Reagan vs. Obama: The 2010 Election Year

2010 February 10

In January, Jeffrey Lord wrote at The American Spectator:  The War of the Presidents: Reagan Battles Obama in 2010.  His thesis was that Reagan is really the president Obama is fighting, but Obama doesn’t dare name Reagan—he blames Bush.

There is a reason that the Obama White House repeatedly attempts to drag George W. Bush back into the arena beyond Bush’s unpopularity with the electorate. The reason? It’s one thing to take on the unpopular and very much alive Bush, who left office with a 22% approval rating in a final CBS News/New York Times poll. It’s another thing entirely to take on the revered Reagan. Gallup polls in 2001 and 2007 — one each three years before his death and three years afterwards — had Americans ranking Reagan as either America’s greatest president or number two — right behind Lincoln.

Reagan brought America back from the malaise and demise of the Carter years; Reagan brought the American economy back from a recession; Reagan brought an end to the Cold War.  Obama doesn’t want anyone to remember Reagan–especially while Obama’s policies are digging us into a deeper hole. Reagan–not George Bush–is the  antithesis of Obama.  Lord comments:

The real game?

For Obama to remake America from the bottom up into a statist utopia as long envisioned by American and European “progressives.” To fundamentally change — forever — the role of government in everyday American life. To remove as much individual liberty and freedom as they can get away with and replace it with government control, on the old theory that only economic and political elites can correctly order the affairs of the average man and woman. Making of America a quasi-socialist state on the model favored by leftists of one stripe or another for all or parts of three centuries. If the Obama progressives could manage it, the idea would be to drop the “quasi” altogether.

The dog that doesn’t bark in this scenario?

The same relentless attacks on Reagan that have been directed at the unpopular Bush and Cheney. There are none. Why?

“Perhaps the most cogent exposition of the conservative political philosophy….was made by a professional actor, Ronald Reagan,” wrote Arthur Krock, the curmudgeonly dean of the New York Times after Reagan’s famous speech for Barry Goldwater in 1964, more prescient than he could know. Both in his lifetime and since, it is Reagan alone who has been the most successful spokesman for the opposition to the left-wing “progressive” philosophy Obama is out to impose on the country. And in one form or another, on one issue or another, it is Reagan that Obama has been trying to overturn — not George W. Bush. Hence, the strategy: attack the unpopular Bush always, the legendarily popular Reagan never. Blame Bush — while repealing Reagan….

The odd thing is, however, you’re probably noticed that from time to time there have been little media blurbs trying to find a way to give the Reagan mantle to Obama(!).  This is, of course, like trying to make an apple pie with Hawaiian pineapples, but just try doing a search with three words, Obama like Reagan, and look at what you find!

From early 2008:

Obama’s Admiration of Ronald Reagan

From early 2009:

Obama, The Unifier: Like Reagan, the 44th president has the potential to be a truly transformational figure.

Believe It or Not, He’s Walking on Air: Obama is looking more and more like a progressive Reagan.

Channeling the Gipper: For inspiration, Obama looks to Reagan.

From last week!

Obama Channels Reagan as Democrats Approach Election

I don’t think anyone else gets to be mentioned as having anything good in common with Ronald Reagan–especially any politician who criticizes Obama’s policies! Reagan is liberal Kryptonite–he makes them become weak and powerless–and they know it!

Avoiding a Reagan comparison goes double and triple for Sarah Palin.  This is being tackled in a rather odd way.  Tuesday, Hot Air linked to an article by Marc Ambinder, Getting Sarah Palin’s Paradigm, in which he writes:

She is, as my friend @thetonylee says, “a hybrid of Nixon and Buchanan.”

Palin like Nixon or Buchanan!!!  What a howler!  Sarah with her optimistic, cheerful temperament and her Israeli flags like Nixon or Buchanan!!  This is one of the most ludicrous comparisons I’ve seen. Ambinder and his friend must think that everyone who reads this bit of revisionist biography commentary has forgotten everything they ever knew about the two men.  Governor Palin is not Ronald Reagan, but she does share with him some traits and attitudes.  To try to smear her as Nixonian or to bring up Buchanan is beyond reason.

At the Tea Party Convention last week, Sarah Palin said the Tea Party movement should be about ideas–not personalities.  While our country has had many great leaders, our country was not founded on personalities, but on principles.  In recent history Ronald Reagan has been our most cogent and winsome spokesman and advocate of those principles.

Jeffrey Lord concludes:

Buckle in.

The War of the Presidents has just begun.

And Reagan is winning.

__________
H/T:  The American Spectator, Open Left, Newsweek, The American Prospect, Business Week, The Atlantic (via Hot Air).

