Hot Air Mobile
Home The Vault Gear About
Hot Air -- get your fill


Well, look who’s praising Ronald Reagan

posted at 11:46 am on January 19, 2008 by Bryan
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

Barack Obama made innocuously positive remarks about Ronald Reagan earlier in the week and riled up the nutroots. Obama’s remark also drew out the worst in both Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, the latter turning the moment into yet another chance to demagogue and denounce. Here’s Edwards saying that he would “never use Ronald Reagan as an example for change.”

Whoops. In September 2007, guess who praised Ronald Reagan?

We need a new path, one that will lead to reengagement with the world and restoration of the United States’ moral authority in the community of nations. President Harry Truman once said, “No one nation alone can bring peace. Together, nations can build a strong defense against aggression and combine the energy of free men everywhere in building a better future for all.” For 50 years, presidents from Truman and Dwight Eisenhower to Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton built strong alliances and deepened the world’s respect for us. We gained that respect by viewing our military strength not as an end in itself but as a means to protect a system of laws and institutions that gave hope to billions across the globe. In avoiding the temptation to rule as an empire, we hastened the fall of a corrupt and evil one in the Soviet Union. The lesson is that we cannot only be warriors; we must be thinkers and leaders as well.

And

Millions of people imprisoned behind the Iron Curtain silently cheered the day President Reagan declared, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” Even if these ordinary men and women did not always agree with our policies, they looked to our president and saw a person — and a nation — they could trust.

If you guessed the silky demagogue, you guessed wisely. “Never” apparently means not since the last time he did whatever it is he says he’ll never do.

A majority of Americans rank President Reagan as “great” or “near great.” Saying something nice about Reagan, then, is going to resonate to some extent with a majority of Americans. In saying what he said about Reagan, Obama showed that he’s playing chess while Clinton and especially Edwards are playing Tiddly Winks.


Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages:

In saying what he said about Reagan, Obama showed that he’s playing chess while Clinton and especially Edwards are playing Tiddly Winks.

Michelle Malkin,
What’s Mitt Romney playing, saying he likes Ted Kennedy?

a)scrabble.
b)checkers.
c)chess.
d)yank-your-chain.
e)panda-bear.
f)monopoly.
g)pictionary.
h)dodge ball.
i)soccer.
j)none of the above.

Mcguyver on January 19, 2008 at 11:52 AM

You know what John Edwards should do? John Edwards should summon Ronald Reagan back from the dead so he can say all that to his face.

I’m sorry, but the man who destroyed an entire empire without firing a single shot isn’t an agent of change people should want to emulate? Whatever.

amkun on January 19, 2008 at 11:58 AM

Scum

ThePrez on January 19, 2008 at 12:00 PM

John Edwards is filth.

RushBaby on January 19, 2008 at 12:01 PM

Ronald Reagan oppressed the middle class so badly that they re-elected him in 1984 with 58% of the vote, and gave the electoral votes of only Minnesota and DC to his opponent.

Bigfoot on January 19, 2008 at 12:06 PM

Edwards couldn’t get re-elected in his home state. Kerry rebuked his old running mate by endorsing Obama. This guy trashes the president who won one of the biggest electoral landslides in US history and is more feminine than his own wife. Think about the kind of person who would vote for this loser……scary that kind of species lives.

volsense on January 19, 2008 at 12:11 PM

“Never” apparently means not since the last time he did whatever it is he says he’ll never do.

Bryan

Heh.

PS mcguyver, why are you addressing Michelle here? Or are you? It’s Bryan’s post, dude.

Jaibones on January 19, 2008 at 12:12 PM

Edwards is a wormy little puke that wouldn’t have been fit to carry water for Reagan.

rplat on January 19, 2008 at 12:15 PM

A democrat demogogging? say it isn’t so!

Canadian Imperialist Running Dog on January 19, 2008 at 12:19 PM

What’s Mitt Romney playing, saying he likes Ted Kennedy?

I wasn’t offended by Romney’s comments about Kennedy, and I think both Romney and Obama are seeing and responding to a feeling in the country that politics needs to step back from the nasty edge…

but it does need to be pointed out that Teddy the K, hero of Chappquidick, is no Ronald Reagan.

Typhoon on January 19, 2008 at 12:22 PM

Jaibones,
Is there a problem?

I address anybody, whenever, wherever, in whatever way, at anytime, about any subject.

Mcguyver on January 19, 2008 at 12:22 PM

John Edwards isn’t worthy enough to polish Reagan’s headstone.

SouthernGent on January 19, 2008 at 12:29 PM

The great thing about Reagan is that his vision went beyond his time in office. Clintons economy was caused by Reagans initiatives. It would have lasted a lot longer if Clinton had vision outside of his zipper.

Sven on January 19, 2008 at 12:39 PM

The Dems can’t stand to hear one of their own praise Ronald Reagan. The truth always hurts liberals because the truth ain’t in’em.

