Patterico's Pontifications

Or maybe by the simple-mindedness of some of his supporters? A friend of mine attended the Eagles-Giants game last night. Biden was in the owner’s box and they showed him on the jumbo-tron. A mix of boos and cheers ensued. There is a black couple with ny giants jerseys on, loudly and angrily booing and the guy said “Thank God Obama is president. Can’t understand why people would want that cracker in office.” They thought he was McCain.

Jack Klompus (b0e238) — 11/10/2008 @ 5:19 pm

Obama reminded this voter of an earlier eloquent, upbeat, golf-playing candidate, Tiger Woods.

Official Internet Data Office (95d2f9) — 11/10/2008 @ 5:29 pm

Tiger Woods. Now THERE’S a good man.

Old Coot (8a493c) — 11/10/2008 @ 5:36 pm

Comment by Old Coot — 11/10/2008 @ 5:36 pm

Well, at least he has a HOT wife!

Another Drew (d51d84) — 11/10/2008 @ 5:44 pm

I watched the dems convention until I couldn’t. One sad story after another, if I were not an American, I would not want to inhabit this pathetic loser country. Obama continued on in his campaign, one sorry loser after another. Is this the hope and promise, the city on a hill attitude that you are mentioning….I just want to know what page we are on.

Judith (76ca0a) — 11/10/2008 @ 5:51 pm

What Rasmussen did is repugnant.
Reagan ran on the morality and efficacy of lower tax rates for every American. To conflate that with the naked demagoguery in which the maggot Brakabama engaged is disgusting to decent folk.

Reagan didn’t fool people into voting for him. Rasmussen is morally retarded (as are most pollsters).

ccoffer (137c0d) — 11/10/2008 @ 6:03 pm

Ronald Reagan was the first president I voted for, he was anti-government in his speeches, he didn’t think government was the answer to our problems, government was the problem.
Reagan was anti-abortion, less taxes and wanted smaller government with less laws and thus less government intrusion in the American peoples lives.

Obama bad mouthed the Reagan deregulation ideas, blaming the housing crisis on republicans and deregulation. Obama ran on change with more government intrusion and more taxes, yada yada yada.

With Obama government will become the peoples savior not their bane, which is
anti-Reaganism.

ML (14488c) — 11/10/2008 @ 6:22 pm

ML:

With Obama government will become the peoples savior not their bane, which is anti-Reaganism.

That’s why it’s important for conservatives to explain what we believe in and why it’s best for America.

DRJ (cb68f2) — 11/10/2008 @ 6:24 pm

With Obama government will become the peoples savior not their bane, which is anti-Reaganism.

Comment by ML — 11/10/2008 @ 6:22 pm

So well said. A striking difference to me also is Reagan believed the American people had the right to make or break their own lives with as little intrusion as possible from the government.

I cannot say I’m not convinced Obama sees this as our right, but rather sees the government as obligated to help us decide what sort of life we lead.

Contrary to Reagan, might it even be possible that this administration will move toward a thwarting of individualism and the obligation people have to make their own way in this life will slowly be removed?

Dana (79a78b) — 11/10/2008 @ 6:57 pm

I’d say the similarity was more that, like Reagan, Obama clearly explained what he wants to do, while McCain (sadly) did not.

Then again, I think that many of Obama’s supporters hope he’s lying about his plans, where Reagan’s hoped he wasn’t.

Kevin Murphy (805c5b) — 11/10/2008 @ 7:00 pm

I bristle at the suggestion of any great similarities between Reagan and ‘The One.’

Reagan was so superior to Obama in almost every true measure of a man and worthy politician, that it seems really objectionable to pretend these two men have, at their core, any substantive similarities.

clark smith (d8da01) — 11/10/2008 @ 10:45 pm

F— tax cuts.

Anyone can give a tax cut, and people will love him for it.

Spending is what is killing us. Reagan didn’t help us there.

The next RNC chief had better be in favor of massive spending cuts. We won in Iraq. Time to cut spending.

Daryl Herbert (4ecd4c) — 11/10/2008 @ 10:57 pm

The next RNC chief had better be in favor of massive spending cuts. We won in Iraq. Time to cut spending.

He had better to be ready to explain exactly why government spending less is better than government handing you goodies. I wanted to go Van Gogh on my ears every time McCain started up with his earmarks talking points.

L.N. Smithee (18346f) — 11/10/2008 @ 11:42 pm

Republicans want spending cuts…oh my.

Let’s put all the returning Iraq vets into ‘Hoovervilles’ while we’re at it. Maybe recall them “Reagan/Bush-towns”.

who’s going to prime the pump to defeat this coming depression?

datadave (bbbd3a) — 11/11/2008 @ 12:25 am

“Reagan was so superior to Obama in almost every true measure of a man and worthy politician, that it seems really objectionable to pretend these two men have, at their core, any substantive similarities.”

you said nothing of substance.

Reagan was an actor, and a brain damaged one at that while in the White House. He led us into 3 recessions and widened the income gap between working people and the inherited wealthy. And built a huge deficit that still dogs us to this day.