82 Responses leave one →
  1. 2010 February 10 3:45 am
    [1]
    judyt2009 permalink

    INC — you are brilliant…this post is excellent.

  2. 2010 February 10 4:47 am
    [2]
    drdog09 permalink

    In the mind of Lord and the Leftist dribble that are called Pundit, maybe this is a possibility. But to extend to the Chicago thug WH that they have this kind of ‘deep retro thoughts’ is laughable. To buy into Lord’s theory one has to —

    * Throw away the theory that Obama is a narcissist.
    * Ascribe to the boy Obama (age 20) that the Reagan presidency scarred him in some fashion.
    * That he has assembled a team capable of tearing Reagan down.

    Sorry can’t buy it. Somehow O acquired the funds to attend two top schools in the nation. So he was unhampered by the recession of the time, hence unscarred. And most likely he spent most of that time in some state of elevated reality as he himself admits. Nor have I met many college kids with the mental agency formulated for deep thinking. To extend that to Obama with all we know of him since the Reagan years stretches the truth. Finally ‘crib notes’ Gibbs capable of making Reagan go away? Please. The man is still trying to figure out how to get the ink off his hand.

    INC I like the piece, but the thought Lord offered is a Ponderable too Far to be considered possible. The simplest answer is probably the correct one — Bush ended his administration with a huge deficit and we Obama are carrying forward that strategy. It provides both cover and rationale for those in the West Wing. Lord would have had a much better piece if he had dropped the Reagan cabal reference altogether.

    Oh and one other thought. If one buys the Lord argument one also has to agree that Bush == Reagan in the minds of many. Otherwise the Cause de’Jure for his argument crumbles. I don’t think we would see many hands that would agree with that formulation.

  3. 2010 February 10 6:23 am
    [3]

  4. 2010 February 10 7:01 am
    [4]
    Big Mo permalink

    Sure Palin is not Reagan. And Reagan is not Palin. But when it comes to believing in this nation, its people and its founding principles, projecting strength abroad, supporting limited government and unshackling the private sector, they both agree.

    Besides the obvious gender differences, the only real difference between Palin and Reagan is lipstick.

  5. 2010 February 10 7:03 am
    [5]
    Big Mo permalink

    If anyone is like Nixon, it’s Obama. Or, maybe Obama is more like nixon and Polk in personality, and like Pierce and Buchanan in effectiveness. Both of the latter repeatedly shot themselves in the foot.

  6. 2010 February 10 7:16 am
    [6]
    janzam permalink

    Had to smile at drdog’s reference to “crib notes Gibbs.” Is that the handle he is going to have from now on? At least that little stunt produced some nervous giggles for him, because, according to Politico, the Press Room laughter dies down

  7. 2010 February 10 8:01 am
    [7]

    Fron Wahington Post: Using D+6 too!

    Health care – 43/53
    Economy – 45/53
    Federal deficit – 40/56
    Creating jobs – 47/51
    Threat of terrorism – 56/39 (hahahahahahahha)

  8. 2010 February 10 8:03 am
    [8]

    7. Should be D+2 – at most…

  9. 2010 February 10 8:05 am
    [9]
    justrand permalink

    Reagan was NOT, IQ-wise, the brightest President we ever had…but that did not stop him from being THE right person at THE right time!

    Sarah may be as well! Obama CLEARLY IS NOT!

  10. 2010 February 10 8:08 am
    [10]
    beej permalink

    And Reagan is winning.
    ~~~~~~~~~
    His conservative ideas are, at least.

  11. 2010 February 10 8:15 am
    [11]
    drdog09 permalink

    JR,

    My mind only 1 other president stands taller — Washington. That being said, even though Dutch was not the brightest bulb in the pack, his packaging outsold every other bulb out there. The man was a walking personification of America as her people should be.

  12. 2010 February 10 8:18 am
    [12]

    LLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLL

    A better “Miss Me Yet?” billboard

  13. 2010 February 10 8:23 am
    [13]
    drdog09 permalink

    Mo,

    Give Palin 20 more years and I think a lot of people will be making the comparison between her and Reagan. The life stories are strikingly similar in context. I also totally agree that Obama will become Nixon lacking the foreign policy successes. Both seem to have the personality of retreat.

  14. 2010 February 10 8:30 am
    [14]
    drdog09 permalink

    Eph,

    Two real billboards. The one you linked to. Then further down the road one that says “Yes” and shows a copy of the Declaration of Independence. I don’t think the message will escape most people.

  15. 2010 February 10 8:38 am
    [15]
    Big Mo permalink

    drdog09 – Right. Palin needs a little more seasoning. After all, RR made his first big splash into national politics in 1964, but didn’t become president until 1980, after just missing the nomination in ’76.

