intended.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

[ Parent ]
Yeah, And Here I Couldn't Find Any Decent Love-Ins After 1967, '68 At The Latest (0.00 / 0)
I just can't get over how hip Obama is.  Knows where all the Love-Ins were when all us DFHs couldn't find them anymore.

Musta been like raves.  Had to be on the list.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
One factor you may not be aware of Paul... (0.00 / 0)

.........is the tremendous increase in potency of 'Da Herb'. Perhaps Senator Hope is inhaling a bit too much?

This could explain a lot!

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

[ Parent ]
Actually it sounds like you med dose is off (0.00 / 0)
geezzz, calm down, and stop attacking.
[ Parent ]
"anti-military 70s love-in" (4.00 / 1)
I'll bet Obama would never, ever make wordplay on a general's name, either!  (Unlike some horrible, horrible, horrible people who shall for the moment remain nameless.)
Where's the damn link to.... (0.00 / 1)

The Great Orange Satan's response to this low smear of his choice for President of the United States?

You OpenLefters are as crazy as a Ron Paul supporter if you think you can cover up what TGOS's pointed and witty commentary on this tempest in a teacup.

Give us the Kos linky!

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

Matt (0.00 / 0)
your're likeable enough.  Credible enough, too.  We are really in the silly season now!  If Obama wants to go after "Reagan Democrats" without giving anything in return except that he'll be a change agent but not the same kind of change agent, more power to him. I don't think he's giving away the store. 
Holier than thou (0.00 / 1)
The stollers and Rosenbergs of Open left think they are more progressive than everyone else....mwahahahaha.

Check your blood pressures fellas. Take a chill pill...Obama has done more for progressive than you guys. What is the beef? If you think the open government legislation he passed isn't good enough, then run for office and pass a better one. Some of you guys talk a good game, but don't get in the arena to take the hits.

Run for office and pass your dream legislations. What or who is stopping you? Obama?

Holier than thou (0.00 / 1)
The stollers and Rosenbergs of Open left think they are more progressive than everyone else....mwahahahaha.

Check your blood pressures fellas. Take a chill pill...Obama has done more for progressive than you guys. What is the beef? If you think the open government legislation he passed isn't good enough, then run for office and pass a better one. Some of you guys talk a good game, but don't get in the arena to take the hits.

Run for office and pass your dream legislations. What or who is stopping you? Obama?

Off yer meds again! (0.00 / 1)
Sheeeesh.....

You should now better than that. First thing you know yer commenting on shit you know nothing about and getting laughed at. You know that that is not good for your blood pressure. Which is what I'd be worried about if I was you, bleah....., not Matt's.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

[ Parent ]
Get a grip Dude (0.00 / 0)
You are not entitle to your own facts. Keep laughing at me for all you want. It doesn't matter to me. Nitpicking every comment Obama made doesn't make him less of a progressive than Matt. If you hate Reagan so darn much that is your problem...Obama doesn't have to.
[ Parent ]
Can we back off from the insults? (4.00 / 1)
ACitizen...can I ask you what your purpose is in posting in this thread?  It seems you're just trying to piss people off, or are just so pissed off yourself you can't help but aim it at folks who disagree with you, even if they're trying to work towards the same goals. 

You've posted some really good and helpful comments in the past.  As a member of this community who appreciates that, I'm asking you to tone it down a couple of notches in terms of flame-intensity.  If you disagree with folks, I encourage you explain why, without insulting them.  If your purpose is to convince anyone of anything, I'm pretty sure you're working against that purpose with your comments on this thread.

[ Parent ]
His Obama hatred is so fierce and out of control (0.00 / 0)
It has been leading up to this, for weeks with this one. At this point If there is a thread about Obama, he ransacks it with over the top hyperbole, and then freaks out!
[ Parent ]
Classic Authoritarian Thinking (0.00 / 0)
The idea that activists can't legitimately criticize politicians is so patently authoritarian, I'm almost inclined to laugh out loud when I see something this transparently ludicrous.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
It takes one to know another (0.00 / 0)
it is not the criticism that irk some of us, but the holier than thou attitude that some activist resort to in nitpicking every word uttered by a politician. They act as if they are more progressive than people who actually pass progressive legislation. chei....
[ Parent ]
"Republicans have new ideas" my ass!!!! (4.00 / 1)
Republicans never had new ideas. Theystill don't have new ideas.  They just have the same old rotten ideas they always had.  The "ideas",  if greed for power can be called an idea,  are just the same rotting corpses dressed up in  expensively made but tacky new clothes.

Take Social Security.  They hated Social Security when FDR brought it up and when he enacted it.  They hated it through the war.  They hated it so much that they wanted to repeal it once they had both a Republican Congress ( which is what they had immediately post war in 1946 and a Republican Congress) and the shoo in Republican presidient in 1948 ( Dewey vs Truman)

Well Truman showed that the country wanted Social Security and the panoply of New Deal programs as well.  Eisenhower backed off though the Republican saint Robert Taft did not (we have him to blame for the anti labor law Taft Hartley) Goldwater was anti Social Security.  but Americans recognized the viciousness for what it was.  It took the start of Right Wing Movement conservatism and the creation of right wing think tanks to manufacture the new clothes ---- privatization ---- to hide the real agenda ----destroy Social Security.

Oh privatization itself....just another name for the spoils system.....Tammany hall Republican style.... cronyism, and corruption....dominance of some kind of plutocracy which used to be based on "nobility" but today is based just on money and access to Republican politicians. 

these are all very old ideas

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

But They Had Lots Of New Ideas (0.00 / 0)
about how to sell them as new ideas.

It's not for nothing that they come from a long line of used car salesmen.

Started off with used chariots, don'cha know!

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
It's good to be the king!!! (0.00 / 0)


"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller
[ Parent ]
Not that it really matters at this point (0.00 / 0)
..but Obama does phrase carefully, and what he was talking about was the mood/view of the American electorate in 1980.  Go to the tape:

"...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..."

FWIW, "they" doesn't mean "me" or "I".  Nor does "people".  Nor does "we". And as someone who rather ruefully voted for Carter in 1980, his sense of what the mood of that electorate was then is about as good as this kind of sweeping, universalist generalization ever is.  I didn't feel that way--but millions and millions of people did.

I'm also finding these mini-spats about what the candidate didn't actually say (see also Hilary on Dr. King) tiresome.

Putting your money where your mouth is... (0.00 / 0)
Obama has fallen so low on my list, he was easily my anti-Hillary once Kucinich and Edwards couldn't crack into the establishment chatter.  Now he seems just as worrisome as Clinton to me.

I loved the initial rhetoric and the way he could draw a crowd, but then the policies came out and he started picking up the right-wing frames, and talking about bringing Republicans into his administration, etc. 

I just don't know how I am supposed to square all this.  If the starting point of his agenda is his stated policy goals in his campaign, which are all very centrist and not progressive and his rhetoric is all about negotiating and compromising with Independents and moderate Republicans, where do his currently centrist policies end up if not even further to the right?  I just can't see how we start with what he is promising and then expect his coalition of center and right-of-center support will get us going in a decidedly more progressive direction.

Now if Obama could sell Kucinich's platform to Independents and moderate Republicans, he could invoke Reagan all day and praise him as a prophet for all I care, but I just don't see anything of Kucinich's or Feingold's policies in what Obama proposes.

Linkfest on Reagan | 63 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox