Skip to main content

I was born in 1967. I was 12 years old when Ronald Reagan was elected and even though both my parents were strong Democrats, living in Washington DC suburb, there really wasn't much political talk happening in my household.

I grew up during the Reagan revolution. The sweep of the conservative zeitgeist that rolled in after the 60's/70s era of labor rights, equal rights, sexual liberation and liberalism. I grew up when the pendulum was swinging back to the right.

Most of my life I considered myself conservative or at least not [gasp!] liberal (that dirty word). But I'm observing something these days. That word "liberal" isn't so dirty anymore and I think it speaks to a generational zeitgeist that the GOP is on the losing end of this time.

From 1980 through 2006, about 30 years, the right has enjoyed dominance. Dominance in narrative. Dominance in political power. Dominance in American culture. One need look no further than the fact that today's Democratic party is actually to the right of yesterday's Republican party in many ways to understand how far rightward their 30 year dominance has pulled the entire country, including the party that is supposed to represent the "left".

But look what's happening today.

In 2001, in the aftermath of 9/11 and the lies about the war in Iraq, an entire generation of kids witnessed GOP incompetence and dishonesty. A kid who was 12 on 9/11 is the same kid who was part of the Democratic party's "youth base".

Then there was a financial meltdown in 2008 because of "the free market" and "loose regulations". This while Barack Obama, a smart charismatic politician and leader, rose up, excited those youth and won the Presidency.

In 2011, the Occupy movement was born. And despite the fact that they considered themselves non-partisan, nobody was calling them conservatives out there. They changed the narrative in this country single handedly and returned the discussion to fairness and income equality and equality of opportunity. It's a leftist message, like it or not and no amount of shutting down Occupy Camps changed that.

I was 12 when a popular and charismatic Ronald Reagan excited a generation of people, including America's youth. I remember this show and really liking Alex Keaton, the young Republican that gave his hippie parents heartburn.

But now, those kids who were 12 when 9/11 happened; those kids who were 12 when the Iraq war was discovered to be a lie; those kids who were 12 during Obama's first presidential campaign and the Republican financial meltdown; those kids who were 12 when the Occupy movement was born; those kids who were 12 when the GOP exposed itself as the racist, bigoted, religio-fascist, plutocratic party it is; those kids who were 12 when it became, once again, OK to call oneself a liberal - THOSE KIDS are lost to the GOP just as I was lost to the Democratic party for decades.

I was a lifetime independent by registration. And yes, I voted both ways. It wasn't until 2009, after - AFTER - working for the Obama campaign and for Health Reform in my community that I changed parties - in part because I was invited to become a delegate.

The reality is the pendulum has swung back to the left. It will be here for the next 30 years. It was ushered in by a strong charismatic political leader, Barack Obama, in my the way the right's rise was ushered in by Ronald Reagan. But I think it will go deeper. The internet, the free exchange of information that is second nature to Americans now - and especially young Americans, has aided the swing left and may in fact deepen it.

After all, the right has solidified its "brand". Who wants to be associated with hateful old racists? With anti-gay bigots? With religious nutbags? With greedy heartless assholes? With people who ignore math and science?

No, the GOP has lost an entire generation. And the loss may be more even more profound than the Reagan revolution was.

9:27 AM PT: Wow! Thanks for the rec list, ya'll. I really like the discussion going on in comments, too. Some really insightful thoughts and ideas.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (349+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Crashing Vor, chicago minx, jhewett, estebel, theKgirls, Dave in Northridge, pamelabrown, GreenMtnState, steamed rice, kestrel9000, DuzT, Yellow Canary, myrealname, freerad, kovie, evilhoodedcrow, annieli, Boundegar, Mistral Wind, karmsy, rapala, jamfan, NJpeach, jiffykeen, Cedwyn, gloever, Beetwasher, Smoh, litho, Chitown Kev, Quantumlogic, SteelerGrrl, kathny, Dartagnan, leeleedee, IndieGuy, Statusquomustgo, Tannen, middleagedhousewife, Sarea, JL, Cronesense, lotlizard, brooklyns finest, Siri, wasatch, Buckeye54, Empower Ink, Dallasdoc, sixeight120bpm, Dirk McQuigley, ItsSimpleSimon, JaxDem, hulibow, Little Lulu, NYC Sophia, filkertom, LSmith, RLF, mockingbird1971, rmonroe, katchen, sfarkash, hayden, sea note, MKinTN, Blue Bell Bookworm, ahyums, bookbear, purplepenlady, molunkusmol, CTLiberal, dsb, gulfgal98, dmhlt 66, Mark Mywurtz, Liberal Mole, cactusgal, flygrrl, CS in AZ, ssgbryan, pitbullgirl65, mconvente, MBNYC, Tam in CA, mrsgoo, gloriana, DBunn, cybersaur, AreDeutz, dwahzon, GeorgeXVIII, nzanne, BobBlueMass, MasterKey, ivorybill, rose quartz, Supavash, Dobber, leonard145b, Matf, zizi, dotsright, PeteZerria, Kaneblues, dinazina, ancblu, Sychotic1, cherish0708, Lefty Coaster, Emerson, dle2GA, ichibon, Its a New Day, Fonsia, Jane Lew, Noor B, mbh1023, MrAnon, spooks51, SoCalJayhawk, Chi, pixxer, puakev, pico3, 207wickedgood, Hirodog, MartyM, winsock, MRA NY, Mnemosyne, buckeyemike, HamptonRoadsProgressive, Nulwee, Nag, exNYinTX, dalemac, WisVoter, gizmo59, scamperdo, Tool, RonV, TheGreatLeapForward, wwjjd, Gowrie Gal, RAST, cacamp, Ellinorianne, Gator Keyfitz, OllieGarkey, LibChicAZ, ORDem, DeepElem90, OIL GUY, fou, ontheleftcoast, JosephK74, offgrid, SaintC, bibble, OldDragon, Onomastic, UniC, rockhound, Troubadour, brn2bwild, majcmb1, PeterHug, Involuntary Exile, MarkInSanFran, sostos, Buzzer, BoiseBlue, Delilah, len chaitin, sable, Bear, NoMoreLies, papercut, polecat, cwsmoke, jazzence, BenderRodriguez, Jim R, Cederico, dustb, nice marmot, catly, tofumagoo, psnyder, Says Who, Killer of Sacred Cows, virginislandsguy, rogerdaddy, elziax, yawnimawke, frisco, Mariken, begone, kurt, Matilda, jared the bassplayer, Lawrence, sydneyluv, Blu Gal in DE, Chaddiwicker, drewfromct, burana, bnasley, bythesea, OtherDoug, Sylv, wdrath, political mutt, CardCarryingLibrul, citisven, muddy boots, SherwoodB, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, johnosahon, mcgee85, buddhistMonkey, Cassandra Waites, Rolfyboy6, Mogolori, progresso, tfistbmpr, RebeccaG, rccats3, ccmask, nirbama, David PA, Livvy5, maxcat06, Sylar, Liberaljentaps, dpc, saxoman1, elektra, Showman, v2aggie2, vidanto, OleHippieChick, annan, Farugia, collardgreens, jennyp, kerflooey, rubthorn, Quicklund, cmlane, Karl Rover, BarackStarObama, Norm in Chicago, silentpawz, Miggles, CocoaLove, uciguy30, el cid, FisherOfRolando, kevinpdx, Texdude50, Lilyvt, Al Fondy, Panacea Paola, ms badger, blueoasis, BasharH, maven butterfly, sidnora, aaraujo, mod2lib, GMFORD, maybeeso in michigan, rsmpdx, 1BQ, bara, PLS, mookins, DixieDishrag, multilee, Eric Twocents, BachFan, means are the ends, LilithGardener, asterkitty, bsegel, createpeace, zesty grapher, Captain Chaos, GainesT1958, HipHopAnonymous, Leslie in KY, science nerd, stevenwag, NBBooks, followyourbliss, Okiedog, timewarp, histOries Marko, FindingMyVoice, ChicDemago, ATFILLINOIS, Bulldawg, tidalwave1, dengre, frsbdg, dakinishir, Angie in WA State, tsackton, Yamara, Steveningen, katrinka, this just in, yella dawg, highacidity, zozie, 2thanks, WhizKid331, Diogenes2008, Jeff Y, camlbacker, elwior, skod, Panurge, defluxion10, MillieNeon, Noodles, dwayne, elkhunter, tomephil, autolycus, coppercelt, golem, ladybug53, jw1, aufklaerer, Paddy999, Curt Matlock, Hill Jill, ask, tonyahky, Wary, isabel, radical simplicity, RUNDOWN, smartdemmg, mkfarkus, samddobermann

    For the record, I am not a member of Courtesy Kos. Just so you know. Don't be stupid. It's election season. My patience is short.

    by mdmslle on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 06:11:51 AM PST

  •  The shift will only be enduring if we (126+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pamelabrown, chicago minx, theKgirls, mdmslle, Dave in Northridge, steamed rice, annieli, Mistral Wind, karmsy, jiffykeen, Smoh, litho, Quantumlogic, mightymouse, middleagedhousewife, Sarea, Cronesense, lotlizard, brooklyns finest, Siri, Dallasdoc, Empower Ink, ItsSimpleSimon, hulibow, a2nite, ahyums, frankzappatista, hayden, chipoliwog, MKinTN, Blue Bell Bookworm, bookbear, Jank2112, dmhlt 66, Mark Mywurtz, Liberal Mole, pitbullgirl65, mconvente, MBNYC, AreDeutz, nzanne, ivorybill, dotsright, Sherri in TX, Sychotic1, cherish0708, ichibon, J Ash Bowie, Chi, puakev, pico3, MartyM, winsock, Nulwee, dalemac, WisVoter, scamperdo, SBandini, Ellinorianne, Gator Keyfitz, OllieGarkey, ORDem, JosephK74, SaintC, Onomastic, UniC, Troubadour, Buzzer, BoiseBlue, CoExistNow, Freakinout daily, Ckntfld, sable, Bear, NoMoreLies, papercut, polecat, psnyder, sacrelicious, rogerdaddy, jared the bassplayer, Wee Mama, burana, bythesea, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, Cassandra Waites, progresso, Livvy5, Rolfyboy6, chrismorgan, vidanto, OleHippieChick, Alice in Florida, Karl Rover, FisherOfRolando, Publius Cornelius Tacitus, ms badger, blueoasis, Denver11, BasharH, aaraujo, mod2lib, maybeeso in michigan, 1BQ, BachFan, means are the ends, LilithGardener, createpeace, Captain Chaos, science nerd, followyourbliss, histOries Marko, FindingMyVoice, ATFILLINOIS, Angie in WA State, Yamara, katrinka, yella dawg, highacidity, Jeff Y, camlbacker, elwior, dwayne, ladybug53, jw1, RandomNonviolence

    maintain the same sort of infrastructure that the Right has (Heritage, AEI, etc.). Center for American Progress, et. al. are good tanks, but we need a much broader policy/advocacy complex.

    Pardon our dust. Sig line under renovation.

    by Crashing Vor on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 06:20:29 AM PST

  •  I think Democrats have... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shenderson

    ...to come to terms with Obama being a lot like Reagan.  Policy wise at least.

    We Glory in war, in the shedding of human blood. What fools we are.

    by delver rootnose on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 06:21:32 AM PST

    •  Uh . . . because Reagan would have wanted (42+ / 0-)

      universal health care? Gay marriage? Equal pay for equal work?

      Every honest communication poses a risk that we will hear something that could challenge or change us. -- Kenneth Cloke

      by GreenMtnState on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 06:32:57 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  of course he would have! (18+ / 0-)

        Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say - Grateful Dead

        by Cedwyn on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 07:00:14 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  those things are not all that... (5+ / 0-)

        ...Obama or Reagan are or were.

        So do you think Reagan would have been for or against the secret drone war.

        Do you think he would be for or against the War in Afghanistan going on till 2014.

        Do you think Reagan would have agreed with the idea that if we only hold people off shore in Guantanimo they don't have rights to trial.

        Would Reagan have supported extrajudicial killings of US citizens.  He actually might of disagreed with them which would make him left of Obama.

        I could go on but it would harsh the Obama lovers post election high.  Don't want them to take off the rose colored glasses too soon.

        We Glory in war, in the shedding of human blood. What fools we are.

        by delver rootnose on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 07:33:27 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It adds to my high knowing (12+ / 0-)

          knowing the Obama haters live in a world without functioning question marks. Yes even the question marks have abandoned you.