    The great thing about both Reagan and Palin, is that unlike Obama, it’s never about them.

  16. 2010 February 10 8:50 am
    [16]
    drdog09 permalink

    Janzam,

    Since you mentioned it, here’s DbD’s take.

  17. 2010 February 10 8:52 am
    [17]
    INC permalink

    I read Lord’s column when it came out in early January. It was one of those articles that simmered in the back of my mind as something I wanted to discuss. When I saw the lame attempt to compare Sarah Palin to Nixon and Buchanan, I thought it was time to plunge in.

    I noticed some interesting things as I scanned some of the “Obama is like Reagan” columns. There are three general areas of comparison I saw:

    1. Obama is a great communicator like Reagan.

    2. Obama’s weaknesses are like Reagan’s weaknesses.

    3. Obama wants to be/is a transformational president like Reagan.

    One & two are obviously as false as they come. As far as three goes, yes, Obama wants to transform America, but in a statist, destructive kind of way that is as far as you can get from Reagan’s philosophy and American principles.

    Obama also wants to impose a transformation that a majority of Americans do not want. Look at the polls! Look at Massachusetts! Reagan was a leader who wanted to persuade and lead America in a direction that was good for our country.

  18. 2010 February 10 9:03 am
    [18]
    INC permalink

    Dr. D., did you read Lord’s entire piece? Lord observed the attacks on Bush and the lack of attacks on Reagan and builds his case as to why he thinks this has played out this way.

    He did not say that Bush = Reagan. He said that Obama is blaming Bush and positioning himself as against Bush, but Obama never attacks Reagan. Lord’s conjecture is that this is because he and/or his advisors know full well what the country thinks of Reagan. I find this very plausible. Instead, as I showed, Obama is presented as being like Reagan.

    On the second page, Lord builds his case of the opposing philosophies of Obama and Reagan by taking a statement from each and comparing them:

    The differences between the two presidents can be summed up in pithy fashion by each:

    Reagan, on February 5, 1981: “Our aim is to increase national wealth so all will have more, not just redistribute what we already have, which is just a sharing of scarcity.”

    Obama, on September 6, 2001: “But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society…. And one of the I think the tragedies of the Civil Rights movement was because the Civil Rights movement became so court focused I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change and in some ways we still suffer from that.”

    Each man as president was true to his word and his respective beliefs, actively pursuing them as president.

    But the outcomes show a huge difference, not for the first time in contrasting the results obtained by these philosophies whether in America or in other nations around the globe.

  19. 2010 February 10 9:07 am
    [19]
    INC permalink

    On the third page, Lord cites examples to show why he thinks Reagan is winning and concludes:

    In two completely unrelated new stories in two different New York newspapers, a quick if unintentional glimpse is seen of the Reagan/Obama divide in New York, New Jersey and Florida.

    The Reagan worldview says high taxes costs jobs, the Obama world view believes that a solution of high taxes to support more bureaucracy will “spread the wealth.”

    He doesn’t mention the Virginia election, which also proves that the Reagan worldview is winning, and the Mass election had not occurred when he wrote this article. The Mass election was a spanking repudiation of Obama.

  20. 2010 February 10 9:08 am
    [20]
    conservativetony permalink

    Reagan is not like Obama; Obama is like Obama. Obama is Obama’s worst enemy.

    There’s a stark difference between Reagan and Obama–Reagan had to earn his standing as a great president, and that was while the left and the msm were trying to ruin him. Obama has been given the title of “best ever” by a fawning msm; he’s never had to earn anything. Case in point was the NPP.

    Imagine for a moment the absolute power Obama had and even still has, although to a lesser degree. Six months ago, if he said sh!t didn’t stink the media would’ve backed him on the claim. Even today, all he would have to do is issue mea culpas on certain big ticket items, such as Obamacare, taxes, legal protection to terrorists, etc… and he would enjoy upticks in his approval ratings.

    A hearty good morning to all of you and thanks for a wonderful post, INC.

  21. 2010 February 10 9:11 am
    [21]
    INC permalink

    Good morning to you, Tony! & Thanks!

  22. 2010 February 10 9:18 am
    [22]
    MFG permalink

    Nixon was a rotten mean little weasel of a man

    Rahm Emmanuel is today’s Nixon

    I think Reagan was very smart, very intelligent, very well read and very well educated, but he was simple and he was a leader

    There was great depth to Ronald Reagan that the insane haters could never see

    Palin is no Ronald Reagan, I don’t see the depth to her that Reagan had; with Reagan you had the sense that his beliefs came from many years of experience and deep reflection about life and politics

    With some time, let’s see what Palin can do, she seems to be moving in the right direction

  23. 2010 February 10 9:19 am
    [23]
    INC permalink

    Now I don’t believe that Obama is the brightest light bulb to ever be in the White House. Judy has mentioned he’s not nearly as smart as either Clinton and I agree. Someone on Hot Air linked to this last night:

    What was Barack Obama’s GPA in college?