He put Alan Greenspan into supreme economic management and encouraged financialization and deregulation which is causing the emerging Depression.

Intellectually bankrupt and a big phoney. That’s Reagan.

datadave (bbbd3a) — 11/11/2008 @ 12:42 am

Regan really did try to make the changes he inspired us with. But even the Great Communicator was at a loss to the REAL power of the congressional brokers and ultimately failed in his ever so popular quest to right so many wrongs of those holding other elected offices.

But many things did go very right for him and the world as well at the time.

Too bad few remember.

TC (0b9ca4) — 11/11/2008 @ 2:56 am

Reagan understood that capitalism starts with capital! Obama wants to build an economy from, “the ground up.” While it is certainly appealing to imagine that consumers make an economy, it is completely wrong.

Businesses do not expand as a result of some transient economic “stimulus” package. They grow when demand is forecast to continue and that comes from a growing economy. An economy where they make profits to reinvest in capital equipment. Before the 1st widget rolls of an assembly line, some investors must be convinced to spend the money to build that assembly line with only the expectation of profit to motivate them.

MJBrutus (78a680) — 11/11/2008 @ 4:02 am

Obama cannot invoke the memory of Reagan to a sane mind.

Peg C. (48175e) — 11/11/2008 @ 4:48 am

Scott Rasmussen is dead wrong. Obama won for a wide range of reasons, one of which was that the GOP turned away from the Conservative policies and principles of Ronald Reagan. A related reason was the GOP candidate was the personification of a RINO.

John McCain has rejected Conservative positions throughout his career, he’s a moderate Republican who has often embraced Democrat initiatives, and has publicly distanced himself from Conservatives and their issues, time after time.

The selection of Sarah Palin for VP was an admission on McCain’s part that without Conservative support he couldn’t win. Still, McCain couldn’t quite bring himself to fully embrace the Conservative core of the GOP.

McCain wanted and needed Conservative support but couldn’t abandon his old ways. Conservatives knew he would stab them in the back if he won. McCain knew Conservatives had no other place to go because Obama was 10 times worse. Lots of Conservatives stayed home or gave the GOP only tepid support.

If Rasmussen could hold off cheering for Obama for a minute or two, he might look into the depth and breadth of Conservative support for McCain and try to find out how much of it resulted from the selection of Sarah Palin. I’d like to see some reliable numbers on that topic.

Ropelight (5b609a) — 11/11/2008 @ 6:50 am

He was the least qualified of all of the primary candidates on either side. There are 80 senators with more experience in the senate than him.

Obama won because he is black. I hate to say it, but I have heard people over and over tell me that was the primary reason they voted for him. It was also a media-driven reaction against Bush.

I don’t think anything he or McCain did or could have said made much of a difference. People were just not interested.

There are worse reasons to vote for someone. The people have spoken. I wish him well.

Amphipolis (fdbc48) — 11/11/2008 @ 9:31 am

More Obama decency:

http://www.drudgereport.com/flashbol.htm

prestopundit (ff5e16) — 11/11/2008 @ 9:36 am

Reagan was an actor, and a brain damaged one at that while in the White House. He led us into 3 recessions and widened the income gap between working people and the inherited wealthy.

I had to laugh, how ironic for that comment to claim Reagan was brain damaged and then goes on to say this:

3 recessions in 8 years are you serious?
Of course the income gap got wider when Reagan took the top Carter income tax rate of 70% down to 28%.

Brain damaged indeed.

ML (14488c) — 11/11/2008 @ 10:24 am

While it is certainly appealing to imagine that consumers make an economy, it is completely wrong.

Consumers = Demand. Without consumers with money to spend, there is NO supply and demand cycle.

Trickle down economics has had its day and been proven a failure. Reagan came into office with HIGH interest rates and HIGH tax rates (topping at 70%). Now we have an economy of LOW interest rates and LOW tax rates that has imploded. Clearly, you can’t apply Reagonomics to an entirely different problem. It’s like saying you can treat your diarrhea with the same thing that caused your constipation 30 years ago.

The comparison of Obama to Reagen fits because of one thing: Obama presented a POSITIVE agenda, with discipline and focus. McCain wandered, whined and presented an airheaded bimbo to distract the masses. He never had a chance.

Tony (bc2b91) — 11/11/2008 @ 10:28 am

Comment by Daryl Herbert — 11/10/2008 @ 10:57 pm
I think if you looked at the matter closely, you would find that under Reagan, discretionary spending fell as a percentage of the budget, and of GDP. Also, he reined-in entitlement spending to a small degree – not easy when he faced a House controlled by Dems.
Reagan did increase military spending, if you object to that, you probably think all those years of Russian language studies were wasted, too.

Comment by datadave — 11/11/2008 @ 12:25 am
Big difference, dd. Those soldiers in those “Hoovervilles” had been promised certain things upon their return from Europe by the Wilson (D) Administration. Promises that were never kept. When the “Bonus Army” was disbursed in DC (Summer of ’32 IIRC), Doug MacArthur was CoS of the Army, and the officer in charge of the dirty deed was some minor Major detailed to his staff – D.D.Eisenhower.
But today, we have a volunteer army without masses of men being pushed into the civilian workforce upon some demobilization. In fact, Obama has stated that the Army, and the Marine Corp., need to be enlarged, which would improve retention incentives for those already in.