          There are two types of republicans, the rich and the stupid. The rich ones strive to keep the stupid ones stupid and the stupid ones strive to keep the rich ones rich.

          by frankzappatista on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 07:47:34 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't hate Obama... (6+ / 0-)

            ...so give that shit a rest.  I just don't love him.  There are some issues I really fundamentally disagree with him.  And I disagreed with them when Bush did them and when Clinton did them.  I mean should any self-respecting Democrat like the Patriot Act or domestic spying or 'sneak and peek' warrantless searches.  Or national security letters to look into what books you read at the library.  These are issues that Obama either embraces or continues yet nobody says anything here because the president has a D after his name.

            Oh and by the way.  When you criticize someone's spelling, or grammar you are just screaming

            'I can't make a cogent rebuttal on the issues so let's just insult the poster’

            Weak sauce.

            We Glory in war, in the shedding of human blood. What fools we are.

            by delver rootnose on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 08:20:44 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Perhaps, but people who use (11+ / 0-)

              "Obama lovers" as a perjorative risk painting themselves into a corner. Remember people who used to say "the negro lovers" (question mark omitted out of respect)

              There are two types of republicans, the rich and the stupid. The rich ones strive to keep the stupid ones stupid and the stupid ones strive to keep the rich ones rich.

              by frankzappatista on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 09:38:00 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I just have to say this: (6+ / 0-)

                The internet is a written medium.  Questions that do not end in question marks are NOT proper questions.

                They are statements.

                And statements that sound like questions are BAD WRITING.

                And WEAK SAUCE is terrible on spaghetti, especially if you have a cold.  And I do.  Is that a question?

                Yes.

                And no.

                The POINT being, a drone war is a nightmarish scenario straight out of science fiction, and yet if you asked ME, as POTUS, "which is worse, a nightmarish scenario straight out of science fiction, or sacrificing American lives?" (note the FUCKING QUESTION MARK,) I would have to take a very LONG TIME to think about my answer.

                As for what Reagan would "think" about any other thing, Reagan was not much of a THINKER.  He was a puppet of the same people who implemented all those things.  Reagan's brain trust RAN the Bush Administration, and President Obama would NOT be allowed to simply flush every last one of those Strangelovian bastards, and that's just how it is.

                I love that there is leftist purity, and I actually encourage it, but it's not so good to be idealistically correct while pragmatically, you are getting your ass kicked.

                Reagan was the Right's FIGUREHEAD.

                And the point of this thread is, Obama is ours.

                He did the one thing a good number of other Democrats couldn't do:

                HE WON.

                We are the change we have been waiting for.

                by mellowinman on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 01:07:57 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  Those are legitimate criticisms (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            blueoasis, Cedwyn, delver rootnose

            He's a guy we hired for a job, not a figure to "love" or "hate".

            I voted to keep him on the job but not blindly.

        •  I'm pretty sure the diarist... (5+ / 0-)

          didn't mean Obama WAS Reagan.

          Only that Obama was the Democrat's Coin-Flip Version of him.

          Message to Dems: We HAVE to start showing up for Midterms.

          by Jank2112 on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 07:52:32 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I can compare oranges to rattlesnakes. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            kurt, majcmb1, Theodore J Pickle

            I can compare JDAM bombs to Habitat for Humanity.

            I can compare the Mars rover with the deer in my yard eating beef ribs.

            Technically, all you can really do is CONTRAST Obama with that piece of shit.

            The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

            by xxdr zombiexx on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 08:25:07 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  There is some merit to what you are writing (7+ / 0-)

          Some.  Reagan's foreign policy set us up for Afghanistan - Reagan and Bush created the mess in both Afghanistan and in Iraq (supporting Saddam Hussein, creating the Taliban, etc).  You can make the case that Obama is trying to responsibly unravel the latent disasters of Republican foreign policy.

          Would Reagan support Gitmo or assassination of US citizens?  Maybe... he did support the torture of US citizens in Central and South America. I don't agree with Obama on these issues.  But can you seriously believe that Reagan would have not used drones in Central America had he had the option?

          There's no real comparison between Obama's foreign and security policy.  I think it's a little off-base to pretend that they are the same.

          “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” Charles Darwin

          by ivorybill on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 08:49:31 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  well, there's a reason for that. (32+ / 0-)

      And  addressed that in my diary.

      The reality is that the GOP dominated the political discourse for 30 years. Reagan ushered in a entirely fresh lexicon in terms of talking about conservative principles.

      It wasn't until Obama VOCALLY AND DIRECTLY challenged the term "Trickle Down" and SAID EXPLICITLY "It doesn't work" that we've seen Reagan's nomenclature taken on head first.

      Even Clinton was hamstrung by a still dominant conservative culture.

      And what I;m saying is that Obama is the first democratic president in a generation who has not only taken on conservative memes, but also introduced our own memes that, like Reagan's, will define the next 20-30 years of political discourse. And hopefully, force the right leftward the same way that Reagan's language and the dominance of conservative themes forced the left rightward.

      We now have "fairness", "income inequality", "vulture capitalism". These are strong themes, leftist themes. And if we take advantage of our position, we will force the right leftward as they are forced to deal with the reality that the american electorate accepts our framing on these issues.

      So in a way, saying Obama is a republican sort of makes the point that I was making in the diary.

      Except he's not a republican. he's to the right of many leftists - and the reasons is because we are only at the beginnings of shedding the 30 year dominance of right wing thought and culture.

      For the record, I am not a member of Courtesy Kos. Just so you know. Don't be stupid. It's election season. My patience is short.

      by mdmslle on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 06:47:40 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Pfffft. (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        delver rootnose, Jank2112, dinazina, Chi, kurt

        You're giving BO way too much credit and dismissing everyone else who has ever supported 'fairness' etc., you know, people like Roosevelt [he was president in the '30s] and current people like Howard Dean and groups like Moveon.  And Naomi Klein wrote her books well before BO was even on the scene.

        So you're dismissing all the work done by people who came well before BO who helped to change the discussion-Daily Kos would be another great example, now that I think of it.  Where was BO in 2002 and 2003 when DKos was taking off?

        The only reason BO embraced some liberal notions was to win the election.  

        And he followed the memes, he certainly did not introduce any.

        The banks have a stranglehold on the political process. Mike Whitney

        by dfarrah on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 07:29:55 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I agree with both of you. (12+ / 0-)

          Dfarrah, you are right. Plenty of people build the ladder that Obama climbed on his way to the top, and then held it steady for him as well.

          And yes, without the threat he was facing from Mitt Romney, would he have acquiesced to the DREAM act? To gay marriage? Hmmmm...

          But MDMSLLE is correct also, that Obama was/is a teriffic spokesman for liberal ideas in a way that others have not been. Clinton was too much into triangulation, and then L'affaire Lewinsky robbed him of gravitas. Gore was unfairly seen as too much of a tree-hugger. Howard Dean was too much of a bomb thrower. John Kerry was an imperfect messenger trying to do the job at the worst possible moment in time. John Edwards, was as astute as Obama, but people just never latched onto him or his message for some reason.* Hilary has too much baggage. Nancy Pelosi is too easily written off because she's from San Francisco.

          No doubt though, all of them contributed to Obama.

          Obama came along at just the right time as the Cheney/Bush Regime** was meeting its inevitable crumbling. The failure of the two simultaneous wars, Katrina, the economic mess, and the absolute haplessness of the McCain campaign -- all of that overshadowed the GOPs attempts to paint him as part of "The Chicago Machine" or "the Harvard Illuminati".

          Just like Reagan took advantage of the disaster the country found itself in in 1979 and 1980, so did Obama. He was able to deliver a message to an eager and willing audience.  All of their fans said for years, that the Shins were an awesome, excellent band. But until the movie Garden State, they really didn't have a mass forum to demonstrate that.

          Same for Obama. Right man. Right Time.  

          *I'm talking about before his own sex scandal.

          **I call it the Cheny/Bush Regime because Cheney was the man in charge, and nobody's gonna tell me otherwise.

          Message to Dems: We HAVE to start showing up for Midterms.

          by Jank2112 on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 08:09:33 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well, I didn't know that (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            sidnora

            BO was a spokesman for liberal ideas.  

            In fact, I recall many lectures from people on this very site who said that BO isn't a liberal and what the heck were the more liberal people on this site expecting after they were so disappointed in BO's first term.

            And as far as I'm concerned, Bill Clinton saved BO's butt.  Even for some of the positives that BO managed, he was poor at communicating policies or selling his ideas.  So Clinton had to come out swinging for BO [and I've heard that Clinton regrets some of the damage he did--such as NAFTA and repealing Glass-Steagull.]

            And I suppose you don't recall that HRC was for mortgage relief, and what has BO done in this area.  Practically nothing.  

            And, no, I did not support HRC in the primaries; I unfortunately supported Edwards.

            The banks have a stranglehold on the political process. Mike Whitney

            by dfarrah on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 12:40:13 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  It seems apparent it puts you in a world of pain (0+ / 0-)

              to give this President credit for anything. You began by mentioning the noble premise of countless others over many decades who have aided in the success of one. I hardly think this obvious point is even worth mentioning, except to avoid giving this President credit.

              Now you are going against your own logic of claiming the input of millions in the success of one by suggesting that Bill Clinton deserves most of the credit for Barack Obama's latest success.

              The fact that Bill Clinton (who has been admirable in his support for the President) had to speak for this President before people could accept the great things Barack Obama has done, such as saving the economy and passing the Affordable Care Act, points so clearly to the very same sad, and pitiful, state of mind that you are demonstrating, in which you would do anything you can possible do, in order to distract from this President's record.

              •  I think the president (0+ / 0-)

                has definitely accomplished some items.

                The world of pain you mention is the world that many people struggle through every day.  I strongly believe that many people suffered, and continue to suffer, because BO is such a weak proponent of whatever policy he supposedly supports.  

                For example, his stimulus package should have been much bigger--yet he simply did next to nothing, deferring to Summer and Geithner.  They insisted on 'doing no harm,' so what does BO do? Close to nothing.

                If the stimulus would have been bigger, as advocated by a number of reliable economists, the country would be much further along recovery instead of inching along at a snail's pace.  If the economy was stronger, the repubs would have never been able to make it an issue in the election and BO likely would have picked up a decent slice of the repub vote.

                The bad economy affects everyone, incuding repubs.

                The result of the stimulus was a population that could see some improvement, but not much.  So, because BO can't make an economic argument [and I have to question whether he even understands the consequences of austerity--or if it's just another pretty idea to him], Bill Clinton had to ride to the rescue, providing people with example after example of how transfer payments keep people out of poverty, how the economy works, and tying the stimulus to real results.

                It's just not that hard to speak to the concrete results of political actions, yet BO is such an appeaser he simply cannot argue for himself.  Every now and then, he sounds insistent during a speech or his radio addresses, then.....nothing.

                So many people have suffered during the economic downturn; his indifference--as reflected in his continued inaction--is simply inexcusable to me.  There simply is no justification for the prolonged suffering his inaction [or inability to forcefully advocate for something] caused.  We've been there before; we know what works, and BO just went along with the do-nothing group.

                It may be hard for you to believe, but I was thrilled that he won re-election.  I was thrilled when the S.C. ruled in favor of the health care, resulting in a solid political victory for BO, even though I hoped they would overturn the law.  I think it's a sop to insurance companies.  So it's possible to be thrilled over someone's political victories and yet despise some of the things they do [like murdering with drones].  

                Like I said in some other post in this diary, we'll see about whether BO sells out the safety net in order to appease the repubs.

                The banks have a stranglehold on the political process. Mike Whitney

                by dfarrah on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 08:54:05 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  The President had to fight tooth and nail to get (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  samddobermann

                  two Republicans to sign on to the stimulus package, because he didn't have enough votes initially, and they would not have passed it if it were a trillion dollars.... And just how you pass a bill without votes again??? If the President hadn't passed the stimulus he passed we would be in a Second Great Depression.

                  This statement you made is beyond ridiculous:

                  "Bill Clinton had to ride to the rescue, providing people with example after example of how transfer payments keep people out of poverty, how the economy works, and tying the stimulus to real results."

                  No, Bill Clinton told the American people the great things the President has done.... Let me get this straight, Bill Clinton just told people how transfer payment keep people out of poverty and everyone just run out and vote for Barack Obama?? He didn't recite the great things Obama had done.... He just talked about theories and why did people connect Barack Obama to those theories again???