    Obama was in the bottom 15% of his class in Occidental. To me that basically means he was flunking out. Somehow he managed to be accepted by Columbia and to transfer there. His GPA was less than 3.0. Somehow he managed to be accepted by Harvard Law and somehow he managed to graduate magna cum laude (the top 10%). I’d really like to see those transcripts and know the story behind them.

    If you believe he did all that on his own intellectual merit, I have a bridge I want to sell you. His lack of sharp intelligence, however, doesn’t mean that he doesn’t buy into dangerous ideas and intend to implement them. For this we should be grateful, because if he had intelligence he wouldn’t have made so many stupid mistakes trying to establish his statist ideas.

  24. 2010 February 10 9:22 am
    [24]
    INC permalink

    MFG, I really agree, Reagan was a very intelligent man and his thinking and speeches do come from his deep reflections. I also don’t see the depth of thought yet in Palin. She does need time to read and think and verbalize and bounce ideas off in private with some who are conservatives of depth (who-I don’t know).

  25. 2010 February 10 9:25 am
    [25]
    beej permalink

    Reagan had to earn his standing as a great president, and that was while the left and the msm were trying to ruin him.
    ~~~~~~~~~
    Great point, and another similarity in Reagan/Palin.

    Ditto the kudos to you INC, your posts are great, and very thorough…real learning tools, too.

  26. 2010 February 10 9:30 am
    [26]
    drdog09 permalink

    INC,

    First to go on record, you wrote a fine piece, well documented.

    Yes I read the whole thing. Lord is right that Reagan is winning, which I left untouched in my consideration of the whole thing. My argument against his assessment is one of personality and function as it relates to Obama.

    Personality. Obama by all accounts is a smart guy. However you watch the man, read his speeches, his books, etc its one with only one real conflict, his father (or lack thereof). But Obama is not conflicted in the political sense with a revulsion of Reaganism. Obama’s political sense was crafted as what is the fastest way to get from point A to B. My take there is little thought to the principles to get from A to B, any will do. Surprisingly it worked.

    Function. If as Lord states, Bush is the surrogate for Reaganism, it makes a leap, like I said earlier that those in various circles equate Bush with Reagan at a visceral level. Most would not make that comparison. Lets take it a step further. If Lord’s premise holds true then what would be the fastest way to destroy that image? For me that would be to proudly announce you are moving forward with Bush’s economic policies while at the same time tying the Bush-Reagan image together with those policies. When you know it collapses, as it will, you THEN tie the noose around the two, but not before. A successful death is much more powerful means to shake old images than the constant ‘envelope #2’ meme that Obama uses time and again.

    Just my take.

  27. 2010 February 10 9:31 am
    [27]
    INC permalink

    Thanks, beej!

    Another thing about Reagan’s intelligence: one of the most difficult things to do in writing or speaking is to take an important idea about which reams have already been written and said, and then reflect on it, distill it down to the basic principles and finally, express those principles in a way that communicates the core of the idea and reaches the mind and hearts of your listeners.

    Reagan could do that in spades.

  28. 2010 February 10 9:32 am
    [28]
    beej permalink

    but he was simple and he was a leader
    ~~~~~
    I don’t know about how ‘smart’ Reagan was, but he had Wisdom, which, imo, helped place him head and shoulders above nearly every other president, and any of his contemporaries, period.

    There is a real deficit of wisdom in DC, even before Obama.

  29. 2010 February 10 9:36 am
    [29]
    conservativetony permalink

    Listening to Rush on the left’s new complaint about calling Obama “professor”

    Like everything else the left attempts, this will backfire on them. I’d bet most people don’t realize he was a law professor. The more people who know the more they will want the details and once they find out the details are hidden. . . .

  30. 2010 February 10 9:36 am
    [30]
    drdog09 permalink

    Can we have an Amen! for beej’s last sentence?

  31. 2010 February 10 9:37 am
    [31]
    INC permalink

    Dr. D., I don’t think much of Obama’s intelligence. He is shrewd and crafty. I agree that he doesn’t seem to express much revulsion of Reagan’s ideas. That doesn’t mean he doesn’t scorn them. He just can’t do it publicly or he would be eviscerated.

