This post by Andrew Sulivan http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/09/23/andrew-sullivan-on-the-promise-of-obama-s-second-term.html is a welcome breath of fresh air. Though I certainly lean left of center, I reject deification and reject the liberals deification of Clinton as much as I reject conservatives for their North Korea like reverence of Reagan. What I appreciate in this piece by Sulivan is that it is that rare piece of writing by a conservative that is actually objective. I cringe at the thought of Democrats potentially elevating Obama to a Reagan like worship, but otherwise, I believe Sulivan makes some very interesting comparisons between Obama and Reagan.
Something that never ceases to annoy me in listening to conservative commentary is that it never uses the same standards to judge anything. Of course, the response is to find an example of some liberal doing the same thing in order to dismiss entirely the bigger point. In advance, that's stupid bullshit. One of the biggest examples of undeserved deism is Bill Clinton. While I applaud many things that Clinton did that helped a lot of people, I readily admit he was very lucky to have been elected at a time when economic contraction had wiped out a lot of excess and a lot of suffering had been endured to pave the way for new growth. He did nothing to create the boom that exploded on his watch.
In the days of Reagan, as Sulivan points out, the world was a vastly different place. Unions still existed and workers still made good money and we still had a manufacturing base. Interest rates we much higher, as were taxes. In simple terms, the country was living in austerity and misery and Reagan had multiple bullets to fire to create an environment where growth could occur. He did not, however, create the growth and as Sulivan also points out, he went back on his word several times regarding taxes. Something that no conservative will accept is that Reagan paved the way for massive deficit spending, so I won't bother taking pot shots at the mythical being that conservatives believe he was. In simple terms, Sulivan does that job himself.
As a group, Americans have metaphorically become obsessed with the lint in their navel. Anyone who mentions that any given point in time is a compilation of decades of trends is soundly dismissed. Republicans has six full years of control of all three houses. Yet, they sell us the bullshit that Obama had two years of control of all three houses and is therefore a failure for not solving every problem we face. This article, of course, will not change anyone's mind. It would be nice though, if it could pull some people back from the fringe of reality.
Thanks Max, a very good article. I hope everyone here takes the time to read it. Most people alive today don't remember the Reagan years and how he built our confidence in America in the face of the Soviet threat, or how liberal he was in his first term.
ReplyDeleteThanks for reading it Mick. Admittedly, I am not a Reagan fan. That said, I am most annoyed by the complete denial that the majority of the right is in about him. He is not and was not the person they make him out to be. But I feel the same about Obama. In an interview about the piece, Sulivan said a little more bluntly that the Republicans find themselves in a precarious spot. If, and this is a very big if, Obama wins by a wide margin and if the Republicans simultaneously alienate the Latino vote, they will essentially become nothing more then a regional party for white people. In a closer election, perhaps not much changes.
ReplyDeleteRepublicans lost their way under Bush.
ReplyDeleteYet it seems that every liberal wants to point at the Bush years and say that Republicans are really big spenders.
Not one Republican is advocating that we go back to Bush era spending philosophies. Certainly businessman Romney is not advocating reckless spending that we have now and may have had in the past.
We can't afford the Democrats continued massive spending plans.
Comments like this, Live, are why I launch childish, profanity laced tirades. It's scary. If you simply disagreed with Democrats philosophically, that would be one thing. Instead, you spray an endless stream of bullshit that hundreds of thousands of people like believe as gospel.
DeleteIt is comical that people who consider themselves conservatives want to disown George Bush like he was Billy Carter. As if, he was somehow a sad blip on an otherwise spotless record of conservative fiscal restraint. If there was ANY starting point with Republicans losing their way, it was under Reagan. He flat out did not give a shit about spending as long as he got his way on taxes and military spending. Read the article live.
None of you here can stop bitching about Obama's six trillion and the reason you don't, is because you FINALLY have someone to complain about that you think makes your Republican disasters suddenly not look so bad in comparison. It's like saying the youngest alcoholic brother is really the biggest asshole for not turning out better then his older asshole alcoholic brothers and restoring the family name. We can't afford Democratic spending plans, so we should blindly vote for some asshole who says he won't tell us his plan because he doesn't want to get attacked for it.
Honestly, I hope that if Romney does get elected, he will shove it hard up the keister of people like you when you when he cuts loopholes that mean nothing to the wealthy but take real money out of the pockets of the middle class. It's not likely that even in the face of that we will see bitter partisans finally wake up and realize how badly they have been getting backstabbed by the Republican party, but there's always hope.
I think Obama's gonna win and I think he's gonna win fairly easily - like by around 100 electoral votes, give or take a few either way. probably won't qualify as a landslide, but it will be a pretty comfortable margin of victory. Ain't gonna be 2000 ...
DeleteI don't know if Romney would be a good president, but he's just a horrible candidate. Possibly one of the worst I've seen. Maybe he'd be good at the job, but he's a lousy freakin' interview. And it's puzzling to me - as I've said before, he's been running for President since '06, he should be good at it by now.