Travis1 on January 19, 2008 at 12:41 PM

The Silky Pony Pander-meter is humming:

Unions – check
the Middle Class – check
tax cuts for the wealthy – check
the environment – check
benefits for big business – check
trashing a Republican icon – check

All mentioned at least twice in about 1:30 minutes. Impressive!

But the Pander-meter only scores it a 9.75. If he could have worked universal health care into the rant, he would have been a perfect 10. A stellar performance none the less.

Mallard T. Drake on January 19, 2008 at 12:43 PM

All other “Edwards isn’t fit to…” comments aside – Edwards is TOTALLY qualified to comb Reagan’s hair.

(I just can’t get enough of this one)

Wingo on January 19, 2008 at 12:44 PM

The great thing about Reagan is that his vision went beyond his time in office. Clintons economy was caused by Reagans initiatives.
It would have lasted a lot longer if Clinton had vision interests outside of his zipper.
Sven on January 19, 2008 at 12:39 PM

Mcguyver on January 19, 2008 at 12:47 PM

John Edwards is to Ronald Reagan as Gomer Pyle is to Audie Murphy.

fogw on January 19, 2008 at 12:48 PM

John Edwards is to Ronald Reagan as Gomer Pyle is to Audie Murphy.

fogw on January 19, 2008 at 12:48 PM

Perfect!

Zorro on January 19, 2008 at 12:52 PM

Actually vision is appropriate because his only good eye resides behind that zipper.

Sven on January 19, 2008 at 12:55 PM

Booooooooo!

Mcguyver on January 19, 2008 at 12:58 PM

Personally, I’m a Goldwater Liberal.

uptight on January 19, 2008 at 1:11 PM

playing chess wont help him if he doesnt win the nomination because he pissed of democrats.

zane on January 19, 2008 at 1:20 PM

he does this aaaaaaaaaall. tha. tyyyyme.

its embarrassing.

Drunk Report on January 19, 2008 at 1:23 PM

What’s Mitt Romney playing, saying he likes Ted Kennedy?
I wasn’t offended by Romney’s comments about Kennedy, and I think both Romney and Obama are seeing and responding to a feeling in the country that politics needs to step back from the nasty edge…

but it does need to be pointed out that Teddy the K, hero of Chappquidick, is no Ronald Reagan.

Typhoon on January 19, 2008 at 12:22 PM

I agree with Typhoon on this one. I saw Mitt as playing chess with his old constitiuents in MA and maybe some of the dems who might cross over in the general election.

cjs1943 on January 19, 2008 at 1:27 PM

An AWESOME video tribute to Ronald Reagan!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ac5xFOC9otw

Ronald Reagan’s speeches (audio and transcripts)
http://www.millercenter.virginia.edu/index.php/scripps/digitalarchive/speechDetail/32

Ronald Reagan Library and Foundation
http://www.reaganfoundation.org/

Official site for the aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan, CVN 76
http://www.reagan.navy.mil/

olympian2008 on January 19, 2008 at 1:52 PM

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/01/the_use_and_abuse_of_reagan.html

see the link above. Too many people are making Reagan to be a saint. I think he was a great president, one of the all time greatest, but he was a politician who made some decisions that pissed off conservatives and others.

He increased some taxes, he did the cut and run from Lebanon after Hezbollah murdered 241 Marines, he met with his pollster pretty much once a week (see his diaries), supported amnesty for illegal immigrants, he was divorced so I guess that means and Laura Ingraham and Ann Coulter would not support him if he was running now.

He also supported the “big tent” policy for the Republican party, something that Rush and Laura and many others seem to have forgotten.

georgealbert on January 19, 2008 at 1:54 PM

Who’s the guy holding the upside down Edwards sign ??

Is it one of the peeps looking for change ?
Is it an example of who Edwards attracts ?
Is it the barrel guy from http://hotair.com/archives/2008/01/16/video-olbermann-only-second-biggest-lunatic-on-msnbc-now/ ?

Texyank on January 19, 2008 at 2:11 PM

True. All good men look even better in the rearview mirror, and time’s sands cover up many blemishes. But compared to most recent chief executives, Reagan’s negatives pale in comparison. And he had the brass to pull the major victories that the others can only wish for in their dreams.

whitetop on January 19, 2008 at 2:16 PM

Obama showed that he’s playing chess while Clinton and especially Edwards are playing Tiddly Winks.

Excellent point, which means he’s smarter than them and also shows why people of all parties are drawn to him.

mattyj86 on January 19, 2008 at 2:16 PM

Too many people are making Reagan to be a saint.

Comparatively speaking, he was.

No he wasn’t perfect, but he was the closest we came to it in the last fifty years. He was never about himself, like so many politicians today. He loved his country above all else and made you proud to be an American.

fogw on January 19, 2008 at 2:17 PM

What fogw said, in both comments, above.

