Difference is, Reagan had a history of real ideas (check out his multiple candidacies, his essays, his radio shows) on how to run the country to add to his rhetoric. Plus he had executive experience, and political experience which had been longer than a few years when he announced. Finally, America did suck when he ran in the 1980 election.
Aziz, you show a real lack of forethought and wisdom before you start pounding your partisan drivel on the keyboard.
BTW, I thought the "chivalrous" Aziz hated it when men attacked women's emotional or psychological states. He went crazy when a few commenters pointed out how inappropriate it was for Hilary to cry. But that's different, Nancy was married to a RethugliKKKan ya know.
I think we can all agree that most of what candidates say is meaningless drivel.
It's a question of what lies behind the drivel, something moderately intelligent or more drivel?
Again, the difference between Obama and Reagan is that Reagan said America was great, a "shining city on a hill," and could be greater yet, while Obama implies America is awful — but if you vote for him, there's hope we can change it!
Reagan was speaking at a time when the Soviet Union was viewed as winning the Cold War -- and not a few people thought they deserved to. Socialism was ascendant, and "American" values of free enterprise and individualism were in decline.
Obama does not talk about America being a shining city on a hill; in his speeches HE is going to build the shining city on a hill, on top of the crap-pile that is America today:
"I’ve heard from seniors who were betrayed by CEOs who dumped their pensions while pocketing bonuses, and from those who still can’t afford their prescriptions because Congress refused to negotiate with the drug companies for the cheapest available price.
I’ve met Maytag workers who labored all their lives only to see their jobs shipped overseas; who now compete with their teenagers for $7-an-hour jobs at Wal-Mart.
I’ve spoken with teachers who are working at donut shops after school just to make ends meet; who are still digging into their own pockets to pay for school supplies.
Just two weeks ago, I heard a young woman in Cedar Rapids who told me she only gets three hours of sleep because she works the night shift after a full day of college and still can’t afford health care for a sister with cerebral palsy."
plus, have you noticed how his wife seems to have a few screws loose?
She wasn't crazy enough to say she'd never been proud of her country before her husband was in position to run it -- and if she had, her husband wouldn't have won the GOP nomination.
Look, Dems have a very different view of the country than Republicans. Reagan's message is something no Democrat can campaign on, because socialist prescriptions are built on the assumption that America is terribly flawed and needs the government to intervene to fix it.
I hope someday Chinese and Mexican people can make as much money as the average American does, perhaps by starting out working in an American company that offers them a lot more money than any of the local alternatives.
I don't mind Obama or people who like him because of his policies.
It's the people who like him for his vaguely defined hope and change rhetoric that worry me, because they are incredibly naive.
If there are people who loved Reagan only because of the vaguely defined hope and change Aziz quoted, well I'd say they're incredibly naive too.
forth record, Nancy Reagan was a cassy lady, and doesnt deserve the reputation she had in the 80s. I was justeing tounge in cheek about extending the analogy of the Case Against Obama. That was in poor form.
as for Obamas real ideas, they are laid out in detail on his issues pages, which require only a seconds' worth of googling. And it shoudl be noted that his ideas ar substantive enough on foreign policy to attract Robert Kagan's approval. One reason? he explicitly supports democracy promotion abroad.
When he said, "We have heard much over the last six years about how America's larger purpose in the world is to promote the spread of freedom," you probably expected him to distance himself from this allegedly discredited idealism.
Instead, he said, "I agree." His critique is not that we've meddled too much but that we haven't meddled enough. There is more to building democracy than "deposing a dictator and setting up a ballot box." We must build societies with "a strong legislature, an independent judiciary, the rule of law, a vibrant civil society, a free press, and an honest police force." We must build up "the capacity of the world's weakest states" and provide them "what they need to reduce poverty, build healthy and educated communities, develop markets, . . . generate wealth . . . fight terrorism . . . halt the proliferation of deadly weapons" and fight disease. Obama proposes to double annual expenditures on these efforts, to $50 billion, by 2012.
It's not just international do-goodism. To Obama, everything and everyone everywhere is of strategic concern to the United States.
Think about that. Obama agrees that the purpose of America is to spread freedom worldwide. Sound like anyone you know?
That's kind of nice.
But where does he plan to meddle?
I mean, one reason the US toppled Saddam is that it creates a place to meddle, and there really aren't many other places where it's an option. Countries with weak legislatures and corrupt police forces have powerful people who will insist that the legislature is strong and the police force is honest.
In 79, yes, America sucked. Khomeini had taken over Iran and seized our embassies and citizens, our ambassador was kidnapped and killed in Kabul, our embassy was burned in Pakistan, Gas Lines were an everyday occurrence, the American automakers were on the skids and Chrysler was all but bankrupt, China invaded Vietnam because, in part, of our failure to foster a democratic Vietnam, Three Mile Island is hyped from an abnormal but manageable situation into hysteria, Carter signed the empty SALT II agreement that the Russians promptly violated, the Sandanistas took control, and to top it all off, Jimmy Carter got attacked by a killer rabbit.
We had no effective response for any of it. We didn't even shoot any rabbits.
Obama doesn't think America is bad, he just doesn't think those running the gov't these past 8 years have been all that good.
Obama doesn't think America is bad, he just thinks some have missed out on America's great economic prosperity.
Some of the changes Obama proposes are complementary to those Reagan proposed. Free market economies are the most productive in the world. But there are also things the market cannot perfectly provide -- these are called negative externalities -- and give reason for government regulation in areas such as the environment and health care. These are things most economists would agree with. So I would say that Obama wants to correct some of the deficiencies in the Reagan vision. But that does not call in to question the overall success of that vision.