                  Bill, Clinton didn't save the auto industry, Bill Clinton didn't pass the Affordable Care Act. I have great admiration for Bill Clinton, but even though he and Hillary tried to pass Health Care, while he was President, they were unsuccessful...do you remember that???  Who passed the bill? Barack Obama passed the bill....

                  You tend to contradict your own views, you wanted the ACA to fail, yet you claim you were glad the Supreme Court didn't strike it down??? I don't believe that statement.  You are dedicated to the ridiculous notion that Barack Obama has failed, like John McCain, and yet you are glad he was reelected...huh??? I don't believe it....

                  I wish you anti-Obama folk would stop claiming you are happy the President is reelected, if it were left to you, we would have a President Romney today.

                  And that's the issue with folk such as yourself, you are good at staying behind your computer and complain, but you are unable to elect anyone.... Because you can't tell me one individual in politics today who could have been elected and carry out the agenda you somehow speak of. I challenge you to name one....

                  Most people disagree strongly with your assessment of Barack Obama, and unlike your incredible claim that you are glad the President was reelect, I can prove that most people are in favor of this President, and do not believe he is a failure, you know how I can prove it? Well...he was solidly reelected!!! This says it all! Your anti-Obama crusade has failed horribly.....

                •  There is no way that they could have (0+ / 0-)

                  gotten a bigger stimulus bill at the time. NO WAY. You can cite economists up the gazoo; they can't pass a bill at all. There were a lot of people who had input into the decisions — and remember the needed republican votes required slashing about $50 billion off what had passed the House.

                  Obama got another chunk of stimulus through during the Lame duck session at the cost of allowing the high income tax cuts stay for two years. He got more unemployment insurance, more in Pell grants, and a bunch of other things amounting to a further about $400 billion over the tax cut revenue loss.

                  There was also a lot of first year spending in the health care bill.

                  I don't know what you think he could have done more of for those who had mortgage problems. He could not order the banks to write them off or down. There would be a bit of a problem with the constitution on that.

                  I'm asking you to believe. Not in my ability to bring about real change in Washington ... *I'm asking you to believe in yours.* Barack Obama

                  by samddobermann on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 03:49:44 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

        •  That was my first thought (6+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          puakev, Boise Grad, Chi, kurt, mdmslle, sidnora

          although you'll note that the Republican party became a lot more conservative than Reagan over time, such that Reagan would be a Democrat today.  What he did was break the liberalizing trajectory.  Obama hasn't been a lexicon breaking progressive, but he may have prepared the ground for actual liberals to come after him and push the frame.  We won't know if Obama is Reagan-like until about 2028 at the end of the second term of a liberal presidency.

          This has been a golden age for confirmation bias. - David Brooks

          by Mindful Nature on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 08:14:23 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Uh, BO wasn't part of (0+ / 0-)

            any preparing 'the ground.'  If anything, he simply rode the wave.

            That's just insulting to all of the people who have worked so hard to change the popular discourse.

            The banks have a stranglehold on the political process. Mike Whitney

            by dfarrah on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 12:51:29 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Of which he is one (0+ / 0-)

              It just isn't insulting if someone manages to get the megaphone and project these messages of counter narrative.   Others also have been a part, but so has Obama. He's the one who actually pulled it off to say to the media that tax cuts don't work or that trickle done doesn't work or that marriage equality matters.   Yes others have said this but not with the power of the bully pulpit   So yes by pushing leftwards more progressive candidates will look less out of the mainstream.

              This has been a golden age for confirmation bias. - David Brooks

              by Mindful Nature on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 11:38:09 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  God. Where were you in the 90s ? (15+ / 0-)

          When Barack Obama went to work in poor black neighborhoods  , and after going to Harvard Law School, continued his activism ( registering voters in poor neighborhoods, etc.)

          For decades now, the man has been much more about action in the trenches than about writing on blogs.

          Not to dismiss the great work of the people you mentioned, but Barack Obama didn't need MoveOn or Howard Dean to learn about America's problems...

          Another note: Have you watched President Obama's last rally in DesMoines on Nov. 5th ?  Or, better, his visit to Chicago headquarters on NOv. 7th ?  The way he becomes so emotional when he talks about how it's the power of the people that will change the world ? If you haven't watched the videos, I strongly suggest you do.

          His heart is in the right place. He is simply patient and wants a peaceful, smooth transformation instead of a full-blown revolution.  

          •  Who cares if BO was (0+ / 0-)

            a community organizer?

            Bottom line?  Now that I think about it more, he was not even remotely part of the changing conversation.  

            If anything, he had to be dragged kicking and screaming to start supporting anything that liberals wanted.

            And, no, I don't watch the guy.  I recall being very impressed with him at his DNC speech when Kerry ran.  However, it was just bs, much like most of his campaign was when he ran for his first term.

            And the only reason BO went all populist-y for this campaign was because the message resonated.

            He's great at speechifying.  Action?  Not so much.

            The banks have a stranglehold on the political process. Mike Whitney

            by dfarrah on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 12:48:21 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  OWS changed the conversation and Obama followed (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kurt, Hammerhand, timewarp, TheOpinionGuy

        suit.

        Without OWS Obama would have lost this election IMHO.

        “The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” ~ John Kenneth Galbraith

        by Lefty Coaster on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 09:00:40 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Not. (0+ / 0-)

      The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

      by xxdr zombiexx on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 08:17:17 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Great insight. (17+ / 0-)

    I would add that Democrats might bear some of the blame for Reagan, just as Republicans did so much to guarantee Obama's reelection.  

    I'm too young to know first-hand, but I'm of the impression that some Democrats in the 70s complacently assumed that not only were we the dominant party, but we would always be the dominant party, and further, that more liberal was always better.

    Today, conservatives can't believe they are no longer in a dominant position.  They still think that shaking the 9-11 stick will give them guaranteed win after win.  And they think that more conservative is always better.

    Were we in a similar bubble in the 70s?  If so, how can we be sure not to let it happen again?

    Early to rise and early to bed Makes a man healthy, wealthy, and dead. --Not Benjamin Franklin

    by Boundegar on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 06:24:52 AM PST

    •  i think there's a lot to what you say but I also (10+ / 0-)

      think that there are some differences.

      I think the internet makes it both easier and harder to address complacency. IOW it's easier to live in a bubble but also easier to see what others are thinking.

      I do believe that the left's eyes are more open today than before, perhaps. And I also think this zeitgeist is not limited to the USA. The Arab Spring being one example of a people-focused orientation shift.

      For the record, I am not a member of Courtesy Kos. Just so you know. Don't be stupid. It's election season. My patience is short.

      by mdmslle on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 06:38:21 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Of course there are differences :) (5+ / 0-)

        The reason it's so hard to predict the future is it's not the past yet.

        Personally, I think Occupy Wal*Mart is one of the most positive signs this year.  If that grows, it could change everything.

        Early to rise and early to bed Makes a man healthy, wealthy, and dead. --Not Benjamin Franklin

        by Boundegar on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 06:55:28 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  i'm excited about it. they are courageous. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MRA NY, Chi, Sophie Amrain

          walmart is a vampire. and these workers could actually start something really significant in America.

          I'm excited about it too.

          And I think the time is right for it. I think we're finally back to a place where most americans would "get it", ya know? As opposed to where we've been for the last 30 years.

          For the record, I am not a member of Courtesy Kos. Just so you know. Don't be stupid. It's election season. My patience is short.

          by mdmslle on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 06:58:40 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  In terms of the right I think the Internet (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MRA NY

        And modern media generally definitely has had and will have a corrosive effect. The more they congregate in malign echo chambers like Freerepublic and get their information from Fox News the more insulated they are about what is really going on the word and with other people who do not share their zeal.

        hope springs eternal

        by ahyums on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 07:41:14 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  We (democrats) were losing the (4+ / 0-)

      bigots like rats from a sinking ship. The rest of the Party was splitting into the crazies that dominated and made those assumptions you spoke about, and the others who waited in the wilderness until Bill Clinton came along.

      The same thing with different actors and ideas is happening to the Republican Party now. What remains is how long it will take for them to rebuild. History repeats, but with changes in technology and such the rate of repeat might be different.

      •  Studies show that after a transformative election (8+ / 0-)

        that brings in big new cohorts of voters, those new voters stay with their new party for the rest of their lives.  So yes, Obama is like Reagan in this way.  

        So even without the changing demographics we should bbe a lot stronger than the last 30 years.  With them -- as long as we don't get complacent or squabble too much over differences, or get wiped out by climate change -- we really could win for 20-30 years.

        Remember back when Obama got such grief for saying he admired Reagan?  This is what he meant, not that he liked Reagan's policies, but that he admired his transformative reframing and the shift he brought about.

      •  Who were the crazies who dominated (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        freerad, majcmb1

        the Democratic Party?

        And for what it's worth, the neo-liberal Clinton administration gave it's imprimatur to the so-called Reagan revolution.

        A proud member of the Professional Left since 1967.

        by slatsg on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 08:04:06 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Perhaps crazies is too (0+ / 0-)

          harsh a term. Allow me to say the more radical wing of the Party. Bolstered by 'wins' against the war and racism, we (some) thought it would last. Hell, I even sold all my weapons.

          It seemed to me the Reagan policies failed even him early on and the economy only began to recover from them increasing revenue through taxation called by other names. The Republican voters never caught on, loved Reagan and blamed their tax preparer. I agree, Bill was not the best and if the economy had not been on the upswing, I would have put up with another term of Herbert Walker Bush as it would have ended the Republican name by 1996.

          I was and remain a member of that radical wing of the Party and when it bacame apparent what they had in store for President Carter, I remedied that last statement in my first paragraph
           

          •  If that's your definition then I also am (0+ / 0-)

            one of those crazy left-wing wackos.

            I never felt we dominated the party. Even when McGovern won the nomination, the party establishment still were in control and undermined us at every opportunity and then used the McGovern defeat to marginalize us. (Not that the McGovern campaign didn't make enough mistakes on it's own.)

            I own my dad's old rifle, but haven't been able to find the bolt. Though the rifle was stored in what I considered to be a safe place, I took no chances. I forgot where I put the bolt, so for the last 30 years or so I have been the proud owner of a old German Mauser that is incapable of inflicting harm unless used as a club.

            A proud member of the Professional Left since 1967.

            by slatsg on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 09:26:39 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  They certainly didn't dominate, (0+ / 0-)

          at least I don't think.  Remember this is history to me.

          But there were people who thought "free love" was a good idea.  And there were people who thought "getting in tune" with drugs was a good idea.  And the antiwar movement did slide into outright hatred for America, at times.

          And I would call those ideas crazy and destructive, and at one time we made room in our party for them.  Maybe just around the fringes, but those folks sure weren't Republicans.

          There's a reason they call us dirty hippies - just like there's a reason we call them ignorant rednecks.

          Early to rise and early to bed Makes a man healthy, wealthy, and dead. --Not Benjamin Franklin

          by Boundegar on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 12:46:33 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I lived through those times (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Dogs are fuzzy

            I think you're accepting the propaganda.

            I was deeply involved in both the anti-war and civil rights movements. We weren't into hating our country as much as  changing it and pressuring it to acknowledge its past mistakes.

            As to the free love and drug culture, they were no more destructive than the status quo, with adulterers and alcoholics hiding behind the facade of suburban respectability.

            Finally I don't refer to the Republican base as ignorant rednecks. Yuppie scum would be a better descriptor.

            A proud member of the Professional Left since 1967.

            by slatsg on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 01:12:06 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  That's the sticking point (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mmacdDE, freerad, OleHippieChick
        What remains is how long it will take for them to rebuild.
        A fundamental difference betwixt Us and Them is rooted in their very name. Conservatism doesn't like change.

        We on the other hand realized it was time to be flexible on certain issues. Call it pragmatism or call it selling out, the budging on issues from gun control to defense to welfare dragged us, kicking and screaming, to where we are now in the mainstream.

        Oh, and lots of those old white guys dying off has also helped. :)

        Conservatives are resistant to change. What is it William F Buckley Jr said ?:

        A Conservative is a fellow who is standing athwart history yelling 'Stop!'

        IMHO, The party will be stuck between those that take that quote seriously, and the ones who realize the self-mocking inherent in it.

        Message to Dems: We HAVE to start showing up for Midterms.

        by Jank2112 on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 08:16:31 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Reagan comes only 6 years after Watergate (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      frankzappatista, Sychotic1

      and in my memories of that time (I am the same age as the diarist) I can understand why the Dems felt that they were in a dominant position...