Ronald Reagan to Obama “Kid, you have to work hard and earn my reputation, and my legacy. You’re still in your Spielhosen”.

Entelechy on January 19, 2008 at 2:48 PM

Ronald Reagan to Obama “Kid, you have to work hard and earn my reputation, and my legacy. You’re still in your Spielhosen”. Comparatively, John Edwards is still naked, and Hillary wears whatever you want her to, at any moment.

Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society.

- – Mark Twain

Entelechy on January 19, 2008 at 2:55 PM

Silky is just jealous because Reagan had better hair

Keli on January 19, 2008 at 3:27 PM

Silky is just jealous, period.

Mcguyver on January 19, 2008 at 3:37 PM

“the shining city on the hill” remembers you fondly Gipper…

even the enemy covets you.

Kaptain Amerika on January 19, 2008 at 4:16 PM

Like I said,too many of you are making Reagan into a saint.

He was a great president, but he had lots of failures and lots of opposition too. The one thing Reagan had that we do not have from most of the current crop of candidates was his ability to make the Republican party inclusive. Too many pseudo conservatives think that people in the Republican party all must have the exact same views on fiscal policy, on abortion, on certain social issues.

Reagan was much too smart for that. He knew that politics was the art of getting things done. He believed in the American people, not some set of guidelines sent down by some folks in talk radio et al. And this is why he was able to get us out of the complete mess that was given to us by the worst president of the 20th century and truly an evil man, Jimmy Carter. Reagan told us to win wars, to cut the burden of government on the people, and to embrace open markets. He also made sure that he did not require certain social views in order to be part of the team, and yes, he compromised where it was required to get something done.

People who listen to the talking heads on radio that say that we can only be a conservative if we agree with each and every bit of their dogma are certainly not Reaganites and they are putting us in the position of giving the country to Hillary and her crowd of nitwits.

The folks that talk about protecting conservatism are doing the exact opposite of of Reaganism. He believed in protecting the American people, not some exclusive dogma

georgealbert on January 19, 2008 at 4:53 PM

In his defense, he didn’t really use him as an “example for change.” Then again, it’s such a stupid thing to attack Obama for and it kind of represents a lot of the things that are wrong with politics.

Yoosaion on January 19, 2008 at 6:10 PM

People who listen to the talking heads on radio that say that we can only be a conservative if we agree with each and every bit of their dogma are certainly not Reaganites and they are putting us in the position of giving the country to Hillary and her crowd of nitwits.
georgealbert on January 19, 2008 at 4:53 PM

You obviously don’t listen to or like Rush Limbaugh very much.

Rush says, it’s when we have differences (partisanship) that we are the most productive because it makes us better.

And if you listened to Rush Limbaugh you would know that it is not some dogma. It’s an is an idea.

So we battle in the realm of ideas. And the goal is to have the best idea that works and defeat the opposition.

Mcguyver on January 19, 2008 at 6:21 PM

georgealbert on January 19, 2008 at 4:53 PM

Curious rebuttal.

You remind us again that we should not make Reagan a saint, yet your commentary had more complementary things to say about his presidency, his political savvy and his vision for America, than anyone else on this thread.

Just sayin’

fogw on January 19, 2008 at 7:03 PM

I listen to Rush frequently, he is terrific, but he is not always right, and even Rush is sometimes forgetting how Reagan worked as a politician rather than a philospher. The other day he said that someone cannot be a conservative unless he is not a down the line right to life guy; Reagan would never have said that, in fact in the Repub platform discussions of 1976 and 1980 he said just the oppoosite.

And I agree with partisanship, heck, almost everyone is partisan and it is a good thing because I believe in the battle of ideas, that is why I became a Republican. But what is happening now is the phony argument that says to be a conservative Republican you have to 1.) never have been divorced (cancels Reagan out); 2.) must be dogmatically right to life vs. having positions that will actually reduce the number of abortions in the country; 3.) Support economic policies that only work in perfect markets (e.g. Dubai Ports deal that would have us doing unnecessary business with a government that is supporting terrorists and terrorism against us).

When conservatives become dogmatic they are acting in a way that is antithetical to the basic conservative philosphy that says, keep government out of our lives as much as possible, strongly defend our liberty and freedom by taking pre-emptive action when necessary, and by supporting social policies that are supportive of the family and self-reliance with the maximum amount of liberty.

georgealbert on January 19, 2008 at 8:24 PM

You’re wrong on:
1. Nobody has ever said that from a true conservative platform (maybe fundamentalists demagogues) that you need to have never been divorced.

2. That is double talk (except religious demagogues).

3. You’re mainly missing the point here and apparently trying to outsmart Rush and saying he is wrong.

Where is your most popular radio show?

Mcguyver on January 19, 2008 at 11:18 PM

He fought against the rights of unions to strangle the economy and keep people away from work.

Tzetzes on January 21, 2008 at 12:20 AM

Comment pages:


You must be logged in to post a comment.