Oh, and Max, LS is really Reince Priebus. I figured it out when he posted that the reelection of Obama would bring on the Zombie Apocalypse.
LOL, he does sound exactly like Reince. If there wasn't a real Reince Priebus that was such a living caricature of what a Republican pooh bah looks like, no liberal would be able to dream up such a bizarre character.
DeleteDeep down, I believe a Romney presidency would look a lot like a Bush presidency. I don't think he's a bad guy, per se, but I don't believe he has a clue about what it's like to be middle class and neither did Bush. I don't believe Bush truly believed in everything he signed off on and I don't believe he would have dreamed much of it up if left to his own devices. Romney, right now, can't please anyone. If he says something that resonates with moderate middle class people, he will be scolded by right wing pundits. When he pivots and panders to his money base, he makes 47% comments. Say what we will about Clinton, he was a Bubba and that was present in everything he did.
Thursday, September 27, 2012
DeleteThe Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows both President Obama and Mitt Romney attracting support from 46% of voters nationwide. Four percent (4%) prefer some other candidate, and four percent (4%) are undecided.
When “leaners” are included, it’s tied at 48% apiece.
Forty-eight percent (48%) of voters think Obama better understands middle class issues. Forty-two percent (42%) say Romney. But among voters who identify themselves as middle class, Romney has a slight edge.
From Wiki:
Delete"Andrew Michael Sullivan (born 10 August 1963) is a British author, editor, political commentator and blogger. He describes himself as a political conservative."
A British conservative is sort of like a New Jersey RINO.
"Sullivan is a former editor of The New Republic"
From Wiki:
"Domestically, TNR as of 2011 supports a largely modern liberal stance on fiscal and social issues,[2] according to editor Franklin Foer, who stated that it "invented the modern usage of the term 'liberal', and it's one of our historical legacies and obligations to be involved in the ongoing debate over what exactly liberalism means and stands for."
"The magazine's outlook is associated with the Democratic Leadership Council and "New Democrats" such as former US President Bill Clinton and Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman, who received the magazine's endorsement in the 2004 Democratic primary; so did Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton in 2008."
Andrew Sullivan a conservative?
David Brooks a conservative?
Max, please. Your pink skirt it showing.
1773-2009
"Sullivan, in 2003, wrote a Salon article identifying himself as a member of the gay "bear community".[9] On 27 August 2007, Sullivan married his husband Aaron Tone in Provincetown, Massachusetts."
Delete"On 27 October 2006 edition of Real Time with Bill Maher, he described conservatives and Republicans who refused to admit they had been wrong to support the Iraq War as "cowards."
"In 2001, it came to light that Sullivan had posted online anonymous advertisements for unprotected anal sex, preferably with "other HIV-positive men".
This paragon of conservatism is critical of Ronald Reagan?
What a pathetic joke.
Attack the messenger instead of addressing the content of the article, hmmmm ....
DeleteKeepin' it classy, I see ...
The premise of the article was that Sullivan is a conservative. We have wadded through this nonsense before and it's not worth the time to consider such slanted pap. Quoting TNR and Salon as background provide perspective. Something that our so called journalist class sorely lacks.
Delete1773-2009 pfunky, you do realize our children and grandchildren will inherit a 16T and counting debt don't you? Reagan created more jobs during his term and set the stage for the rallies of the 90's. Rewriting history is a pastime of the left.
So if Sullivan wrote "2+2=4", you would dismiss it as "nonsense" because he's a Gay Jersey RINO as you so eloquently point out? I mean, you still have yet to comment on anything he wrote in the article. Did you even read it?
DeleteAs to your non sequitur, of course I'm aware of our $16T federal debt. $12T of that debt existed before Obama became Prez (I'm counting FY '09 as Bush's).
What do you think the debt total will be at the end of a Romney 1st term? Do you think that the debt magically appeared on Jan 20, 2009 and will magically disappear when Obama's out of office?
The Pubs have demonstrated over the last 30 years that they have no real interest in balancing the budget. They spout "deficit hawk" platitudes only when they're out of power. They get in power, all they care about is tax cuts. The Dems may be "Tax and Spend", but the Pubs since Reagan have empirically shown (see Max's chart) that they're "Borrow and Spend". Which do you think contributed more to the debt since Reagan? Quit acting like the Pubs have been out of power for the last 20 years and have nothing to do with the fiscal mess we're in.
Finally, Max is right. You're either unable or unwilling to bridge the gap between St. Reagan The Myth and Ronald Reagan the 40th President of the United States. You ignore his deeds in office in favor of the Party Story Line. Let me tell you something, if Ronald Reagan were running for office in today's Republican party, he'd be bounced out of the Primary by a TEA Party candidate. Reagan's record is waaaaay too liberal for the TEAs. I would even suggest that in a policy by policy comparison, Reagan may even be more liberal than Obama to this point ... That's right, I said it ...