    •  A lot of people in the 70s thought the US (5+ / 0-)

      was on the cusp of revolution.  Those of us on the left were wrong about which direction that revolution would turn.

      Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free
      ¡Boycott Arizona!

      by litho on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 07:11:07 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  You're right. The college students I teach laughed (31+ / 0-)

    at Romney. They could not take him seriously.  They laughed at McCain and Palin too.  I'm ecstatic that my 14 y.o. son will come of political age in the era of Obama for precisely the reasons you mention.

    Every honest communication poses a risk that we will hear something that could challenge or change us. -- Kenneth Cloke

    by GreenMtnState on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 06:38:11 AM PST

    •  Me too on the 14 yr old (15+ / 0-)

      My daughter was so overwhelmed with emotion that she cried when then-candidate Obama took the stage at a 2008 rally. She was 9 years old. She didn't understand his policy positions but she was very moved by his charisma and energy. Of course, she also saw the stupidity and discombobulated messages coming from the McCain campaign and was horrified that Sarah Palin was even in the mix.
      Now (with 4 years under her belt!) she is a steadfast and informed supporter. I think it's mostly the human rights & fairness issues that get to her - she watched a lot of the Republican primaries and was grossed out by the "I got mine" attitude that came from the candidates. When Mitt was finally crowned the nominee his summer of lying sent her over the edge.
      We live in a (really) red state and it is amazing to me how many of her classmates are supporters of Democrats - President Obama won her school (500 students) mock election with Mitt Romney getting -0- delegates. Times they are a changing.

      I'm pretty tired of being told what I care about.

      by hulibow on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 07:31:42 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  My 12 year old laughed at Romney. (20+ / 0-)

      My 15 year old's chemistry class teased their parodically conservative chemistry teacher (he had previously told the class, in all seriousness, that "girls can't be leaders," and harped frequently on "the government").  The day after the election, they were asking him how he felt about the outcome, teasing, when he frowned deeply, "Is that a Romney face I see?" and snickering openly at his "fear for the country." This is a Utah public school, btw.

      My 17 year old's class was 6 on 9/11.  Some of their friends lost parents to Iraq.  Several of their friends were raised by gay parents.  Many of their classmates are openly gay, and fully accepted.  They see first hand the disharmony between conservative rhetoric and action and the world in which they've grown up and live.

      I give liberalism a good, fighting chance, given the depth of the generation that has grown up watching conservatism fail and step out of synch with American culture, the American South excepted.

      "On their backs were vermiculate patterns that were maps of the world in its becoming. Maps...of a thing which could not be put back. Not be made right again."

      by middleagedhousewife on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 07:34:19 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Excellent observation, mdmselle (7+ / 0-)

    But Crashing Vor is right.  We're already behind on infrastructure, and we need more than the Center for American Progress, no matter how good a job they're doing. We have to find a way to absorb the brightest members of this generation into the infrastructure too.

    -7.75, -8.10; All it takes is security in your own civil rights to make you complacent.

    by Dave in Northridge on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 06:41:27 AM PST

  •  Your diary is compatible w/ Armando's recent one (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mistral Wind, Armando, Cedwyn

    Every honest communication poses a risk that we will hear something that could challenge or change us. -- Kenneth Cloke

    by GreenMtnState on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 06:42:32 AM PST

  •  A point about youth (16+ / 0-)
    I was 12 when a popular and charismatic Ronald Reagan excited a generation of people, including America's youth.
    There undoubtedly were some young people who viewed Reagan positively, but by no means was this a universal feeling.

    I was starting graduate school the year he was elected, and I remember watching that campaign in disbelief. It was an embarrassment to me that such a person could even be viewed as a possible candidate for presdient. I was extremely disappointed when he won and watched over the next 8 years as my deep concerns about him were not just met, but exceeded.

    Through the Clinton impeachment affair I felt similar feelings of disappointment and embarrassment for this nation; though the impeachment circus was so ridiculous that it was clear it had been engineered by a pack of wild dogs solely for partisan gain. Despite President Clinton not being convicted and remaining in office to the end of his term, we were a laughingstock on the world stage.

    But it took George W. Bush for me to once again feel those feelings of deep despair. How could such a person be viewed as a possible president? He was clearly unprepared. He was incurious, mean, and dismissive of opposing views. It took Mr. Bush to make me realize that Mr. Reagan was, at least, not the worst president in living memory.

    But he was very, very bad nevertheless. We mustn't let  the Republicans' carefully crafted Reagan hagiography wipe that reality away.

     

  •  Much better than Reagan, methinks (17+ / 0-)

    In addition to his numerous policy advantages vis-a-vis Reagan, Obama is younger and fitter than Reagan, and he doesn't have Alzheimer's.

    Obama is also still on Marriage 1.0.

  •  Maybe it's party because I'm Jewish (10+ / 0-)

    and thus was largely and thankfully spared the garish commercial idiocy that has become Christmas in the US (mind you I'm trashing the commercialized version of Christmas, not the actual, core religious holiday which I think is among the world's great religious holidays), with its overemphasis on things no one needs or really wants and exploiting peoples' fear of being judged stingy and rude, that I saw Reagan and Reaganism as the lie and joke that they always were from the moment I first became aware of both, and couldn't understand how so many people could be swayed by that literally insane liar and propagandist.

    Which is why I made the Christmas comparison. I think it's the same exact thing: commercialized infantilism to appeal to peoples' childish cravings and fears.

    Well, that's finally ending, thank god (heh, and can we hope for a more sensible and less commercialized Christmas too?). Economic conditions mandated that. Reaganism has failed, in every measurable way, except for a relative few (and it has failed them too, by destroying what souls they might once have had). And in his place we effectively have Obama, who whether sincerely or not, has been making a strong case for progressivism, the only ideology in US history that's ever worked, going literally back to the founding (sorry, folks, Hamilton was the progressive, not Jefferson, along with Clay, Lincoln, TR, Wilson, FDR and LBJ).

    Of course, for it to take hold, we're going to need some results. And not the phony ones that Reagan cooked up, but real, bona fide, lasting results that benefit a majority of Americans--even the ones who hate Obama. That's why he needed a second term, to solidify and build upon the successes of his first term. And that's why we need him to fight the Repubs, that zombie party of Reaganite revanchists who would take us off a far worse cliff than this phony one with which they want to hold him and us hostage. It's his first big second term test.

    "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

    by kovie on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 06:50:16 AM PST

    •  Agree, with one difference.... (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kovie, MRA NY, ORDem, Gator Keyfitz
      And that's why we need him to fight the Repubs, that zombie party of Reaganite revanchists who would take us off a far worse cliff than this phony one with which they want to hold him and us hostage. It's his first big second term test.
      And that's why we need to fight the Repubs, the Fossil Fuel Industry, & Wall Street, over & over again, on issue after issue, so Obama can win the votes.

      For example, on climate.  We can't just sit back & cheer or criticise Obama.  He can't make change that's up to the scale of the problem without us rising up and demanding it.  The House will block big change until they can't avoid it.  (check 350.org's new divestment campaign!)

      Same with inequality.  A few tax fixes aren't enough to change the paradigm and Obama can't just wave a wand.  He'll do some good stuff but it's up to us to push for more.  Push the opponents, that is, not just the President.

      It's time to put armchair activism to bed imo, we need to be on the phones, at people's doors, and in the streets.  Then our causes will flourish & succeed.

      •  There are many ways to fight these battles (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ORDem

        Not all require or exclusively benefit from retail-level activism. We also need some ideological guidance from above, for the perpetually perplexed and thus winnable.

        "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

        by kovie on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 08:10:46 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Maybe. But imo "retail" is where our leverage (0+ / 0-)

          is.  We have way too many pundits nowdays, us & ours included.  I'm not sure we need more opinions.

          We've become a nation of tv-watching observers.  Not to mention typists.  I have much hope that this is ending as people get over their reluctance and fear of getting actively involved.  

          One of the Repubs long-term strategies is to make it uncool to get involved, to make politics so distasteful that regular good people cringe away and let the insiders rule.  They've done a pretty good job up to now, but things are changing.  

      •  you get it hooper, you really do. (0+ / 0-)

        That is what Obama has been saying over and over and over.

        I'm asking you to believe. Not in my ability to bring about real change in Washington ... *I'm asking you to believe in yours.* Barack Obama

        by samddobermann on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 04:43:01 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  greedy heartless assholes (9+ / 0-)

    Sorry I don't agree. Ronald Reagan was my governor. He was never like Obama, he was a total ass.

    He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice. Albert Einstein

    by Cairns on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 06:50:39 AM PST

    •  Yeah, it's beyond (0+ / 0-)

      me why anyone would want to compare BO favorably to Reagan.

      The banks have a stranglehold on the political process. Mike Whitney

      by dfarrah on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 07:32:37 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't think the diarist is comparing Obama to (10+ / 0-)

        Reagan.  I think it's more of a comparison of what Reagan symbolized and began for conservatives (the beginning of a long, relentless shift towards the right from the far left in the US) to what Obama symbolizes and what we hope is beginning for liberals (a long and relentless shift back to the left from the far right in the US).

        "On their backs were vermiculate patterns that were maps of the world in its becoming. Maps...of a thing which could not be put back. Not be made right again."

        by middleagedhousewife on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 07:40:16 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You are right but (4+ / 0-)

          That Reagan never exisited. It was a role he played and played it well. America bought it. He was playing the Clint Eastwood "Dirty Harry" role domestically and internationally. It made us feel good about being asses. It was an illusion. I and the citizens of California knew him for what he was because he unleashed his bad policies there first.

          He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice. Albert Einstein

          by Cairns on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 07:54:12 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  thank you (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          middleagedhousewife

          I'm a bit shocked at how many people reading this cannot tell the difference between Similarity as opposed to Comparison/Contrast.

          Message to Dems: We HAVE to start showing up for Midterms.

          by Jank2112 on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 08:22:12 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  I think you miss the point (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Jank2112, v2aggie2

      The diarist is writing about the impact, not their beliefs or ideology. Reagan may have been a huckster and a thug, but he was effective in changing the dialog in this country.

      From FDR until Reagan, government was viewed by the majority of citizens as part of the solution. Reagan was able to convince the US that government was part of the problem and that the answer was the "magic of the marketplace".

      His effectiveness was demonstrated when Clinton and the DLC Democrats in essence ratified Reaganiism and his idea of looking primarily to the private sector for solutions.

      I disagree with the diarist that President Obama has changed the basic underlying dialog. One only has to look at his educational policies to see that. He has another four years. We will then be able to judge his overall impact.

      A proud member of the Professional Left since 1967.

      by slatsg on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 07:39:13 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  i feel bad that a whole generation of children (9+ / 0-)

    were bamboozled into thinking Reagan was a great man.

    but the children now who look up to Obama are admiring the real thing.

    "Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D."
    Four More Years! How sweet it is!!!

    by TrueBlueMajority on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 06:57:31 AM PST

  •  I was born in 1967 too... (7+ / 0-)

    in the heart of a rural red state.  My parents always were clear about voting for the person not the party. I knew that, even as a kid.  However, my first political memory is watching the Watergate hearings while sitting on my Dad's lap (really I just wanted to sit on his lap.  I thought the hearings were boring). When I registered to vote, I did it with about a dozen of my friends.  They all registered republican, so I did too.  However, I just felt it was wrong. I didn't know why.  Within the next two years, I went back twice to re-register.  First as an independent, and then as a Democrat.  I just couldn't be in the same party as the people involved in Watergate.  

    A scandal has deeper hooks than we immediately know.  That is why the republicans are so desperate to hang a scandal on "no drama Obama." It just isn't going to happen.

    The pendulum is swinging our way.

    "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." -- Margaret Mead

    by gloever on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 06:59:49 AM PST

  •  well, Reagan gave way to Bush Sr. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    middleagedhousewife

    who lost reelection.

    And the Clinton era began.

    Never say never.


    "A squid eating dough in a polyethylene bag is fast and bulbous..........got me?" - Don Van Vliet

    by AlyoshaKaramazov on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 07:05:48 AM PST

    •  Diarist's point is still correct (5+ / 0-)

      because even though Clinton's presidency sowed the seeds for the current Democratic resurgence, his actual policies continued the Republican reorientation of the polity and the economy.