Comment by datadave — 11/11/2008 @ 12:42 am
The only truth contained in this post, is what was quoted from someone else. You sir, are bereft of facts, and don’t know shit about history.

Another Drew (6a5b36) — 11/11/2008 @ 10:36 am

u sound a little disgruntled dude. Reagan was just a man, not a god. No one on the Left worships Obama a tenth as much as ‘wingers’ revere Reagan.

For what?

Widening income inequality?

Huge deficits?

Beating the USSR? (already done by the afghans, carter and brezniski and the Russians and System they had..not Reagan.)

A nice hairdo, great speaking style, unflappable?

(the last one I’ll agree on…but he was a trained actor and a spokesman for General Electric’s weapon’s division thru the early 50s who was selling something: McCarthyism and an overwheening Military Industrial Complex.

Star Wars was the biggest Con Job E’vr!

datadave (68dcee) — 11/11/2008 @ 3:59 pm

You sir, are bereft of facts, and don’t know shit about history.

Comment by Another Drew — 11/11/2008 @ 10:36 am

I stand by my remarks, that have been reinforced by your obtuse reply.

Another Drew (6a5b36) — 11/11/2008 @ 4:01 pm

Hoovervilles were any campsite of homeless people, not just Bonus Marchers.

Imagine, the Republican govt. actually stopped payment of benefits to WW1 vets? If the Govt. did that now we’d probably have a dozen Oklahoma City bombing type disasters.

datadave (68dcee) — 11/11/2008 @ 4:07 pm

Andrew, there’s always Wikipedia. read once in awhile.

datadave (68dcee) — 11/11/2008 @ 4:08 pm

Comment by datadave — 11/11/2008 @ 4:07 pm

Selective posting again, dd.
Yes, I know that “Hoovervilles” were widespread.
The term was a derisive, politcal name for any encampment of “bums, tramps, and hobo’s”, usually found outside of town alongside the rail-line (hobo jungles), the better to jump a freight to “ride-the-rods”.

But, on the matter of the Bonus Army in DC…
The Congress never stopped paying the bonuses, the bonuses were not due and payable until 1945 – each soldier was issued a bond that had a 20-year maturity with a date of issue in 1925 (the act was passed in 1924).
But, in 1931, the new Democrat controlled Congress (they took over following the ’30 off-year election) discontinued allowing advances upon those bonds due to the fund going into deficit, and Congress’ unwillingness to advance the funding mechanism written into the act in 1924. That brought about the assemblage in DC of the Bonus Army on the Flats of Anacostia (now Minority Housing) in the Spring of ’32.

Like I said, you don’t know shit about history.

Another Drew (6a5b36) — 11/11/2008 @ 4:43 pm

Wikipedia. read once in awhile.

Also known as fake-i-pedia, be careful what you read there.

ML (14488c) — 11/11/2008 @ 6:20 pm

ML, datadave – careful what he reads? Assumes two different actions that datadave is not capable of. As demonstrated by his misrepresentations above.

SPQR (26be8b) — 11/11/2008 @ 7:09 pm

oh, next you’ll say Hoovervilles were caused by Democrats in the ’30 Congress? Oh, well. It’s always the Liberals and Democrat’s fault isn’t it? The Bonus Marchers were in Washington for a reason and they needed jobs and/or money because they were destitute. Hoover got blamed for the economic crisis ensuing from Wall Street’s perfidy and corruption. They weren’t called “Democrat-villes” for another reason. Hoovervilles were self-named by those in them or nearby as a taunt and accusation against Republican-led financial chicanery. (and here we are again today.)

Let’s remember Reagan’s use of the Hostages in Iran that Carter mightily tried to free but Reagan used as an excuse to get elected. The Iranians in full support of Reagan’s inaugeration freed the hostages just as Reagan was sworn in. How conspicuously appropriate.

datadave (3ee419) — 11/12/2008 @ 12:06 am

Beating the USSR? (already done by the afghans, carter and brezniski and the Russians and System they had..not Reagan.)

This is a common datalessdave theme. Oft repeated. Oft mocked.

JD (94c827) — 11/12/2008 @ 5:18 am

Let’s remember Reagan’s use of the Hostages in Iran that Carter mightily tried to free but Reagan used as an excuse to get elected.

Didn’t Cater try to rescue the hostages after he left them there for a few hundred days or so, only to have 3-4 helicopters crash and burn in his mighty rescue attempt?

Maybe the Iranians released the hostages because they knew Reagan was not a weak anti-Semite like Carter is?

ML (14488c) — 11/12/2008 @ 8:02 am

11/10/2008

Reaganism Isn’t Dead

34 Responses to “Reaganism Isn’t Dead”

Favorite Sites

Links

Patterico Sells Out