The problem with Obama's message is that it has no substance. That's not to say he has no policies. It's that his policies don't match his rhetoric. His speeches are an endless loop of emotional platitudes about unity, hope, and change. He's certainly inspired a lot of hope. But he has no record of building unity, and his policies, rather offering big ideas or anything that hints of real change, are the same liberal programs his party has been pushing for years.
I'm no fan of McCain, but if we're being honest, he's got far better credentials when it comes to both working across party lines and affecting change.
I think there's plenty of substance in Obama's speeches and policy papers but in a lawyerly fashion he's left himself plenty of wiggle room.
Right now there are only three likely candidates for the presidency: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John McCain. All three have advocated interventionist foreign policies albeit intervening in different places for different reasons. That means that the overwhelming likelihood is that, like it or not, we're going to have an interventionist president in 2009. It may be Clinton-style intervention or Bush-style intervention (I have long believed that the differences between the two are somewhat smaller than the prevailing shouting match would lead one to think) but it will be intervention nonetheless.
But there are also things the market cannot perfectly provide -- these are called negative externalities -- and give reason for government regulation in areas such as the environment and health care.
Right, but Obama wants to go beyond instances of market failures and negative externalities. Unless you consider individuals taking risk and making high incomes a negative externality.
Obama has said he wants to repeal the Bush tax cuts because they favor the wealthy who neither 'want' or 'need' them. This reveals that Obama either does not understand economics or that he values income equality over economic productivity.
I, for one, will never understand why some people knowingly choose a smaller pie for all in order to reduce variance in the distribution of income, but I suppose that is why I rarely (never?) vote Dem. I find the difference between Obama and Reagan on this to be quite stark.
I've never understood the appeal of "people are evil, but government is good."
2.27.2008 4:33pm
Commenting on Dean's World is a privilege, not a right. Dean is your host, you are his guest, and you should behave in that fashion. Dean is not your babysitter, nor is he your punching bag. Please remember this. In general, you are free to disagree with anyone on any subject you wish, but abusive behavior will not be tolerated.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.
Aziz, you show a real lack of forethought and wisdom before you start pounding your partisan drivel on the keyboard.
It's a question of what lies behind the drivel, something moderately intelligent or more drivel?
Reagan was speaking at a time when the Soviet Union was viewed as winning the Cold War -- and not a few people thought they deserved to. Socialism was ascendant, and "American" values of free enterprise and individualism were in decline.
Obama does not talk about America being a shining city on a hill; in his speeches HE is going to build the shining city on a hill, on top of the crap-pile that is America today:
"I’ve heard from seniors who were betrayed by CEOs who dumped their pensions while pocketing bonuses, and from those who still can’t afford their prescriptions because Congress refused to negotiate with the drug companies for the cheapest available price.
I’ve met Maytag workers who labored all their lives only to see their jobs shipped overseas; who now compete with their teenagers for $7-an-hour jobs at Wal-Mart.
I’ve spoken with teachers who are working at donut shops after school just to make ends meet; who are still digging into their own pockets to pay for school supplies.
Just two weeks ago, I heard a young woman in Cedar Rapids who told me she only gets three hours of sleep because she works the night shift after a full day of college and still can’t afford health care for a sister with cerebral palsy."
She wasn't crazy enough to say she'd never been proud of her country before her husband was in position to run it -- and if she had, her husband wouldn't have won the GOP nomination.
Look, Dems have a very different view of the country than Republicans. Reagan's message is something no Democrat can campaign on, because socialist prescriptions are built on the assumption that America is terribly flawed and needs the government to intervene to fix it.
It's the people who like him for his vaguely defined hope and change rhetoric that worry me, because they are incredibly naive.
If there are people who loved Reagan only because of the vaguely defined hope and change Aziz quoted, well I'd say they're incredibly naive too.
Think about that. Obama agrees that the purpose of America is to spread freedom worldwide. Sound like anyone you know?
But where does he plan to meddle?
I mean, one reason the US toppled Saddam is that it creates a place to meddle, and there really aren't many other places where it's an option. Countries with weak legislatures and corrupt police forces have powerful people who will insist that the legislature is strong and the police force is honest.
And he promises to hand over Iraq to whatever violently illiberal faction can seize it when our troops leave.
No one campaigns against freedom.
We had no effective response for any of it. We didn't even shoot any rabbits.
Obama doesn't think America is bad, he just thinks some have missed out on America's great economic prosperity.
Some of the changes Obama proposes are complementary to those Reagan proposed. Free market economies are the most productive in the world. But there are also things the market cannot perfectly provide -- these are called negative externalities -- and give reason for government regulation in areas such as the environment and health care. These are things most economists would agree with. So I would say that Obama wants to correct some of the deficiencies in the Reagan vision. But that does not call in to question the overall success of that vision.
And he's going to give them...
company?
That is very nice.
I'm no fan of McCain, but if we're being honest, he's got far better credentials when it comes to both working across party lines and affecting change.
Right now there are only three likely candidates for the presidency: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John McCain. All three have advocated interventionist foreign policies albeit intervening in different places for different reasons. That means that the overwhelming likelihood is that, like it or not, we're going to have an interventionist president in 2009. It may be Clinton-style intervention or Bush-style intervention (I have long believed that the differences between the two are somewhat smaller than the prevailing shouting match would lead one to think) but it will be intervention nonetheless.
Right, but Obama wants to go beyond instances of market failures and negative externalities. Unless you consider individuals taking risk and making high incomes a negative externality.
Obama has said he wants to repeal the Bush tax cuts because they favor the wealthy who neither 'want' or 'need' them. This reveals that Obama either does not understand economics or that he values income equality over economic productivity.
I, for one, will never understand why some people knowingly choose a smaller pie for all in order to reduce variance in the distribution of income, but I suppose that is why I rarely (never?) vote Dem. I find the difference between Obama and Reagan on this to be quite stark.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.