December 28, 2010
At a closed-door White House meeting this month, President Barack Obama justified his repeated concessions to the Right as necessitated by its success over three decades in selling Ronald Reagan’s anti-government message to broad sectors of the American public.
Read on.
11 comments:
It was hard to change the narrative after 30 years
It's not that hard. Just tell the truth, starting with the fact that Reagan was a lying sack of shit who should have been not just impeached but imprisoned.
But that takes guts, something that Obama has none of. Instead, he publicly praises Reagan. All he accomplishes with that is to make things harder on himself, and us.
Fuck Obama. He's worthless.
Well, you keep writing the same damned thing, only with the words in slightly different order...
While continuing to do little about its media deficit, the Left accuses Obama of failing to use his bully pulpit. Simultaneously, Obama – seeing no effective counterweight on the Left to the Right’s media power – shies away from what he fears would be a political suicide mission.
The end result is the continuation -- and even expansion -- of failed ideas just as Americans desperately need good ones if they hope to salvage their country’s future.
Your love affair with Obama is making you nuts. The fact is he does have the bully pulpit, but he CHOOSES NOT TO USE IT because he's a fucking coward and a corporate tool. If he actually weighs the power of the Left to the Right media before he takes advantage of his bully pulpit, it says he's more interested in himself than the country.
Mr. Parry, it's ridiculous to suggest that the Left is bereft of ideas. I'll give you this, the Left is not good at framing a message, and sticking with it, but their turf is where good ideas originate. You know that!
So, why don't you do something to promote good ideas? Why don't you use your contacts from your former employment in "the media" to disseminate good ideas? Coming to your blog and chastising your readers is a losing proposition.
Some of you, who were so in the tank for Obama, because of your hatred for the Clintons, helped put this guy Obama into the White House and you're too chickenshit to admit that you bet on the wrong horse. (And, I'm not saying that Hillary was the correct horse -- I'm just saying you helped put her out to pasture through sheer hatred.)
Well, you're not doing a damned bit of good either.
So f**k you and your horse.
Avoidance of risk?
What a crock o' crap.
If a politician isn't willing to take a risk, s/he should get the hell out of politics.
Gawdalmighty.. Now, it's blame the victim from Robert Perry.
As I read the comments left by people who are clearly extremists, I am filled with hope as we enter a new year. Not even two years ago, Obama - an extremist in moderate clothing - was your messiah. Now he is the primary target of your fury and vitriol.
We will soon celebrate Reagan's 100th birthday and you will see again how many Americans love him as we did when he passed away. So many loved him because he was a transformative President. At a time we our country was at its worst in my lifetime ( towards the end of the Carter years ) he gave us back our shining city on a hill.
I am actually feel bad for Obama. Right now he can't win for losing. At least he will realize his dream of being another transformative president. He is proving by example that government is not the solution, government is the problem.
Looking forward to 20!!
Wow, another retard parroting far-right talking points. That is so refreshing! I never get to hear such "opinions" from the corporate media.
Capitalist, you assume that the "extremists" who post here were Obama supporters at one time. Not me. I had his number long before the primaries ended because I did my homework. He is not a liberal, he is not a progressive, rather he is right of center.
Many of Obama's policies are further to the right than GWB's.
You should love your right wing president.
It is odd that Mr Obama denigrates and passes over Lyndon Johnson who with raw guts challenged the racist pre-republicans to get the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts passed.
Neither does he take note of the obvious statistic that the 1970's are the high water mark of prosperity for the middle class. As the years have gone by we have fallen farther and farther behind the wealthy in simply earning enough income to have a comfortable life.
All Reagan did was kill inflation, the greatest enemy of the wealthy who live off interest and dividends, at a tremendous cost of pain to working Americans.
Reagan wasn't a "liar", really. He was an actor. Actors stand on the mark and say what you want them to say. This is why he was valuable to the people who put him in office.
It is also why the common people were fond of him: because they new he was an actor an didn't really believe all that harsh stuff he was saying. Underneath it was an OK guy like your loudmouth grandpa who spouts off about politics.
All his handlers had to do was to keep him away from reality, because they knew that if he found out the hardships his decisions were inflicting on people "principle" went out the window.
This is how we got the "arms for hostages" situation when some families of the hostages in Lebanon got past the handlers an spoke to Reagan directly. He totally forgot all about not negotiating with terrorists and told his people to do whatever it took to get the hostages free.
As a mentioned a few times, Robt Perry has criticized the Left for not fighting the Right -- basically with money and power.
They might not have enough. More to the point, the Left has been sold out often since the 60s.
Remember when Humphrey, the champion of labor, lost to Nixon? Some of the unions broke the traditional solidarity of the Left, and it's been downhill ever since.
Before that labor was the foundation of the Left. Civil rights and Vietnam ate into that solidarity, and it has never recovered. Ed Rollins knew that when he helped Reagan get elected.
In the 21st century we will see that right and left in the 20th century sense are obsolete terms.
Obama challenged the "Reagan Narrative" during his campaign, didn't he? And that was embraced by the electorate, no? Why so reluctant to continue that challenge when he gained the bully pulpit? This is a no-brainer, he ALREADY changed the narrative during his campaign, and got rewarded for it by being elected. He has basically abandoned his own rhetoric and how anybody can now blame that on anybody but Obama himself is not just being disingenuous but is clearly delusional. Nice try though. Next!
"Obama feels hemmed in by a political dynamic shaped by a media/political system dominated by Reagan’s anti-government orthodoxy." OMG. Yeah poor Obama. /s Yeah, who knew change meant having to create your OWN "political dynamic." What's next? Obama fears the Bush narrative? No need to go there, his continuation of numerous Bush policies have spoken for him. So two more years of Obama playing the victim of the big bad daddy of conservatives, Ronny Raygun? Just when I thought the Obama apologists had run out of ammo they come up with something new. I just wish Obama had the creativity that his apologists have, but hey they aren't "hemmed in" by anything, including reality.
Post a Comment