► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Posts Tagged ‘Ronald Reagan’

Ike would have never gotten involved in Libya

by Phantom Ace ( 2 Comments › )
Filed under Al Qaeda, Headlines, Republican Party at April 8th, 2011 - 3:27 pm

The Republican Party used to be the Party that believed in being cautious on interventionism. In 1920, the GOP undid Woodrow Wilson’s Progressive intervention in Latin America by ending the occupation of several nations like the Dominican Republic. Eisenhower ended the Korea war and Nixon ended the Vietnam War. Reagan was a cautious interventionist as well. He only went into Granada because of the presence of Cuban troops, he pulled out of Lebanon because he saw no US interest there (huge mistake), struck Libya in retaliation for the Berlin Disco bombing and only hit the Iranians during Operation Flying Mantis because they were interfering with shipping. Since then the GOP has become the Party of unlimited war.

Some Republicans would love to invade everybody and force Democracy at the point of a Gun. It sickened me to see the GOP cheer lead Obama’s war in Libya to help AL-Qaeda. The same Party that claims to fight Islamic terror, is enabling it.

It’s still worthwhile to consider some of the dynamics surrounding the U.S. decision. The influence of the media is one—a million microphones clamoring for action will tend to force action. The administration no doubt feared grim pictures from Benghazi and the damage those pictures could do to the president’s reputation and standing. Another dynamic, I suspect, is a change in presidential leadership style the past few decades, toward a bias for dramatic or physical action, toward the seemingly bold move. The other night I was with an old Reagan hand who noted that Ronald Reagan broke ground by speaking truth to and about the Soviets, by holding up his hand and saying “Stop,” by taking tough diplomatic actions, by working closely with the Soviets’ great foes, Pope John Paul II and Margaret Thatcher. But he didn’t break ground by literally breaking ground! He didn’t invade Eastern Europe. He was judicious about the use of military might.

[….]

Political operatives are sort of embarrassed by caution and judiciousness now, as if they are an indicator of weakness (the Democrats’ traditional worry) or a lack of idealism and compassion (the Republicans’ worry.) But carefulness in a leader is a beautiful thing. That is the message of “Eisenhower 1956,” David A. Nichols’s history of how Ike, the old hero of World War II, resisted great pressure to commit U.S. forces in the Suez Crisis and, later, the rebellion in Hungary. The whole book is a celebration of restraint. “Eisenhower the military man was not militaristic,” writes Mr. Nichols. “He did not think that there were military solutions to many problems.” He was happy to use his personal “military credibility” in deterring the Soviets but viewed war with them “as a last, not a first resort” and often talked about disarmament.

[….]

Two closing thoughts on the modern impulse toward US international activism. The past 10 years, as a nation, we have lost sight to some degree of the idea of Beaconism—that it is our role, job and even delight to be an example of freedom, a symbol of it, a beacon, but not necessarily a bringer of it or an insister on it for others. Two long, messy, unending wars suggest this change in attitude has not worked so well. Maybe we could discuss this in the coming presidential campaign.

The GOP needs to return towards it old foreign policy roots. Strong on defense doesn’t mean war without end. If we commit to war, it should be massive, brutal and quick. We should only occupy a nation if it’s in the economic interest of teh US. If we take ove ra  nation with resources American companies should get priority in contracts, not the French or Chinese.

Strong on defense doesn’t mean war with everyone.

Conservatives abandon Youth vote to Obama

by Phantom Ace ( 116 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Elections 2012, George W. Bush, Progressives, Republican Party at March 14th, 2011 - 6:30 pm

The campaign of Barack Hussein Obama in 2008 ran on a brilliant appeal to youth voters. They used music and other forms of popular culture to mobilize young voters to vote. Too many Conservatism have dismissed this as a fad or not permanent. This is a dangerous idea because abandoning young voters could lead to a hardening of their apolitical views. The irony of of course is that this wasn’t always the case. In the 1980’s Ronald Reagan won the youth vote and this help cement a large segment of the population into the Republican Party for the next 20 years. Then in the 1990’2 the Republicans decided that family values and culture wars were the way to go, abandoning their economic conservatism. The result was that by the 2000’s. young voters were solidly in the Democratic camp. Obama is now trying to cement these voters to the Democratic party.

Early last month, President Obama addressed 1,000 people at Penn State about his ideas for reviving the country’s economy. A couple of weeks later, he delivered a similar address to about 100 small-business owners at Cleveland State University.

But it was what Obama did offstage and away from the news cameras at the schools, before groups of about a dozen at a time, that was perhaps more important to his campaign for reelection.