Yes pfunky I read the article. The basic premise of listening to a fake propped up puppet like Sullivan is a waste of time.
DeleteAnd you keep thinking that I support the "Pubs" as you call them. I am a Tea Party Conservative not a "Pub."
As far as the debt is concerned, draw a line pre and post 2007 when the Democrats took hold of congress for a true number.
http://www.prosebeforehos.com/progressive-economics/06/11/the-growth-of-american-national-debt/
Pick a president pfunky, I'll take Reagan. So will millions of American's that were fortunate enough to live in his prime.
Millard Fillmore. I pick Millard Fillmore, DI.
DeleteYour replies almost never address the point that the person you're replying to is making. It's almost like you're not even bothering to read the post before you reply to it.
Is that intentional? Do you intentionally reply to what you wish someone posted as opposed to replying to what was actually posted? Is that TEA Partyese for "shaping the debate"?
Sigh ... I give up. Now go ahead and post your little Frank Luntz inspired nugget of wisdom and your "1776-2009" tag line.
You said in your previous post that Bush had run up 12T of the 16T when we all know it was 10T when Obama came into office.
DeleteMy response pertaining to Queen Nancy the nanny state mama says all their is to say. DC has been spending out their kazoo since 2006. And yes I do allow that Bush was a big spender on war.
If Sullivan is a conservative because the liberal press deems him one, then I bow down to their, and your, superior knowledge.
After all, the press is doing such a good job at being non-partisan. It's amazing don't you think that they, and their university professor brethren, admit to voting in excess of 75% for the Dems.
1773-2009 DI
Yeah Dollar, I knew someone would bring up that Sullivan is gay in the interest of denouncing him as not a conservative. Your type of conservatism is nearly fascist. There is no room for compromise, and there is no room for dissension. Nor, sadly, is there room for logic or objectivity. Your attack on Sullivan personally rather then on what he said convinces me even further he hit that nail squarely on the head.
ReplyDeleteIn our particular flame battles Dollar, you never do anything more then repeat boilerplate phrases. And when you slap them down, like your little Reagan point at the end, you believe you have just stunned everyone into your rightness. We're all windbags here, but some of us can accept that we might be wrong from time to time. The Tea Party has no such ability.
Reagan created jobs because he was a Keynesian, big government spender. It doesn't take rewriting history to be cognizant of that fact.
God loves all people including gay people Max. I share that. What I argue with is that his background as a "conservative" is laughable. For someone like Andrew Sullivan to be sniping at Reagan is a joke.
DeleteReagan was anything but a Keynesian. Don't be rewriting history Max. Do some reading about Milton Friedman and the supply sider's Maxxy. That is if you can find some among your bookmarks that are not a summary of rewritten history as that practiced by your pseudo conservatives.
1773-2009
Yeah, I've read Friedman before. I see nothing in the last 30 years to remotely convince me that the voodoo of supply side does anything but funnel money upward. Again, however, you direct me to read someone else's words rather then your own case.
DeleteThis chart never gets old for me http://cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/USDebt.png Reagan marked the beginning of massive government spending and borrowing and he plowed an enormous amount of that money into the military and an arms race with the Soviets. Reagan was the epitome of a Keynesian. Like pure capitalism, true, fiscal conservatives do not exist.
BTW, God does love all people, it's only the conservatives of the world who have such a problem with people who aren't exactly like them.
Ronald Reagan freed more people than any person in the history of the world. He buried the Soviets, thank God.
DeleteAsk the Poles who freed them. The Pope, RR, and Maggie Thatcher.
1773-2009
"Ronald Reagan freed more people than any person in the history of the world. He buried the Soviets, thank God"
DeleteHe freed more people than any person in the history of the world? Wow, guess he surpassed Lincoln then. Reagan, like Clinton, came along at the right time to take part in the collapse of the Soviet Union. When it came down to it, Reagan simply outspent them in the arms race. The socialism of the Soviet Union would have collapsed own it's own. Reagan deserves his share of credit, but to suggest he single handidly brought down communism is pure fantasy. Ask the Poles? Were Reagan and Maggie in the ship yard in Gdansk? Did they get their heads beat in by government police? Did Gorbachev magically get schooled by Reagan before he started the reforms that paved the way for massive change?
You Dollar, and many in this country have this view that America is the center of the universe and the rest of the world couldn't possibly get by without us and that no major change happens in the world without us starting and leading it. This worship of Reagan is so completely void of perspective that it's comical.
Not even close Max and you know it. There were less than 32 million people in the USA in 1860.
DeleteThe number of people behind the Iron Curtain that were freed when the wall came down was massive. 290 Million alone in the USSR.
Max ask yourself. Why are the Poles our number one ally in Europe? Why do they support our efforts all across the globe?
DeleteWas it because Gorbachev freed them?
Good day! I just want to give you a big thumbs up for
ReplyDeleteyour excellent info you have got right here on this post.
I am coming back to your site for more soon.
Here is my web blog; best weight loss diet