      Don't forget that the repeal of Glass-Steagall, perhaps the single most important long-term cause of the current economic crisis, occurred during the Clinton presidency and was in fact an initiative of his economic team.

      Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free
      ¡Boycott Arizona!

      by litho on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 07:17:44 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The repeal of Glass Steagall (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        middleagedhousewife

        did not cause what you say.

        The Commodity Futures Modernization Act was a cause, but not Glass Steagall repeal.

        Ask President Obama.

        •  I respect your opinion, Armando (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MRA NY, ORDem, Gator Keyfitz, askew, Yamara

          but I also recognize that many economists do not share it:

          In fact, the financial crisis might not have happened at all but for the 1999 repeal of the Glass-Steagall law that separated commercial and investment banking for seven decades. If there is any hope of avoiding another meltdown, it's critical to understand why Glass-Steagall repeal helped to cause the crisis. Without a return to something like Glass-Steagall, another greater catastrophe is just a matter of time.
          http://www.usnews.com/...
          STIGLITZ: I think the example that most epitomizes the problems that I've been talking about was the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act that allowed investment banks and commercial banks to come together. After the repeal of Glass-Steagall, the differences between the investment banks, which took rich people's money, invested in high-risk activities, high return, the difference between those banks and ordinary commercial banks was abolished, and the unfortunate consequence of that was that the commercial banks began to act like investment banks, undertaking high-risk activities with ordinary individuals' money.

          It had two other consequences. One was that the banks grew bigger and bigger. They became too big to fail. That meant that they - if they gambled and won, they walked off with the profits, but if they gambled and lost, they knew that the government would bail them out, which they were right, it did bail them out.

          And finally, there are a host of conflicts of interest that were apparent in the years before the Great Depression and which had led to the passage of the Glass-Steagall Act, an act which served the country well. In the decades following the passage of this - Glass-Steagall Act separated the commercial and investment bank - the United States had no financial crises, no major bank failures.

          In the period after deregulation, we've seen the kind of instability that we face.

          http://www.npr.org/...
          I was reminded of this recently after reading articles that argued over the role the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act played in the financial crisis. The Depression-era regulation that separated Main Street banks from Wall Street investment firms had a huge impact on the finance sector.

          The repeal of Glass-Steagall may not have caused the crisis — but its repeal was a factor that made it much worse. And it was a continuum of the radical deregulation movement. This philosophy incorrectly held that banks could regulate themselves, that government had no place in overseeing finance and that the free market works best when left alone. This belief system manifested itself in damaging ways, including eliminating regulation and oversight on derivatives, allowing exemptions for excess leverage rules for a handful of players and creating dangerous legislation.

          As the events of 2007 to 2009 have revealed, this erroneous belief system was a major factor leading to the credit boom and bust, as well as the financial collapse.

          http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

          Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free
          ¡Boycott Arizona!

          by litho on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 08:16:32 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yeah (0+ / 0-)

            The problem is Stiglitz actually has no data to back up his claims.

            Consider Bear Stearns and Lehman (not to mention Goldman). 2 banks that did NOT merge with commercial banks.

            Their colapses were the catalyst to the problems, not the merged banks, which in fact, due to their broader bases, were better able to withstand  the housing collapse.

            I respect Stiglitz, but the evidence actually disproves his assertions.

    •  Clinton largely picked up where Bush Sr. left off (0+ / 0-)

      Clinton signed NATA, Big Tax Cuts fir the wealthy, banking deregulation.

      Clinton was a Reagan Lite Moderate.

      “The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” ~ John Kenneth Galbraith

      by Lefty Coaster on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 08:46:44 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  About your age, slightly older. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    litho, a2nite, Cedwyn

    Yes, I'd agree we're going through a cultural sea-change  analogous to the Reagan Revolution. With the last few election cycles, and with cultural developments we've seen in-between, matters have indeed come to a head in a remarkable way. I credit the netroots, the internet and social media, and demographic changes we are only seeing the start of.

    An era is ending. The RW knows it, and it is terrified.

    It's here they got the range/ and the machinery for change/ and it's here they got the spiritual thirst. --Leonard Cohen

    by karmsy on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 07:06:27 AM PST

  •  I've been sensing this shift also (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cedwyn, MRA NY, Yamara

    and trying not to let myself get swept away by the emotion of witnessing it, but reading Romesh Ponnaru's column linked today in the pundit roundup, it's really hard not to accept that Ronald Reagan's GOP has finally collapsed and that Mitt Romney was the agent of its destruction.

    This time might just do it.  If kos's predictions about Texas latinos bear fruit, the GOP itself as a national party may not survive the decade.  Turning itself into the party of the racist militia movement and anti-abortion doctor murderers did not do it any favors.

    A right of center party will almost certainly reemerge after the Republicans disappear, just as the Republicans themselves emerged to replace the Whigs and the Whigs had emerged to occupy the space the Federalists had once had.  But I really do doubt the GOP itself can survive this crisis.

    Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free
    ¡Boycott Arizona!

    by litho on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 07:08:56 AM PST

  •  Totally agree . . . (8+ / 0-)

    I was a huge supporter of Obama in 2008 and a much greater supporter and advocate for the President in 2012. I use to think I was one of the few constant supporters of this President.
    Watching him during this campaign, to me,  was a marvel to behold. (For the most part) The campaign was deliberate and knowing they would struggle with Citizens United, the Obama campaign very shrewdly defined Romney. The funny part is that Romney more than lived up to his definition.
    I also believe that we are in the throws of a more left-leaning, I choose to say progressive, political era. The political pendulum is constant and it will inevitably swing back the other way. These political swings produce "STARS" and a lot of duds.
    Whether you like him or not, Reagan was the star of his political era. Bill Clinton was able to sneak in there just to stir things up a bit. And yes Bill Clinton is a very flawed but loveable SUPER STAR.
    So here we are in the midst of a swing in our direction and Obama is the center of it. I have gotta say, Obama is kicking butt right now. Deliberate and in charge. It's going to be an interesting 4 years.  

    Thank goodness the grownups are back!

    by jhewett on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 07:09:38 AM PST

    •  REagan was a FAKE star. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      WheninRome, Dogs are fuzzy

      A contrivance. The first in a line of nothing but hood ornaments, stuck on the public stage as the face of the GOP while they made policies in closed door meetings.

      He was simply trotted out to talk about what had been done.

      King George the first was a lot more intelligent but even he wasn't touching the steering wheel.

      And then there's Monkeybot - the epitome of republican policy and empty suits. Nobody, for a moment, believe Bush steered the country.

      Rmoney would have been the same fucking thing: a puppet that went on vacation a lot.

      The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

      by xxdr zombiexx on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 08:15:05 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  One little nit: (4+ / 0-)

    Reagan was an overrated hack with a good PR machine and the gift of gab.  Not so sure we want to put President Obama in that category.  :->

    •  Empty-headed stooge. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      IndieGuy, delver rootnose, WheninRome

      A stage prop.

      A puppet.

      I pull out my hair when I see people talking like reagan's IQ was above room temprature.

      He was vermin.

      The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

      by xxdr zombiexx on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 08:12:26 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Reagan was responsible for over (5+ / 0-)

      a quarter million deaths with his dirty wars in Central America. The man was a thug, but he effectively changed the dialog in this country.

      I am a socialist and President Obama is much to conservative for me. If, however, he is as effective as Reagan in changing the basic conversation, I will consider him a success.

      A proud member of the Professional Left since 1967.

      by slatsg on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 08:12:41 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  He wanted to build a prison that specialied (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        IndieGuy, slatsg, WheninRome

        in lobotomies.

        He is single-handedly responsible for escalating the trillion-dollar disaster called the war on drugs.

        A real swell guy.

        The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

        by xxdr zombiexx on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 08:22:21 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I find it humorous that many DK commenters (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Jank2112

          believe that Reagan wouldn't be at home in today's Republican Party. IMO he would be quite comfortable and in fact pushing the party further to the right.

          Romney may be an amoral greedy charlatan, but those who label him as the worst Republican candidate ever most likely didn't experience the Reagan years, and if they did have selective memories.

          A proud member of the Professional Left since 1967.

          by slatsg on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 08:35:56 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  At least Reagan knew how to deal w the congress (0+ / 0-)

        to get much of what he wanted, something Obama has yet to learn.

        “The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” ~ John Kenneth Galbraith

        by Lefty Coaster on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 09:07:51 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Want to make a Republican's head explode? (12+ / 0-)

    Start floating serious discussion about putting Obama on Mt Rushmore.

  •  Yep...the... (9+ / 0-)

    "Obama Republican" will become as much of a demographic as the "Reagan Democrat". My parents are two of the former.

    "It's almost as if we're watching Mitt Romney on Safari in his own country." -- Jonathan Capeheart

    by JackND on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 07:16:22 AM PST

    •  So how many repubs (0+ / 0-)

      voted for BO?  What %?  

      I don't recall any re-alignment talk [not that it wasn't there--I just didn't see any].  

      And I don't think there was any re-alignment comparable to Reagan, who took back the white male working peoples' vote.  In fact, that re-alignment seems to be alive and well today.

      The banks have a stranglehold on the political process. Mike Whitney

      by dfarrah on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 07:39:32 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  That remains to be seen. (0+ / 0-)

      A proud member of the Professional Left since 1967.

      by slatsg on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 08:13:46 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Tipped & rec'ed (0+ / 0-)

    The radical Republican party is the party of oppression, fear, loathing and above all more money and power for the people who robbed us.

    by a2nite on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 07:29:09 AM PST

  •  Ridiculous. Reagan Brought In an Entirely New (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    slatsg

    approach to policy.

    Neither Obama nor the Democratic Party proposes to undo Reagan's major policies, all they do is tweak them around the edges.

    Obama may prove to be the derailing of the extremism of the rightwing but he's not going to bring about a fundamental change in governance.

    What Reagan did was to lead us to dismantle genuine solutions to a host of problems the people have faced over the entire history of civilization. Nobody, certainly not Mr. Obama, is proposing restoring any of those solutions.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 07:32:54 AM PST

  •  Way Better Than Reagan (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    xxdr zombiexx, MRA NY

    Reagan had Iran-Contra and many other breaches of existing law.   Reagan dreamed up 'Trickle-Down" yellow rain for the middle class that started the diversion of wealth to the top one percent.  Obama on a bad day is way better than Reagan ever was on his best day.

  •  I wish. (0+ / 0-)

    Reagan won 49 states in his re-election in 1984, 525-13 Electoral College votes, losing only in DC and Mondale's home state of Minnesota -- and even there by only 3,761 votes. http://www.270towin.com/...

    Reagan was the second presidential candidate to win 49 states. The first was Richard Nixon in 1972. (Before you laugh, imagine if there'd been no Watergate. Nixon presided over the founding of the EPA, normalized ties with PR China, imposed wage-and-price controls fbow, and finally -- albeit only after mass protests that ripped our society apart, 60,000 Americans killed and some two million Vietnamese deaths -- finally ended the war in Vietnam.)

    Wouldn't you like to see a Democrat win all 50 states?

  •  To me, Bill Clinton has far more of the RR cachet (0+ / 0-)

    for democrats--at least for my generation.  Obama is the smartest politician I've seen in my lifetime, and he's also had the greatest advantage over all of them--the internet-- and supporters who know how to use it.

    •  Both Obama AND Clinton are very intelligent (0+ / 0-)

      people.

      Clinton has simply done more dumb things.

      He's still smarter than 100 republicans.

      The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

      by xxdr zombiexx on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 08:07:52 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Agreed, except for Clinton is smarter than ALL (0+ / 0-)

        republicans if they were 100 times smarter than they actually are.  On last night's show, Lawrence O'Donnell explained the Clinton's marriage, and addressed the topic of Bill's "foibles" perfectly.  

  •  err.......maybe as a rhetorical device (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mrblifil

    The differences are polar opposites.

    Reagan was dead from the neck up.

    Obama is doubtlessly one of the best-prepared, best educated presidents we have ever had - and I am not one of his euphoric devout followers with posters in my bathroom.

    Reagan was basically a hood ornament: the first in a long line of repub presidents that were merely figure heads for a politburo type arrangement that we have seen with the GOP since then. Nixon was the last thinking republican president. The rest are there to entertain the populace while republicans run the country behind closed doors, shutting dems out as much as possible.

    Obama runs the presidency. He is in command.

    Obama is smarter than 50-fucking Reagans.

    Obama is a real person: Reagan was an actor, a fake.

    Reagan presidency started what is the economic disaster Obama and his administration are struggiling to fix today.