    In reading his column, I don’t see that Lord is making the case that Bush is a surrogate for Reagan. Bush is just the chosen scapegoat because he left the WH with low standing in the polls and Obama & ilk are capitalizing on that. Bush is sort of a blanket that Obama hopes to throw over all Republicans in order to smear all of them and their ideas.

    Obama & ilk have to have scapegoats. It’s part of the Leftist mentality. They got away with using Bush for a while, but that’s now really old for pretty much everyone.

  32. 2010 February 10 9:43 am
    [32]
    INC permalink

    Yes–beej nails it.

    A town full of arrogant narcissists is a bit low on wisdom.

  33. 2010 February 10 9:46 am
    [33]

  34. 2010 February 10 9:49 am
    [35]
    INC permalink

    Tony, Obama as professor is a big lie.

    From the Chicago Sun Times in March 2008:

    The University of Chicago released a statement Thursday saying Sen. Barack Obama “served as a professor” in the law school — but that is a title Obama, who taught courses there part-time, never held, a spokesman for the school confirmed on Friday.

    “He did not hold the title of professor of law,” said Marsha Ferziger Nagorsky, an assistant dean for communications and lecturer in law at the school.

    The U. of C. statement was posted on the school’s Web site two days after the Clinton campaign issued a memo headlined: “Just Embellished Words: Senator Obama’s Record of Exaggerations & Misstatements.”

    Now U of C tried to weasel around this by saying that Obama served in the function of a professor in teaching a core curriculum course. The article goes on to say:

    Obama graduated from Harvard Law School in 1991. He was a lecturer at the U. of C. law school between 1992 and 1996. During that time, he was an attorney at the law firm of Miner, Barnhill & Galland. In his first years of teaching, he had only one course.

    He was promoted to senior lecturer in 1996, and his teaching load eventually increased to three courses a year, less than the load of a professor.

    Obama won a state Senate seat in 1996. He maintained his senior lecturer post from 1996 to 2004, when he took a leave to run for the U.S. Senate.

    Nagorsky said there is a major distinction between a lecturer and senior lecturer, though neither is a full-time position. She said the status of a senior lecturer is “similar” to the status of a professor and that Obama did teach core courses usually handled only by professors. Obama’s appointment was not part of an academic search process, and he did not have any scholarly research obligations.

    The photo of Obama is the one of him at a blackboard teaching about politics and power. Dan McLaughlin has an enlargement in which you can read what Obama is teaching about about “Power Analysis”.

    “Relationships Based on Self Interests” with boxes underneath with the labels, Corp., Banks, Utilities. I can’t read the rest, but it’s the Obama we’ve seen as president.

  35. 2010 February 10 9:50 am
    [36]
    drdog09 permalink

    INC, Lord does not implicitly make the connection. But for it to work for Obama as he envisons, Obama would have to make that connection at some level. Here’s the odd part — Cheney would have been the better surrogate. Cheney was a Reagan supporter in the House as Rep. He also worked in the WH during the Nixon/Ford years. The Left already despise the man. He makes a nice little bundle to work from for those purposes. Yet the WH does not deride the guy. Only time they belch forth some BS is when Cheney skewers them with the facts — again.

  36. 2010 February 10 9:53 am
    [37]
    beej permalink

    I don’t think O is any smarter than those that handle him. I don’t know how he was chosen to be their spokesman, but to me he is like the Manchurian Candidate. Or better, a marionette, with Axelrod and Emanuel pulling his strings.

    His scorn for Reagan is not expressed verbally, but in every single action he takes.
    Universal HC, big bail outs, Govt Autos, weakened foreign policy, weakened military, constantly apologizing for any thing and everything the US does…Obama is the antitheses of Reagan.

    Bush is the catalyst for all the hopey changey stuff he wants to enact, I think. O is acting on the premise that we hated everything Bush did or stood for, and is using that to try to enact his big change to socialist policies. He can’t use Reagan, only the media hated Reagan. If Bush left on a high note, O wouldn’t have been elected, and if by chance he were, the change crap would be even harder to push on us. Angry people get change, happy people are content with the status quo. He is trying to keep us angry at Bush to validate the changes he wants to make.

  37. 2010 February 10 10:00 am
    [38]
    judyt2009 permalink

    Claiming Obama the most intelligent President is racist. Obama isn’t that smart. When he is off the teleprompter, or even on it (“corpseman”), he makes so many simple mistakes. [Hey speech writers — you should have written it as CORE man.] Obama is incapable of giving clear, concise answers to most questions. But to claim he is the most intelligent President is the equivalent of saying this is the most intelligent someone of color can be.

    This is the soft bigotry of low expectations.

    Who are they trying to fool? When you over-hype someone past their natural abilities who are you helping? What are you accomplishing? In the last year Obama had demonstrated what most of us here at BJG already knew, Obama has no leadership skills or experience.

