Barack Hussein Reagan? Ronald Wilson Obama?
Is Barack Obama the Democratic version of Ronald Reagan? That blog post yesterday got plenty of reader responses. Different people answered that question in different ways. Let me sum up:
Liberals: Yes, Obama is the next Reagan, the Great Communicator of the Left. More accurately, he's the anti-Reagan who, along with an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress, will begin to undo the so-called Reagan Revolution, smash the Republican rump minority, and transform America by raising taxes on the rich and actively using the federal government to help average people. ¡Viva la Revolución!
Moderates: Yes, Obama is the next Reagan. His sense of optimism and his call for unity will help heal a bitterly divided America. As president, Obama will "reach across the aisle" to fashion bipartisan compromises on chronic problems like healthcare and Social Security. As a result, many of our children will someday be attending Barack Obama middle schools across this nation.
Conservatives: Please. Obama is actually Jimmy Carter, a guy elected president by a dispirited country who is then unable to deliver on his promises of "healing." After a catastrophic four years of higher taxes and more government—who knew "unity" cost so much?—and more division, America will turn to Bobby Jindal/David Petraeus/John Roberts/Mark Sanford/Sarah Palin for true leadership.
My take: Right now, Obama is still whatever people want him to be, at least if you go by the reader responses I received. To be the next Reagan or FDR — a transformational political figure — a President Obama will need to implement sweeping policy changes. (We're talking about domestic policy here. I think foreign policy is a whole different breed of cat.) And those changes, I would think, must ultimately reflect the core values and desires of the American people. Obama's transformation, if you go by his campaign so far, would mean higher income taxes, higher Social Security taxes, higher investment taxes, higher corporate taxes, massive new domestic spending, and a healthcare plan that perhaps could be the next step to a full-scale, single-payer system. Is that what most Americans want, someone who will fulfill a Democratic policy wish list? Or do they want Obama to be someone who pushes for compromise, centrist solutions? From the feedback I got, the answer is "both." I am not sure Obama knows. He has the next 264 days to figure it out.
Tags: presidential election 2008 | Barack Obama | Ronald Reagan | Jimmy Carter
Tools: 
Share
|
| Comments (6)
Reader Comments
My fear is this: Yes Mr. Obama will most likely pull the troups out of Iraq within his first 16 months.
I also believe he will get us involved in Africa, and this is also a problem area, where we will be stuck in.
My wish is, that Mr. Obama will actually do what he said he will.
I can see a flaw in his health insurance policy, that he will leave it up to the adults to purchase insurance, which will be a problem.
I also believe that he has said, he would make it mandatory for all working adult to invest in a 401K from their employer.
Nationalist folklore
You one kind of people out there (nationalist) assertions that hold on policies,mythology, ect dont have a clue concern'n President Obama Global Policies.... They use terms such as white women, conservatives, blacks,youth,blue and red ,statistics to describe a type of voter like its some type of new human being that most of us did'nt no exist and in the same breath never speak of mrs hillary on her own terms the media always has to include President Obama to get any reasonable man to pay attention....MMMM
Why doesn't Obama come clean and talk about how he is going to pay for his Changes? He bad mouthed Exxon/Mobil for making too much money in the last quarter, leaving one with the idea he does like corporate profits, except to tax them at higher rates. What happens if oil prices go down, and Exxox/Mobil sells it's high priced crude at a loss? Does the Company get a rebate?
At what point is an estate too wealthy, so it needs to be taxed more?
Isn't this talk simply redistribution of the wealth?
Um - can you provide the evidence that he is going to raise taxes on social security? Also, when you talk about higher income taxes perhaps you could state that it is only on the rich - not on the middle class? The way you put it, the middle class to poor casual reader would think they were gonna get screwed and you know that isn't what his policies are about.
Barack Hussein O' Bomb Us!
Barack Hussein is totally devoid of any substance. He speaks of what kind of change you can believe in?! Pulling our troops out of Iraq & sticking your finger in the air to see where the Islamo-nazis are going to go next attacking our cities is not very smart at all if you ask me! Also, where will this great communicator of nothing be getting all the money needed for our new imposed utopian paradise?
Add your thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our comment guidelines.advertisement
Why didn't Senator Clinton vote No on the 2005 Bankruptcy law ??
Subject: why didn't Senator Hillary Clinton vote against the Bankruptcy law in 2005 ??
With all the consumer debt and mortgage debt issues , did the 2005 bankruptcy bill that was made law , did that open the door to all the predatory lending we are seeing cause all the economic crisis , and why didn't Senator Hillary Clinton vote against the Bankruptcy law ?? Senator Clinton was the only Democrat to not vote on the new Bankruptcy law , and this law has put a big strain on American Consumers needing the flexibility of restructuring debt in time like now , that directly looks like a result of this bankruptcy law of 2005 .
The senator of new York should have voted up or down , but did not vote , so is this pandering , being able to say Hillary didn't support it so her position would not be against the Banks and other Financial Institutes she was getting funding from ?? Barack Obama voted NO on the Bankruptcy Law , and at a time like today , we consumers need someone who is for the Consumer protections in deals , and wants to regulate the practices of the lenders , and with bankruptcy laws like these , it just makes the lenders more bold in what kind of loans they are willing to create , like we saw no money down and teasers rate loans evolve after this law was passed . Its like the educational value of educate the Consumer about affordability , and holding the Bar on the Lenders to make sure that Consumers were able to afford the loans were left out of this bill , and to not vote it down makes no since at all , and if Barack Obama would have been in Office he would have vetoed the bill , by the way he voted here , and we would have kept a standard like we had in place that required 20 % down on a home loan , and the income to back it up . So I fault whoever voted this bill into law , and if you did not vote , then I would say thats just as bad .
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/109/senate/1/votes/44/
Subject: FOLLOW HILLARY CLINTON’S MONEY!
http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/?p=261#more-261 , here is a direct link to the story
Feb 13, 2008 12:50:06 PM [permalink] [report comment]