    Reagan represnts hate and class consciousness and loathing of the poor; Obama represents hope (yes, I said it) that this country can move on and repair the damage CAUSED BY REPUBLICAN POLICIES.

    There are a handful of actual similarities. Both have been BAD NEWS for marijuana reform, something that IS important when you look at the money being wasted and the industrial scale of iniquities caused by this asshole policy. Obama has not lifted a finger to help.

    Obama has really made use of drone attacks for extra-judicial killing: Reagan didn't have them: would have worn them out.

    But really, Obama is to Reagan what anti-biotics are to a nasty infection.

    Lastly, Liberals with brains will hate Reagan forever, conservatives will hate Obama forever.

    Beyond this, there is no real comparison.

    Reagan sucked shit.

    The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

    by xxdr zombiexx on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 08:04:31 AM PST

  •  Reagan didn't become Reagan (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    delver rootnose, pamelabrown, MRA NY

    until he left office - or rather that was when the myth was carefully crafted and bought into by an uncritical media and an uncritical public.

  •  Really hope that's not true (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    xxdr zombiexx

    because Reagan's second term was a pure shit show. I hope that Obama is the hired vampire killer who puts a stake through the heart of Reaganism for eternity.

  •  I was also about 12 when Family Ties was on. (0+ / 0-)

    Even back then I thought Michael Keaton's conservative BS was obnoxious. lol

  •  The Republican party needs to go the (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    xxdr zombiexx

    way of the dinosaur and disappear.

    This country has the potential to be great and to be a major force for social progress in the world but cannot if dragged down by extremists which is now the base of the GOP (Genuinely Obnoxious Party).

    It takes time to practice generosity, but being generous is the best use of our time. - Thich Nhat Hanh.

    by Frank In WA on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 08:24:43 AM PST

  •  Reagan was a cancer upon America and the world (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lefty Coaster, xxdr zombiexx

    I thank God that William Jefferson Clinton, the greatest politician of my lifetime--and perhaps ever--has never been by his detractors called "The New Reagan," inasmuch as Ronald Reagan's policies signaled the near death of the United States itself.  It was George Walker Bush who ignored his father's warning that Reaganomics was in fact voodoo economics, and in his terms in which he long had free reign over the congress and the courts, implemented them in full, thus leading to the financial meltdown of 2008, and to our being detested on the world stage for many years.

    Bill Clinton was adored by much of the world and the clear majority of United States citizens for most of his two terms.  The only persons having the GOP memo invented "Clinton fatigue" were the MSM (they loathed Bill because he was "the only that got away" from their ceaseless denigrations), the Radical Right of course, and some of the purist Left who never understood that his middle-road policies, in dealing with a lethal GOP Congress and Right-Wing underground, in fact saved the United States from impending collapse.

    There is no doubt in my mind that Clinton would have had a third and even a fourth Presidential term.  For one, unlike Gore, who lost his own native state of Tennessee, Bill would never have lost Arkansas in 2000, and even if he had, unlike Gore, he would never have conceded a national election in which the popular vote had been on his side.  He would have argued that not even the Supreme Court has such power, and the matchless persuasive power over the population that Bill possesses, would have swayed the masses to stick with him.

    During the 2008 campaign, one element of the Obama candidacy we Clintonites never understood, or shall, is why then candidate Obama labeled Reagan a transformational figure, and did so in rather glowing--certainly not pejorative terms.  

    For us, Reaganomics was monstrous in so many ways, not least the fact that it was an assault on the policies of FDR, the justifiable (not just virtual) patron saint of the Democratic Party.  

    Ronald Reagan himself was the ultimate traitor.  He betrayed the party that saved his own family from ruin in the Depression.  He then betrayed his fellow actors, whereas once he had been president of the Screen Actors Guild, going before the House Un-American Activities Committee to egg-on their witch-hunt into conscientious progressive figures in the film industry.

    There never was, nor shall there be, anything honorable about Ronald Reagan.  His foreign policy even permitted the slaughter of nuns in Central America, violating an act of Congress, for which, were there any justice at all, he ought to have been impeached.  It was for such an egregious violation that the framers of our Constitution created Presidential impeachment--and certainly not fessing up about one's sexual liaisons, even if under oath.

    In this presidential election year, Bill Clinton--and nobody else really--was the true star.  His nomination of President Obama before the DNC has been widely hailed as an oratorical masterpiece.  The Obama campaign knew that only Bill Clinton could change the dynamic of a campaign that up to then was decidedly staid and not in any way certain of a reelection victory.  

    Yet, even with The President having a rather listless first debate performance, with the driving energy of Bill Clinton, working within the framework of that nominating speech, by which he cogently argued every salient point for retaining President Obama and not "doubling down on trickle down"--the greatest possible put-down of Reaganomics--the Obama campaign team then never again looked back.

    Clinton's campaign appearances, working magic for virtually everyone he stumped for, and his many classic comments (such as "Moderate Mitt!  Welcome back, boy!") have already become legendary.

    In the end, who does the losing candidate Mitt Romney seek validation from?  Bill Clinton himself, arguing his own riff from a Clinton call--and just weeks earlier thrilled to be on stage opposite Bill at a CGI Conference, as was, of course, President Obama himself.

    I believe Bill Clinton may be the greatest politician on the world stage that has emerged in at least the past half century, and perhaps ever.  He will always have his detractors, still stuck in their sexual scandal mode, unable to understand how this kid from a southern small town has become the ever adaptable "comeback kid" in dozens of manifestations since he first emerged on the political scene as the youngest ever Attorney General of Arkansas.

    President Obama is capable of soaring rhetoric, but he can also appear coolly detached.  With Bill, like the Music Man that he has ever been, somewhere in his mind a band is playing, and he makes almost everyone else believe that the sounds are as tangible and sonorous as they are to him.  When Bill Clinton is on, lightning bolts are not more dazzling.  Nobody else can come close; he is simply that gifted.

    But I thank the Lord, each and every day, that the Reaganites, even when they have loathed Bill, have never called him "The New Reagan."  That is the ultimate badge of dishonor, and were I the strongest of all possible worshippers of President Obama, that is one title upon the President I would not want him to be distinguished by.

  •  I have thought for a long time (6+ / 0-)

    that if President Obama was re-elected, that he may end up being the most important President of my lifetime, despite all the obstruction.  I think there is a realignment happening in American politics.  Everything was riding on this last election.  2008 was the second most important Presidential election I've experienced so far; 2012 was the most important one.  If he was defeated, it would have been a huge lost opportunity. If re-elected, yes, he might be our Reagan.

    “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” Charles Darwin

    by ivorybill on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 08:35:14 AM PST

  •  Reagan was an Actor and a Fraud (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tporky

    We know Obama is no actor......

    “The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” ~ John Kenneth Galbraith

    by Lefty Coaster on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 08:38:28 AM PST

  •  I could be wrong (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pamelabrown

    but I think some republicans recognized this as far back as 2008.  It is perhaps one of the primary reasons why they have vehemently opposed President Obama, and why they so desperately wanted to make him a one-term president.

  •  Reagan was a fake. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    saxoman1

    If Peggy Noonan is any sort of vague illustration of the nothingness and lack of serious thought, [she wrote his tripe]. Shining cities on hills, WTF?

    Carter was a serious guy, and a great president. And an educated technocrat who really looked at issues. He was onto peak oil, promoted wind and solar and told people what they didn't want to hear. Reagan came in and said "yes we can burn more oil and we'll control the countries that have it and while we're at it, we'll mess up SA and use their drug wars to our advantage and screw aids, it's a gay disease.".

    Reagan was a dangerous fake, surrounded by dangerous evil people. see:Cheney et al. These guys got/get people killed. They mishandled stuff so badly they set us back 50 years. They ushered in the callous crass classless incompetency and cronyism we are dealing with today. I admire Nixon more.

  •  President Obama needs to grow the economy. (0+ / 0-)

    His legacy will be tarnished if the economy is still growing at 2% at the end of his presidency.

    The economy really needs to be growing by 3.5/4 % by the middle of 2014.  That will enable him to avoid mid-term losses and lame duck status.  That will also reinforce in voters minds that democratic policies actually work.

  •  I guess it's an age thing (0+ / 0-)

    I was already in my mid 20's when Reagan was elected. I wasn't very politically engaged at the time but I still had strong negative feelings and distrust of republicans from the Nixon era. I do remember that lots of Democrats who moved to the suburbs, including some from my own family became enamored with Regan enough to give him a clear victory when he first ran.

    I remember the ensuing years of his presidency left me wondering how people were claiming to have become so successful. I still remember with sick negativity the rise of yuppie culture and the all the larval stages of modern-day nutbaggery.

    So to equating Obama with Reagan really doesn't work for me. My scars are too deep. No thanks.

  •  talk radio turned reagan clown into god (0+ / 0-)

    the reagan myth, the right's rise, due in large part to talk radio getting a free speech free ride from the left.

    it was built into a massive alternate reality-creating, swiftboating tool that could dominate many aspects of politics in the US without being noticed by what should have been its enemies.

    it started when RR killed the fairness doctrine. it went on to hamstrung clinton (get clarence thomas in, kill single payer), and deified and distorted and rewrote the ronnie history (re iran contra, economy) for a large part of the information spectrum.

    that 30 year 'cycle' was largely due to the left's ignorance of  the right's best weapon- we didn't need 30 years of shit. and it's going to keep them in the game if the left's major orgs and the dem party continue to ignore it.

    This is a list of 76 universities for Rush Limbaugh that endorse global warming denial, racism, sexism, and partisan lying by broadcasting sports on Limbaugh radio stations.

    by certainot on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 09:09:44 AM PST

  •  No, he's our Obama. (0+ / 0-)

    He doesn't deserve to be compared to the guy that brought us Iran-Contra, or shit on labor unions, etc, etc, etc.

    When the going gets rough, the average go conservative. --Henry Rollins

    by Beelzebud on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 09:12:23 AM PST

  •  I certainly hope so! (0+ / 0-)
    ...the loss may be more even more profound than the Reagan revolution was.
    since we're on the right side and Reagan policies were a disaster for the country!

    We all understand that freedom isn't free. What Romney and Ryan don't understand is that neither is opportunity. We have to invest in it.
    Julian Castro, DNC 4 Sept 2012

    by pixxer on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 09:17:35 AM PST

  •  The problem is that ideologically Obama is (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    saxoman1, VictorLaszlo

    to the right of Reagan. The pendulum may have swung back to the left in terms of election results, but the left has not been able to build a coherent strategy for implementing a progressive agenda. Instead, the left seems content to recycle the ideas and plans of Republicans from 30 years ago, which now seem very liberal in a nation that has continuously drifted toward the right ideologically in the last few decades.

    Even on Daily Kos, a frequent defense of Obama's plans is that Reagan would have approved of them. How sad when one of the most common arguments for a Democratic president's ideas is that the great hero of the Republican Party would also have liked them!

    Until the American left can create a new, coherent ideology, and use that to change the debate in our culture so that the debate takes place on our turf, without the Republican minority being able to set the political agenda even when they are out of power - until that happens, the left has not really won, even if more Democrats are in office than Republicans.

    •  Although I agree with this... (0+ / 0-)

      I almost feel as if a gradual shift is the only way to turn the country around. As if Obama's center/center right stance (vs the GOP wingnuttia extreme right) is the only way to ween America off the right-wing extremist mindset.

      I could DEFINITELY be wrong.

      However, IMHO the electorate is slowly liberalizing itself again under Obama.

      1. We are actually seeing republicans have to grapple with raising taxes on the wealthy (this was UNTHINKABLE in previous years).

      2. The electorate is also war-weary, and we haven't started any new wars (easy to do after 8 years of clusterfuck Bush presidency), drones notwithstanding.

      3. The slow drift of states towards banning abortions seems to have stalled this year as well (no small thanks to Todd Akin/Richard Murdock!)

      4. Democrats FINALLY said the word climate change this year, in relationship to policy (hell, even Bloomberg said he endorsed Obama for that alone, too bad it took Hurricane Sandy, but you get my point).

      5. The conversation about income inequality has entered the mix (thanks OWS).

      However, I agree with you that the country is almost too far gone, but at the same time, I get the feeling that we are gradually making a left turn in part because of Obama.

      And of course, I need to truly see the rich lose their Bush era tax cuts in order for me to feel any good about all that I have said. However, with Obama easily reelected and the conversation trending where it is, i have hope again (unlike mid 2011, when i wanted to pull my hair out).