    An analogy that comes to mind is the current hit song, Larry Platt’s Pants of the Ground. While this cute novelty song soared in popularity, it does not mean that Platt is better singer or songwriter than Billy Joel, Elton John, Nat King Cole, or whomever. He won’t even be the next American Idol.

    Obama has been elevated so far beyond his abilities. To claim that he has skills or intelligence that he does not possess is insulting and racist.

  38. 2010 February 10 10:00 am
    [39]
    INC permalink

    Cheney is too dangerous. He bites back.

    They bring a knife–Cheney comes out with guns blazing.

  39. 2010 February 10 10:06 am
    [40]
    INC permalink

    beej, it would be interesting to know the backstory of Obama. If you go through Dan McLaughlin’s Integrity Gap series you get a picture of Obama as someone who is power hungry (to the point of delusion, I think). In the second part on Rootless Ambition, McLaughlin writes:

    …his rise has depended on the exchange of favors with crooked patrons and extremist friends and on the forebearance of the machine.

    McLaughlin also has this quote:

    “He’s always wanted to be President,” Valerie Jarrett, who has been a family friend for years, ever since she hired Michelle Obama to work in Mayor Daley’s office, says [of Obama]….”He didn’t always admit it, but oh, absolutely. The first time he said it to me, he said, ‘I just think I have some special qualities and wouldn’t it be a shame to waste them.’ I think it was during the early part of his U.S. senatorial campaign. He said, ‘You know, I just think I have something.'”

  40. 2010 February 10 10:10 am
    [41]
    INC permalink

    Obama wanted power–those he met in Chicago or elsewhere (who knows?) decided (in my opinion) that he was the candidate with the perfect kind of front to put into power. I have wondered what kind of combination of enablers and manipulators his handlers are.

  41. 2010 February 10 10:11 am
    [42]
    drdog09 permalink

    39, that is very true.

  42. 2010 February 10 10:14 am
    [43]
    INC permalink

    In the Obama and the Machine, McLaughlin has this:

    Of course, speaking of powerful and sinister friends, the fact that Obama had those well-financed opponents at one time enabled him to use a loophole in the campaign finance laws to accept $60,000 in contributions in that campaign from left-wing billionaire George Soros and his family:

    Obama … is different from most Democrats because of his willingness to embrace the controversial Soros. Shortly after Soros equated the abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Obama joined him for a New York fund-raiser June 7.The event, held at Soros’ home, boosted Obama’s campaign at a time he was still facing a challenge from Republican Jack Ryan….

    +++

    Little has been made of his connection to Soros, although it is quite unique. Not only did George Soros donate to Obama’s campaign, but four other family members – Jennifer, sons Jonathan and Robert and wife Susan – did as well.Because of a special provision campaign finance laws, the Soroses were able to give a collective $60,000 to Obama during his primary challenge.

  43. 2010 February 10 10:17 am
    [44]
    INC permalink

    He also has this on Emil Jones & Obama:

    Jones became the State Senate President when the Democrats took the majority in 2003, and basically created most of Obama’s legislative record by adding Obama’s name on other people’s bills. As Jones once said (apparently at Obama’s instigation), “I’m gonna make me a U.S. Senator”:

    A bunch of users using each other; however, I think usually the power behind the throne has the edge on intelligence.

  44. 2010 February 10 10:17 am
    [45]
    beej permalink

    eeuuu…soros. Well, there you have it. If the Soros’s donated so much directly, I wonder what else they did to help out ‘behind the scenes?’

    Gosh. He surrounds himself with people who hate America.

  45. 2010 February 10 10:21 am
    [46]

    Popcorn is like a box of chocolate – you never know what you’re going to get

    -Forrest Gump

    Obama Says Bipartisanship, But What He Wants Is GOP Surrender

  46. 2010 February 10 10:24 am
    [47]
    INC permalink

    beej, the Obama scenario reads like a movie. It’s kind of a twist on the original Manchurian Candidate. In the movie, the guy snaps out of his brainwashed trance, realizes he’s being used and goes after those who used him. Obama didn’t experience brainwashing–he’s conscious of his actions.

  47. 2010 February 10 10:24 am
    [48]
    janzam permalink

    INC –> Re: #44 –> Emil Jones and Obama’s relationship was one of mentor and prodigy. The legislative credit Jones gave Obama was well documented in the book “The Case Against Obama,” by David Freddoso. This is just one piece of Obama’s background demonstrating what experience Obama supposedly had was, at best, exploited and fabricated.

  48. 2010 February 10 10:26 am
    [49]
    INC permalink

    Eph, that’s remarkable that CBS is willing to call him on that.

