Obama’s Reagan Comparison
Obama stepped in some doo-doo with his remarks about Reagan recently while interviewing with the Reno Gazette-Journal. I’m going to snatch the quote from this Washington Post blog post:
I don’t want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what’s different are the times…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.
Or if one desires to see a talking head, Obama’s remarks can also be found on YouTube.
Now it’s time for the fun part.
Wait a second. How much was the federal deficit when Reagan came into office? $900 billion. And when he left? $2.7 trillion. Check this site out for some interesting statistics on the Sad Legacy of Ronald Reagan. At yet, in a mind-boggling fashion, people still place the “mantle of fiscal responsibility” with the Republicans. And now we have take two with the dunce in the White House who has repeatedly requested raising of the federal debt ceiling. According to that 2004 piece in the New York Times:
Since Mr. Bush took office in January 2001, the federal debt has increased about 40 percent, or $2.1 trillion, to $7.4 trillion. Congress has raised the debt ceiling three times in three years, raising it most recently by $984 billion in May 2003.
Mr. Obama, I can only surmise from your comparison with Reagan that you too intend to spend us into oblivion like Reagan and George W. Bush. I can only surmise that you plan to destroy our environmental policies, oppress unionized workers, and push for tax benefits to the super-rich. That’s the kind of change Reagan and George W. Bush have brought about. Sorry, count me out. I don’t think he’d do those things, but by invoking Reagan’s name solely to pander to right-leaning folks, he is deserving of the baggage that will come along with it.
Obama has so very little substance it’s kind of unnerving to me that he is driving so much support. The Reno Gazette-Journal Oped piece goes on to suggest that Obama should be the party’s nominee even after they say:
One can fairly describe Obama’s philosophical optimism and charismatic manner as too idealistic, even a tad dreamy.
Umm. The last thing we need is another foolhardy person in the White House with a free-love mantra. Come on, folks, how long will such a thing last after January 20th, 2009? A week, maybe two? One should not confuse hope of change with visions of grandeur. The fact of the matter is that to get things done in the government, you have to know how to work with the people in government. Bill Clinton showed remarkable gains across the aisle because ultimately he was a centrist. The Republicans hated this fact and still hate it because Hillary Clinton is a centrist as well. Why do they hate it? Because it beats them at their own game of fearmongering and wedge issues.
We desperately need someone in the White House who, from day one, can begin to make inroads domestically and internationally to reconstruct what George W Bush has destroyed over the past 7 years. In the words of the Reno Gazette-Journal:
Hillary Clinton should be the party’s choice.
Edit: I just realized that today is January 20th which I find amusingly appropriate for such a post. Unfortunately, 2008 is a leap year so we have 366 days until The Doofus is out of the White House instead of 365. But still… only 1 year left!!