      UNINSTALLING MITT ROMNEY..... █████████████ 100%

      by saxoman1 on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 01:28:33 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Oh yeah! (0+ / 0-)

      And for the first time ever, we have an openly pro-LGBT president (Oh yeah, and that other part where he is young and of mixed race).

      UNINSTALLING MITT ROMNEY..... █████████████ 100%

      by saxoman1 on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 01:31:20 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Please dont compare Obama to Reagan (0+ / 0-)

    Reagan was a terrible president.   He was also not particularly smart.   Only marginally smarter than GW Bush.  Comparing Obama to Reagan, in any context, is an insult.

  •  I love this diary (6+ / 0-)

    because I was 12 years old when 9/11/01 occurred.  It was kind of interesting, because at that time my parents watched Fox News at home.  They still had a conservative slant but were not as batshit as they are today.

    Anyway, I was drinking the George W. Bush kool-aid just like most everyone else in the country as he led us into Iraq.  I remember clearly that it was promised to be a very brief operation and although I was still very young, I remember thinking that it might be OK if it didn't last very long.

    Well, months turned into years, and like everyone, my opinion soured on Bush.  Not only were we in a quagmire in Iraq but we had taken our eye off the ball (and bin Laden) in Afghanistan and the AfPak border region.  I watched as supply side economics failed before my eyes as bank after bank essentially failed.

    I cast my first vote for Barack Obama at 19 because he was able to communicate what I was feeling so effortlessly.  Nothing against Hillary, it was a tough campaign and those wounds have healed.  But I have never regretted my vote for a moment, neither that or the vote I cast in Nov. 2008, and I was elated to cast another vote for him in this election.  He's "my guy" and certainly played a pivotal role in developing my political self.

    •  This is exactly how (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jdsnebraska

      my youth turned out politically. Though I was half your age when 9/11 occurred, I still remember the event, Iraq, and the later Bush years very well.

      "If you don't turn onto politics, politics will turn on you" -Ralph Nader; 2000

      by Soviet Reunion on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 11:23:11 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I was 14... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jdsnebraska

      And I must say, i had a liberal household (most people in our generation had/have a liberal mindset).

      Seething hatred for Bush throughout those dreadful 8 years, all the way to the bitter end with financial collapse.

      I remember thinking "how can a country so great that it put the first man on the moon end up electing such a poorly spoken, incompetent, race baiting, warmongering, plutocratic, imbecile like George W. Bush?"

      It almost felt like 8 years of alternative reality. "Can Americans be this dumb?"

      So yes, when Obama came on the scene (and for me, particularly after his acceptance speech for the democratic nomination) it was a no brainer. Now, reality makes more sense (McCain and Romney being defeated MAKES SENSE to me!). And in 2012, I was even MORE supportive of Obama (doing fundraisers and whatnot).

      Hopefully, our generation can help turn the country back to the "left" and thus assure the prosperity of 99% of the rest of us (not just the 1%).

      UNINSTALLING MITT ROMNEY..... █████████████ 100%

      by saxoman1 on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 01:42:34 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  the fight now is within the Democratic party (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    George Hier

    Clinton and the conservative wing of the party claimed they had "heard the people" and formed the DLC to steer the party rightward. Liberals were purged from leadership positions and administrative posts in government and within the party. The party took a hard right turn and endorsed the neo-liberal or trickle down economics of Reaganism. The downgraded their ties to unions and cultivated wall street and big money.

    Today the democratic party still reflects that rightward turn and most leadership are from that mold including Obama. Tax cuts and deficit reduction are what they think is right for the nation instead of keynesian stimulus and growth by creating jobs. This whole fiscal cliff charade is being done because democrats join the GOP in believeing the Social Security and other safety net programs are the problem instead of two unfunded wars and tax cuts for the super rich and more importantly large corporations. If Obama was truley a liberal he would be saying 'lets wait on the fiscal cliff stuff until after we've passed a jobs bill and reformed the banking system. But he and his party have joined the GOP in forgetting about jobs and putting Simpson/Bowles as their first priority.

    The point being that progressives need to elbow their way into the party once agains and make their voices be heard. Until the democratic party become more than a reflection of Reaganism we'll continue down the path of neo-liberalism.

    America could have chosen to be the worlds doctor, or grocer. We choose instead to be her policeman. pity

    by cacamp on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 10:08:22 AM PST

  •  Obama is the Democrats' Eisenhower. (0+ / 0-)

    With a large portion of Truman for the detail work.

    But you're close.

    If Obama had been born in Texas, instead of Kenya/Indonesia/Hawaii, then 2012 might have resembled 1956 with the labels reversed.

    Black Eisenhower is capable as a manager.

    Ronald Reagan, not exactly.

  •  Meh, Republicans (0+ / 0-)

    Reagan was awful.  The reason he is revered by the right is because he was the one who started the union busting, media consolidation, military expansion, fundamentalist religious influence on the workings of government, liberal bashing, trickle down economics, and all the other shit that makes the modern GOP.  In short, he started, and won, the war against the middle class and the poor, and showed Republicans how they could get people to vote against their own interests, and cheer about it.

    Now, thirty-plus years of Reaganism has nearly decimated this country, and yet nearly 50% of the people are still conned by it.  Unless, and until, the Republican party is made obsolete by voters awakening, the ghost of Reagan will continue to haunt us.

  •  Many here are not understanding this (5+ / 0-)

    diary's argument. The diarist is saying that Obama is like Reagan in that both inspired a generation to be like them. For Reagan we ended up with a generation of really conservative adults who shaped policy. For Obama it seems like he inspired a young generation to be more liberal and they hopefully will move our country left.

    This is the exact same argument made in the 2008 primaries by Obama. He argued that Reagan was the last transformational president and that he hoped to be a transformational president as well and he argued that Clinton wasn't one. The Clintons went into full meltdown mode and pretended that Obama had endorsed Reagan's policies, etc. Same misunderstanding here in the comments.  

    President Obama at Madison Rally 9/28/2010 - "Change is not a spectator sport."

    by askew on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 11:15:22 AM PST

  •  Fuck Reagan. He was one of the first GOPs.. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VictorLaszlo

    ... to make stupidity and ignorance fashionable.

    Nixon was a criminal but I will say one thing: he would never have been caught dead playing the amiable old fool who didn't want to be bothered thinking about complex issues, like Reagan.

  •  As a young voter (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hulibow

    I agree with this post. I understand that the OP's intent is to say that Obama will be enshrined like how the GOP looks to Reagan as an idol. I would take that as a good thing: what's wrong with having a president who took leaps and strides on social issues and pushed hard for a progressive economic agency as an idol?

    My friends and my peers will grow up remember Obama like how the baby boomers remember Kennedy or Johnson, or those before them remembered Roosevelt. A fondness and an inspiration for those ideals.

    "If you don't turn onto politics, politics will turn on you" -Ralph Nader; 2000

    by Soviet Reunion on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 11:19:31 AM PST

  •  As long as John Stewart and Steve Colbert (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Soviet Reunion

    are on TV, I predict that the pendulum will keep to the left. Those guys have to be a significant part of the swing.

    For if there is a sin against life, it consists perhaps not so much in despairing of life as in hoping for another life and in eluding the implacable grandeur of this life. - Albert Camus

    by Anne Elk on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 11:19:40 AM PST

  •  Reagan was an actor, a figurehead, a script-reader (0+ / 0-)

    and not true to himself, his wife, his party, his politics, or his country.

    It's all in my book:
    Ronald Reagan, Going Rouge
    'The Make-Up of a Fake Administration'

    skipping over damaged area

    by Says Who on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 11:23:00 AM PST

  •  i for one never believed that this country (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    saxoman1

    was a "center right" country. I always believed this country to be a liberal country. The Declaration of Independence is one of the most liberal writings of it's time and is the very foundation of this country. The US Constitution is one of the most liberal writings of it's time and is the walls of this country. When I see gopers screaming about how evil liberals are while at the same time holding one or both of these documents high above their heads, I giggle. I have bathed in my flaming liberalism and have been very proud of it. It's a label I am proud to wear. When we started calling ourselves progressives to stem the "dirty" liberal label, I kept calling myself a liberal. It's the gopers who should be ashamed of their policies, not me. My policies are ones of self sacrifice and helping our brothers and sisters in need, during times of tragedy, disasters, and economic failures.  There is nothing shameful in that desire to care for another person or the world in which we live in. But there is something shameful in not caring about those things. My belief will always be and has always been: if I could, I would pay 90% in taxes on my income if it meant that no child or adult went hungry or without shelter in this world. And the joy I get from that is seeing the appalled look on my goper relatives everytime I say it. That's worth the label and the fact that selfishness is something I only apply to my own lifestyle choices. I would never intentionally hurt someone regardless of their political affiliation. The same cannot be said for a goper.  

    For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. ~ The Bible says that. Ask Willard aka 'I love America sooo much' Romney

    by yawnimawke on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 11:45:31 AM PST

    •  Well said :) (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      yawnimawke

      Especially the tax line. America is crumbling (figuratively and literally). It's time that people realize that we have to invest in government so that we can all reap the benefits (both economically, medically, technologically, and infrastructural-wise).

      It's also time for the wealthy to pay up. They have been lopsidedly reaping the benefits of a system built by all of us collectively, so they SHOULD may pay more (or at the very least, pay an equal rate).

      It looks like Obama may actually be able to do this before the year is out :)

      UNINSTALLING MITT ROMNEY..... █████████████ 100%

      by saxoman1 on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 01:49:54 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  you mean "ketchup as a vegetable" reagan? (0+ / 0-)

    no.  he's not my reagan.
    i went to college during reagan's time as gov of cali.
    he was evil as a governor.
    he was a criminal as a president, b/c of iran-contra.
    no.  he's not an equal.
    obama is lincoln and jefferson and if he gets his shit together, he'll be my TR.  but only if he steps it up on environmental issues.
    gotta take him hiking, or at least get him body surfing again and maybe snorkeling!

    Community Organizer trumps Private Equity Manager

    by stagemom on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 12:38:33 PM PST

  •  Sorry, my Obama fellow progressives, but you (0+ / 0-)

    do not understand, in fact because many of you are surely too young to understand, that Reagan represented to us Clintonites then and now, the undoing of everything our FDR cultivated parents and grandparents held dear.  The comment by then candidate Barack Obama labeling Reagan in glowing terms as "transformational" was  therefore a most justifiable, as you would call it, "meltdown."

    It is extraordinary that the progressives on this site and others, who often castigate the triangulation and policies of President Clinton, can see nothing wrong in anything ever said or done by President Obama.  

    Yet it was to Bill Clinton that the Obama campaign team turned, as the person to place President Obama's name in nomination, and as the relentless campaigner by the President's side, as a solo act, or on the stump for any number of down ticket races.  Most every observer of the political scene acknowledges that Bill Clinton was pivotal in both President Obama's resurgence and his eventual November victory.

    Is it not odd that the most worshipful of President Obama's supporters, who wish to view him in the same sense that they view Reagan as "transformational," fail to realize that the best advocate for a second Obama administration came not in anything the President himself said, but rather in the space of a forty-eight minute address delivered by former President Clinton?

    If in fact President Obama is the great figure they view in the mold of FDR and JFK as well as the "transformational" figure they understood to be Reagan, then why could President Obama not himself have made a similarly cogent claim for his re-election?

    This is the real truth of the 2012 campaign:  not President Obama, not candidate Romney, not the memory of Ronald Reagan by passionate advocates of the Right and the so-called Center-Right, and not even the most progressive of liberal bloggers were the most compelling aspects.  

    That single never-to-be-bested trajectory of where politics emerged on Election Day 2012 began with the widely acknowledged greatest political oration of the media age--Bill Clinton on a stage before the world, discussing in grand terms the state of our current economic affairs, and of where our collective futures ought to be directed.

    For one whom the Purist Right and Purist Left refuse to acknowledge as "transformational" or even as a Presidential near-great, William Jefferson Clinton is the one person every other politician turns to for advice and self-validation.  And Bill Clinton never required anybody else to make the case for his Presidency.  Nor did he need to seek solace through another politician when political winds were not at his back.

    The sad truth for Clinton's detractors is that in the politics of the past fifty years or better, there is Bill Clinton, and then there is just about everybody else.  If that is not being great, then no one else on the current political scene can be considered great either.