    Jan, thanks. I’ve heard of Freddoso’s book, but it’s one I haven’t read. I think Obama’s lack of LBJ kind of legislative experience is one reason why he’s made a mull of things. Rahm is no LBJ either.

  49. 2010 February 10 10:39 am
    [50]

    “http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2010/02/two-pictures-wo.html”

    Haghahahaha that was great.

  50. 2010 February 10 10:40 am
    [51]
    janzam permalink

    INC

    Freddoso’s book is a well documented, factual commentary on Obama, which I read early on in the election. It provided me with much of the material clearly showing what an inadequate man Obama was for the job.

    I think you are right how Obama’s falsely implied legislative experience has contributed to the lack of insight or leadership shown with the Congress, and beyond…..He really was a blank sheet!

  51. 2010 February 10 10:42 am
    [52]
    drdog09 permalink

    Hmmm. Is this the first of China’s moves to eventually get out of US Treasuries? ie is this the warning shot? —

    Dollar-denominated risk assets, including asset-backed securities and corporates, are no longer wanted at the State Administration of Foreign Exchange (SAFE), nor at China’s large commercial banks. The Chinese government has ordered its reserve managers to divest itself of riskier securities and hold only Treasuries and US agency debt with an implicit or explicit government guarantee. This already has been communicated to American securities dealers, according to market participants with direct knowledge of the events.

    It is not clear whether China’s motive is simple risk aversion in the wake of a sharp widening of corporate and mortgage spreads during the past two weeks, or whether there also is a political dimension. With the expected termination of the Federal Reserve’s special facility to purchase mortgage-backed securities next month, some asset-backed spreads already have blown out, and the Chinese institutions may simply be trying to get out of the way of a widening. There is some speculation that China’s action has to do with the recent deterioration of US-Chinese relations over arm sales to Taiwan and other issues. That would be an unusual action for the Chinese to take–Beijing does not mix investment and strategic policy–and would be hard to substantiate in any event.

    http://blog.atimes.net/?p=1352

  52. 2010 February 10 10:50 am
    [53]
    mulletover permalink

    Obama is a manufactured person.

    Selected early on by his communist enablers, he was granted unearned access and achievements at every stage of his career progression and it was paid for by foreign interests. There is no documentation, no paper trail, of how he got from his early matriculation to his election as senator from Illinois. He has gone to great lengths and great expense to hide his trail. It is as if he was born into the national political office.

    His presidency will go down as the greatest hoax ever on the American people. It can, however, only be corrected at the ballot box. The Constitution was trumped by a popular election.

    Great thread, INC.

  53. 2010 February 10 10:50 am
    [54]

    Reminder… Rubio money bomb day.

  54. 2010 February 10 10:52 am
    [55]
    justrand permalink

    eph, the two pictures in comment #34 absolutely tell the tale!! thx!!

  55. 2010 February 10 10:55 am
    [56]
    drdog09 permalink

    from Instapundit —

    IRONY ABOUNDS: A reader emails: “Today, Michael Mann was scheduled to give a colloquium on climate change at the University of Pennsylvania, where I am a graduate student. As you may know, Philadelphia has been hit by multiple snowstorms in the past week. Today, for what I am told is the first time since the mid-1990s, the university suspended normal operations due to snow, and his colloquium on climate change has been postponed.”

    BRWHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAA!!

  56. 2010 February 10 11:05 am
    [57]
    conservativetony permalink

    DD

    Speaking of snow, parts of San Diego county have had to close schools down because of snow. They’re going to have to bring back the 70’s retreads and start up the global cooling scare again.

  57. 2010 February 10 11:12 am
    [58]

    “Eph, that’s remarkable that CBS is willing to call him on that.”

    Indeed, it was quite the “popcorn” moment!

  58. 2010 February 10 11:13 am
    [59]

    55. just,

    there is waaaaay to much good stuff out there today bagin’ on Hussein

  59. 2010 February 10 11:22 am
    [60]
    drdog09 permalink

    CT,

    San Diego?! The land of perpetual SPF45 and palm trees? That is freaky.

  60. 2010 February 10 11:28 am
    [61]

    60. Dr,

    It’s really cold and rainy in Phoenix right now. Very cold.

  61. 2010 February 10 11:44 am
    [62]
    bc3b permalink

    Sorry I have not been able to join the discussion earlier, but I’ve spent some of the day battling global warming here in Detroit.

    A couple of points. Let’s let Sarah Palin be Sarah Palin. She is not Ronald Reagan, although she is an unabashed Reagan disciple. She shares some of Reagan’s characteristics: charisma, courage and the ability to inspire. I think Sarah would be the first to admit she is not Ronald Reagan. He was a unique individual. But, so is she.

