Barack Obama

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by transjen

Jimmy Carter recieved the fucked up mess from Ford/ Nixon which you smean to overlook and Regan left a hugh sea of red ink but you say that's fine BUT when Obama recieved his hugh fucked up mess from W and his crew you cry foul because he's spending to much well BS

Originally Posted by randolph

Hey Jen,
Very well put!
I love you.

*** replace the above hypocritical quote with the quotes below and I think you've got it Randolf ***

Yes Jennifer, but...

Originally Posted by randolph

Although I am a democrat, I believe in fiscal conservatism. I hate debt and always made every effort to get out of it as soon as possible. I carefully invested my savings in conservative stocks and real estate. Now I see my efforts going down the tubes because of fiscal incompetence of government, bankers and speculators. Obama's spending program is terrifying and will very likely result in serious inflation (paying off debt with cheaper dollars). This will further reduce the value of my retirement savings.

Originally Posted by randolph

the volume of debt is becoming monstrous. To top it off Obama claims it can be reduced by the end of his first term. That's pure fantasy!

You people provide such great entertainment

[transjen]

The idea that this debt can be paid off by the end of his first term is to silly to comment on and even with a best case serino he'll only mange to pay down half the debt but in realty i think 1/3 is possiable if both parties trim the pork and tell the special intrests groups to shove off, I feel one hugh savings can be made if we stop all perks to illegal aliens we have enought problems helping US citizens, And another way is only giving tax cuts and credits to companies that has they whole work force here in the US keep the jobs here and then you'll collect more tax rev

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

*** replace the above hypocritical quote with the quotes below and I think you've got it Randolf ***

Yes Jennifer, but...

You people provide such great entertainment

Well, I guess that's what we are here for.

Anyway, I read where the current massive spending is a smaller percentage of GNP than what Roosevelt spent in the 1930s. In the 1980s I thought the Reagen debt was the end of the world but Clinton helped clear that up. Supposedly, the recovery from the 1930s depression took so long was that Roosevelt didn't spend enough!

By the way, its fun to chat with intelligent conservatives, they are so rare nowadays.

[randolph]

From Washington Monthly

BEYOND THE ICONS.... In light of the silly Republican in-fighting this week over whether or not to obsess over Ronald Reagan, MSNBC's "First Read" said, "The issue of Reagan reminds us of the Kennedy-obsession Democrats had for decades. One could argue it took the Democrats nearly 30 years to kick the Kennedy habit (maybe longer). So, this Reagan issue may take the Republicans another 10 years to get over."

That's probably a misread on how Dems perceive JFK. Jonathan Chait explained:

The Democratic obsession with the Kennedys is/was primarily stylistic. It recurs whenever a young, stylish presidential candidate makes people feel inspired. It is not, and really never has been, common for Democrats to argue that a certain course of action is wise simply because a Kennedy once advocated it. But Republicans have been doing so with regard to Reagan for twenty years now.

I think that's exactly right. There have been various discussions in Democratic circles over the last couple of decades about the future direction of the party, what policy priorities should be emphasized, how to grow the party, etc. It's exceedingly unusual for party leaders to reference John F. Kennedy as some kind of policy signpost. That's not to say his memory isn't widely revered; it is. But when considering domestic, economic, or foreign affairs, when was the last time a leading Democrat said, "Let's just do what JFK would do if he were here"?

In contrast, for many Republicans, the answer to almost every significant policy and/or political question is, "Follow Reagan." More than two decades after the 40th president left office, the obsession in some corners is kind of creepy, and bears no resemblance to the Democratic affinity for JFK. Kennedy is looked to more as a symbol of inspiration; Reagan is considered some kind of timeless, all-knowing sage. In GOP circles, to reference his name or ideology is to be self-evidently correct.

To borrow "First Read's" word, Democrats have never had this "habit" with regards to Kennedy.

Ramesh Ponnuru suggested this points to a certain vacuity on the left, since conservatives' "reverence for Reagan" is rooted in "philosophical content."

But this misses the point. The left's "philosophical content" is rooted outside the memory of JFK. Some on the left don't even care for Kennedy's approach to policy (see Yglesias, Matt). As Chait added, liberalism's "philosophical content does not consist of latching onto an old president, glossing over the reality of his record, and trying to recreate all of his actions whether or not they have any bearing upon the circumstances of the present day.... The 'philosophical content' of Reagan-worship is a cult-like process for circumscribing original thought."

It's painful to think it "may take the Republicans another 10 years to get over" this, but given what we've seen of late, it may take even longer than that.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

The Democratic obsession with the Kennedys is/was primarily stylistic...

It's exceedingly unusual for party leaders to reference John F. Kennedy as some kind of policy signpost.

When considering domestic, economic, or foreign affairs, when was the last time a leading Democrat said, "Let's just do what JFK would do if he were here"?

In contrast, for many Republicans, the answer to almost every significant policy and/or political question is, "Follow Reagan." More than two decades after the 40th president left office, the obsession in some corners is kind of creepy, and bears no resemblance to the Democratic affinity for JFK.

This post pretty much sums it up. Democrats want a president who makes them feel good. They don't really give a hoot about (or in many cases even comprehend) policy.

And then in contrast, republicans want a president who can get the job done. What is creepy is that the democrats think that is creepy. The presidency is not a popularity contest. The person in office is required to run the largest super power the world has ever known (and btw, there used to be two superpowers before Reagan came along. Think about that.). That is done through policies and leadership. Reagan demonstrated both very well and history shows he is one who got it right.

Originally Posted by randolph

The Democratic obsession with the Kennedys is/was primarily stylistic. It recurs whenever a young, stylish presidential candidate makes people feel inspired.

One could argue it took the Democrats nearly 30 years to kick the Kennedy habit (maybe longer).

Yes definitely much longer. Why do you think they elected Obama... a young stylish presidential candidate? And the vast majority of democrats who elected him could not tell you what is policies were. LOL! Now THAT is creepy.

[transjen]

Gee wasn't everybody saying that W was the man everyone wanted to drink a beer with back in 04 ?

[TracyCoxx]

I give up, what does that have to do with anything being discussed here?

[The Conquistador]

Tracy! It is obvious that you have not seen the glory of our lord and savior Barack Obama!

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/lo...wn-Speech.html

Until you accept President Zero into your heart, you will not see the candy dreams and promises for a better future through socialism. Silly conservative! Your hard-earned paycheck is for social dregs and degenerates! Obama is your savior! Why else would Jesus not be allowed to bask in his glory?