  •  Transformational (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    v2aggie2

    Obama will be transformational, but he won't be Reagan and he won't be FDR (he owes more to Clinton then either of those two policy wise).

    He will be the Democrats Obama and for the next generation Republicans will be looking for a Republican Obama.

  •  Pres. Obama- leader of the New Diverse America (0+ / 0-)

    Reagan was leader of the Conservative backlash, which was finally and completely defeated with Romney. Now we need to anchor the new political culture in policy and practice.

  •  Brilliant analysis (0+ / 0-)

    Let's hope the era of Democratic dominance can pull this country left - or rather, forward.

    16, Progressive, Indian-American, Phillies Phan. Obama/Om/Chase Utley

    by vidanto on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 01:58:42 PM PST

  •  Is that supposed to be a compliment? (0+ / 0-)
    Obama is the Democrat's Reagan

    It is more important to be a confident and articulate speaker than to know jack shit about anything.

    by VictorLaszlo on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 02:05:57 PM PST

    •  Reagan changed the direction of the country.. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VictorLaszlo

      In a negative way.  Obama has changed the direction we are on and I believe that is the way to compare or contrast the two.  Reagun set us on a path that ruined the middle class gain from FDR's administration.  Obama is returning us to a path of greatness and respect in the world.

  •  Either the Democrat Reagan or Democrats' Reagan (0+ / 0-)

    I can't help it.  

  •  And I think 25-30 years from now, the Obama (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tporky

    legacy will be strong in terms of what he helped create.  What has Reagan got to show other than fading wingnuts fawning over him and naming crap after him?  

  •  Eh... (0+ / 0-)

    I'll pass on the Reagan analogy.  I've never been that impressed by him, and I think his importance is overstated.  Hopefully, Obama can do much better than that.

  •  I'm sure this diary was well-intentioned (0+ / 0-)

    I'm sure this diary was well intentioned.  However, my only thought when seeing Obama compared with Reagan is "God forbid".

    Reagan was and is a disaster for this country.  He set in motion policies which still negatively affect large swathes of this country.  

    Seriously, Reagan?  God forbid.  

  •  Gawd, I hope not. Reagan tried dismantling (0+ / 0-)

    the University of CA system back in the 60s.  He did so (with the help of the J.E. Hoover) using lies and backstabbing against key UC leaders.  Fortunately he didn't get away with killing it altogether, but it was never the same after that, when he smeared the reputation of Clark Kerr.  And then Howard Jarvis killed a lot more of it with Prop 13.

    My Karma just ran over your Dogma

    by FoundingFatherDAR on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 03:49:22 PM PST

  •  Puleaze. That's kind of insulting. (0+ / 0-)

    Obama made it all the way to the wizard to get his brain, only to find out he already had one.

  •  You can't imagine how much (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    maven butterfly

    I hope you're right. I was 12 in 1960, and we got in about 10 good years before it all started going downhill. I'd love to live long enough to see an irrefutable switching of the pendulum.

    "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."........ "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." (yeah, same guy.)

    by sidnora on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 04:29:15 PM PST

  •  YUK. Hope you're wrong. (0+ / 0-)

    I'd rather Obama wasn't someone as devastating for America as Reagan.

  •  same generation (0+ / 0-)

    I was born in late 1965 and I was 14 when Reagan was elected the first time.  To this day, my age cohort is more 'conservative' than others.   While I grew up in a liberal Republican family, I switched my registration in college (late 80's).  In 2008, and again this year, I have seen more and more of my age compatriots move over to the D side.  Even my husband, a true independent, quietly changed his registration to D a few years ago.  My children, born in '98 and '01 have very liberal sensibilities.  The tide has turned.  

    "Days turn to minutes and minutes to memories" -- Mellencamp

    by maven butterfly on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 05:43:15 PM PST

    •  the point is (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tporky

      The point is not that Obama is "literally" Reagan (as I'm seeing in many comments), but rather that Obama has captured the hearts and minds (and politics) of a generation.  And that bus doesn't turn around easily.

      "Days turn to minutes and minutes to memories" -- Mellencamp

      by maven butterfly on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 05:56:25 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Good post. (0+ / 0-)

    But I have to say that the title gave me a chill of foreboding.  You could equally have said "face it Democrats, Obama is the Democrats Reagan".  I kinda hope he is.  And that I will have an opportunity to vote for President Warren's second term.

  •  After 4 decades of (0+ / 0-)

    The New Deal and Democratic social initiatives, the Reagan 'revolution', gave a painful reminder to the country what life without those Democratic initiatives is and would be, like.

    Hopefully with Supply side economic lies sandwiched between two Democratic waves, people will remember not to do that Republican thing again.

    Kathleen Sebelius 2016

    by pvlb on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 07:42:25 PM PST

  •  When I was marching (0+ / 0-)

    in the 760s, there was one march in NYC where we were joined by a few older men and women, one old man wearing a black beret. They had been part of the workers' struggle in the 30s and 40s. They were applauding us, and excited to see that, after the 50s, the left was coming back. Maybe the pendulum swings every 30 or so years.

  •  Trajectory (0+ / 0-)

    Although I now live on the other side of the world, you've described exactly the same trajectory as I've had since I too was born around the time you were. Thanks very much.

  •  This post shows where RCP/unskewed polls erred (0+ / 0-)

    "It wasn't until 2009, after - AFTER - working for the Obama campaign and for Health Reform in my community that I changed parties - in part because I was invited to become a delegate."

    When someone in such a situation told a pollster that they planned to vote for Obama and considered themselves a Democrat, a pollster who followed professional methodology (by recognizing that self-reported Party ID is a dependent variable) would tally a projected Obama vote.  But RCP and "unskewed" polls would say, "hey, we're getting more Dems in this sample than past elections and/or party registrations say we should, so let's apply weighting that, in effect, won't tally this response."

    Then, come early voting or election day, mdmslle (the OP here) actually did vote, for Obama as a pollster would have been told.

  •  The "Reagan Revolution" (0+ / 0-)

    was about fear and anxiety, so Americans embraced the "Cowboy".

    The Cold War, rising Middle East tensions, gas crisis, Iran hostages - and a weakened President Carter.

    Any movement based on fear and division is doomed to fail.

    If not us ... who? If not here ... where? If not now ... when?

    by RUNDOWN on Sun Nov 18, 2012 at 08:42:47 AM PST

  •  Clinton Republicans (0+ / 0-)

    Anyone remember the phrase Clinton Republican? I knew many Democrats who voted for Reagan. I knew many Republicans who voted for Clinton. I don't know many Republicans who voted for Obama.

    Yes, I realize this is anecdotal. I have a strong sense that few Republicans voted for Obama. Those who voted for Obama were likely either independents or had already left the Republican Party. Some of them likely felt that the party left them.

    I can accept the transformation that has occurred. I have a harder time making a correlation between Reagan and Obama. Reagan and Clinton is easy. They both were fine orators, and they both were able to appeal to voters who would later go back to their original parties.

  •  Jobs (0+ / 0-)

    If this is a 30-year-trend, let's hope the jobs come with it, too. So far, that's not happening.

Louise, GainesT1958, tsackton, Angie in WA State, filkertom, True North, jotter, yellowdog, dalemac, Bear, ORDem, Dave the Wave, PeterHug, Emerson, dengre, OtherDoug, RAST, MouseThatRoared, TheGreatLeapForward, donna in evanston, ChicDemago, Mnemosyne, frisco, Bryce in Seattle, Matilda, wackoliberal, sidhra, MarkInSanFran, dinazina, bec, bookbear, ssgbryan, Theodoric of York Medieval Liberal, dpc, Delilah, litho, Wee Mama, wonkydonkey, SoCalJayhawk, ask, highacidity, bluesteel, boadicea, mkfarkus, MisterOpus1, samddobermann, ivote2004, gloever, PeteZerria, Bill Roberts, Vinasai, Cedwyn, CocoaLove, sidnora, RLF, tomephil, tidalwave1, psnyder, annan, cmpnwtr, NYC Sophia, Farugia, virginislandsguy, Noodles, jaywillie, potatohead, Bulldawg, wdrath, dwahzon, Steven Payne, defluxion10, papercut, Buzzer, bsegel, Liberaljentaps, ybruti, Sembtex, Curt Matlock, WisVoter, tomjones, hayden, Pola Halloween, Josiah Bartlett, bibble, My Philosophy, Gowrie Gal, Dirk McQuigley, maybeeso in michigan, ichibon, v2aggie2, Freakinout daily, SherwoodB, elkhunter, drewfromct, Dobber, eru, Beetwasher, majcmb1, aaraujo, lotlizard, Little Lulu, ivorybill, Steve in Urbana, Yamara, Tool, minidriver, Blu Gal in DE, Rusty in PA, FindingMyVoice, turdraker, Paddy999, zozie, kathny, Jim R, begone, martini, kovie, Showman, BachFan, tarheelblue, golem, cybersaur, dopper0189, tonyahky, Yellow Canary, kestrel9000, flygrrl, zesty grapher, Wary, fou, Lefty Coaster, NBBooks, Crashing Vor, LibChicAZ, paul2port, katrinka, CTLiberal, el cid, Potus2020, myrealname, RussTC3, middleagedhousewife, MBNYC, democracy is coming, zeke7237, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, Texdude50, means are the ends, kurt, Statusquomustgo, sea note, Quicklund, Nulwee, DBunn, Noor B, timewarp, hooper, Cronesense, hawaii2, camlbacker, Deadicated Marxist, Dartagnan, offgrid, gloriana, puakev, maven butterfly, Dave in Northridge, zemblan, joedemocrat, mbh1023, GMFORD, martyinsfo, Killer of Sacred Cows, OIL GUY, yella dawg, christianlsv, uciguy30, Timmethy, leonard145b, skod, sable, wuod kwatch, Mark Wallace, Empower Ink, chicago minx, gizmo59, rmonroe, MKinTN, rogerdaddy, kipzoo, mconvente, JaxDem, ScottyUrb, OleHippieChick, Involuntary Exile, NewDealer, bythesea, elwior, tporky, tofumagoo, pamelabrown, Cassandra Waites, smartdemmg, Jeff Y, catly, Tam in CA, Troubadour, DixieDishrag, Al Fondy, SpiffPeters, Ellinorianne, dmhlt 66, Diogenes2008, 207wickedgood, Ellid, multilee, Rhysling, J Ash Bowie, WhizKid331, aufklaerer, hummingbird4015, Norm in Chicago, GreenMtnState, elziax, zizi, TheOpinionGuy, Leslie in KY, kevinpdx, Keith Pickering, stevenwag, sfarkash, astral66, winsock, purplepenlady, citisven, collardgreens, JaceInVA, brooklyns finest, David PA, elijah311, buffer1, NJpeach, brunoboy, piers, mookins, BenderRodriguez, wvmama, ATFILLINOIS, ahyums, gulfgal98, Sylar, pixxer, ItsSimpleSimon, Mariken, sharonsz, nirbama, ericlewis0, eclecta, Loose Fur, science nerd, wwjjd, dwayne, Berliner2, Quantumlogic, theKgirls, Onomastic, Jane Lew, annieli, Hill Jill, I love OCD, spooks51, ban nock, sostos, jardin32, Cintimcmomma, Mistral Wind, asterkitty, Mr Raymond Luxury Yacht, RyanHarvey, molunkusmol, mrsgoo, burana, dle2GA, BarackStarObama, muddy boots, KVoimakas, dakinishir, LSmith, MRA NY, createpeace, blue58, bywaterbob, Liberal Mole, sound of progress, freerad, FisherOfRolando, cactusgal, Miggles, SteelerGrrl, Metalman68, Chitown Kev, TX Dem 50, hulibow, KansasNancy, worldforallpeopleorg, HamptonRoadsProgressive, OldDragon, cwsmoke, Siri, IndieGuy, orpurple, a2nite, AreDeutz, JGibson, The Voice from the Cave, Syoho, MartyM, parakeet, Buckeye54, OllieGarkey, 43north, rat racer, T C Gibian, Hammerhand, Captain Chaos, Blue Bell Bookworm, Panacea Paola, Dallas L, newinfluence, Eric Twocents, sixeight120bpm, Boundegar, Says Who, RationalistSF, Jabus, leeleedee, JosephK74, Icicle68, nice marmot, the oklahoma kid, Soviet Reunion, marcr22, LilithGardener, saxoman1, Edmund Xu, TheChocolateChips, Mark Mywurtz, mittromneyitems, RUNDOWN, Liberal for Life, Miang

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site