    It would be fun to see how Reagan would have used things like Facebook and Twitter. I am sure Reagan would have been very proud of Sarah Palin.

    That said, she is much closer to Reagan than Richard Nixon.

    On the images Eph provided, I was struck by two things: The first was the teleprompters and the second was the lecturn with the seal of the presidency Obama used. I cannot imagine another President: either Bush, Clinton, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson or Kennedy trying to promote himself in front of a bunch of elementary school kids the way Obama did.

  62. 2010 February 10 11:46 am
    [63]
    bc3b permalink

    Eph –

    Like 27 degrees – 10 inches of snow on the ground cold?

  63. 2010 February 10 11:48 am
    [64]

    63. Yup!

    …OK, not really

  64. 2010 February 10 11:50 am
    [65]

    More snow and cold…. just another sign of global warming, opps I meant global climate change! 😉

    I believe in climate change – in that the climate changes, always has, always will, in fact if it hadn’t we’d not be here. lol

  65. 2010 February 10 11:59 am
    [66]
    brucefdb permalink

    Sarah is a lot younger than Reagan so the comparisons don’t work, RR was 56 when he first became governor. But she has the same way of going over the press to connect with the people that RR had. Given time, she will be even more formidable to the Dems than she is now, but she already has them shaking in their jackboots. And it is good she is still young. The schedule she is undertaking is going to be extremely demanding the next 9 months. No telling what the future holds but we have to be very glad she is out there.

  66. 2010 February 10 12:09 pm
    [67]
    mulletover permalink

    Two things I learned last night on National Geographic.

    1) Because of the influence of the tides, the moon’s orbit moves 1 to 2 inches away from the earth with every revolution. In about 50 billion years, the moon will detach itself from the influence of the earth’s gravity and be gone forever.

    2) Don’t worry about the moon, or for that matter, the tides. In about 10 billion years, the sun will burn out leaving the earth in darkness. Good thing we have those little curly light bulbs.

    Now that’s climate change you can believe in.

    Yes, we can!

  67. 2010 February 10 12:14 pm
    [68]
    conservativetony permalink

    DD

    What they probably got was an inch of snow and since the people of San Diego have only seen it in movies or when its trucked in to the SoCal “ski” resorts, they probably paniced.

    No word yet on whether or not Ahhhnold has declared a state of emergency or asked Wash, DC to send snow plows.

  68. 2010 February 10 12:16 pm
    [69]

    67 – I saw that special too, but on monday night, it was dope. 😉

  69. 2010 February 10 12:24 pm
    [70]

    “it was dope”

    huh?

  70. 2010 February 10 12:42 pm
    [71]

  71. 2010 February 10 1:21 pm
    [72]

    70 – Interesting, cool, entertaining… where were you during the early 90’s eph?

    Yo yo dat shit was dope.

  72. 2010 February 10 1:26 pm
    [73]

    “where were you during the early 90’s eph”

    Downloading Jill Kelly vids.

  73. 2010 February 10 1:29 pm
    [74]

    MMM MMM MMM. 😉

  74. 2010 February 10 1:31 pm
    [75]

    Catch you cats later.

  75. 2010 February 10 1:31 pm
    [76]

    btw isn’t Feb11th now in Iran… errr no big news yet. lol

  76. 2010 February 10 1:34 pm
    [77]
    MFG permalink

    KH be a gangsta!

    Word

  77. 2010 February 10 3:48 pm
    [78]

    To yo mama

  78. 2010 February 10 3:54 pm
    [79]
    drdog09 permalink

    KH, you might want to go take a lookie here. It will be game changing stuff if the Big G pulls it off.

  79. 2010 February 10 4:15 pm
    [80]

    What’s so “open” about it… it’s just G getting into the provider business.

  80. 2010 February 10 4:21 pm
    [81]

    Sorry I had to follow the link.

    I see what you mean, ie they will build and maintain the core infrastructure like Atlanta lighting (for a free to the SP’s) but everyone can buy there service though someone else’s marked up prices. This is how I get my natural gas now.. and it results in a 20$ in summer when I use like $1.50 in gas. would be interesting to watch it play out – at least it would introduce another big player, I remain very skeptical of everything google does – I see now how they want to screw with dns so as to pilfer more information.

    There version of open will probably end up being comparable to Obama’s version of transparent. lol

  81. 2010 February 10 4:46 pm
    [82]
    drdog09 permalink

    KH, all points noted and agree with most of them. Google has the largest stable of cross agreements so their backhaul costs are practically $0. I want to see what trick they pull off to reduce the curb price of the fiber. It damn near killed Verizon wireline.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.