[…]

“We are so interested in figuring out how to get your ideas, your input, your energy,” Obama told a group of student leaders from Cleveland State and nearby schools. He shook each participant’s hand and posed for a group photo

Read the rest: White House seeks to re-connect to young voters

Unemployment among young people is at historic levels. There should be no way Obama should even appeal to these voters, yet he is trying. The only reason the he even has an opportunity to win them again is because the GOP doesn’t fight for the youth vote. Conservatives have a tendency to mock young people, insult the music they like or criticize how they dress. This condensing attitude is why Progressive propaganda calling the right hateful works. Obama on the other hand uses youth culture to appeal to them. It workls becasue he doesn’t criticize the young and

The Republicans since Papa Bush and even to this day, have engaged in this culture war and family values nonsense that really turns young people off. The youth don’t want to be lectures, they want to hear how policies can improve their opportunities.  The Tea Party was a good opening to win back the youth, but the Culture warriors hijacked it (people like Angle, O’Donnell and Buck) and turned off many Libertarian leaning youth. It’s almost as if Conservatives hate the young. This makes the youth receptive to lies about the Right. Running lame candidates like George HW Bush, Bob Dole, George W. Bush and John McCain has cemented the idea the Republican party as a bunch of old grumps.

Obama’s policies are anti-youth. It is burdening future generations with debt and has accelerating America’s decades old economic stagnation. This should be the opening Conservatives shoulduse to win young voters over. We should address young voters economic concerns and give them hope for a better tomorrow. Insulting what music they listen to will not win them and could harden their views. Ronald Reagan made being a Conservative cool among the young in the 1980’s, we can do it again. Conservatism should adpat to the times, not fight against it. Reagan proved ity can be done.

You’ve got to be kidding!

by Flyovercountry ( 104 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, History, Politics, Progressives at February 7th, 2011 - 6:30 pm

imgres

Would this have ever, ever actually happened, my analysis may surprise you.  Bear in mind, that Reagan was able to make solid friendships with those he had political disagreements.  The fights between President Reagan and Speaker O’Neil were legendary.  What is not as widely known, was that once it became 5:00 pm. work stopped, politics ended, and they were actually close friends.  So, from Reagan’s perspective, this would have been possible merely from that stand point.  But, this faked photo is about more than an imaginary friendship.  This implies an approval for Obama’s Policies, which quite frankly would represent the antithesis of what Ronald Reagan stood for.  The timing of the fauxtograph is also extremely suspect.  Judging from the free fall of Obama’s approval rating since the SOTU, it would appear that the American People have not been fooled by the President’s head fake to the right. 

Politicians have always sought to change personal positions in the wake of defeat.  This is nothing new.  Bill Clinton’s triangulation on Conservative issues is well documented.  The Republican Contract with America had 10 campaign promises attached.  They were successful in passing 7 of those promises into law within two years.  During the Election of 1996, the Clinton/Gore team took credit for all 7 reforms, and Bill Clinton himself declared that the era of big government was over.  This was the President who had attempted to pass a socialized medicine scheme of his own not 3 years earlier.  The difference with Barak Obama’s attempt however is that he is only giving lip service to his tack to the right.  His actions since the November elections have been all about bigger government.  while he has said things which make him sound more centrist, he has abused the power of executive fiat like no one before him.  He is on record as saying that his reforms will bankrupt the coal industry and electric energy producers.  He has effectively shut down all new domestic oil production.  Even the farming industry now has to develop and maintain expensive emergency action plans for the possibility of the world’s first disastrous milk spill.  I shouldn’t have to point out that this string of onerous regulations is hardly Reaganesque.  The problem I have with that picture is that Time, whether it be on their own or through coordination with the White House, is trying to rewrite Reagan’s legacy to make Americans believe that this is what Reagan would do. 

I say coordinated for this reason, Obama has spent the last several weeks comparing himself, favorably with Ronald Reagan.  He has publicly praised Reagan’s vision and leadership.  I personally can’t fault him for that, as I believe Reagan to be on of the greatest Presidents in our nation’s history.  What am however, is surprised at President Obama’s sudden conversion to becoming a Reagan fan.  Author Obama, in two autobiographies, (no truer sign of narcissism exists that the fact that this man inked two autobiographies prior to making a single accomplishment,) chastised Reagan for enacting his policies while both Governor of California and President of the United States.  As a matter of fact, Obama’s criticism of President Reagan was so thorough, there was not a single positive thing Obama had to say about our 40th President.  So, when did his conversion occur?  It certainly wasn’t during his time as Senator, during the election of 2008, nor even during his first 2 years as President.  He was just as negative towards Reagan during those times as well.  (Obama even managed to insult the British and the former occupant of the White House in one single act, by returning the bust of Winston Churchill given to Reagan by the British who knew of Reagan’s admiration for the man.)  His conversion it seem happened suddenly, about a week prior to the SOTU.  There are many conservative pundits who believe that his sudden appreciation for Reagan is a shameless attempt to bolster his own appeal by trying to hitch his wagon to a more popular horse.  I am having a hard time playing devil’s advocate on this one.

On every single core policy issue, and even on the intangibles, Obama is 180 degrees out of phase with Reagan.  Reagan believed in free trade, market principles, and massive deregulation.  Obama believes in restricting trade, increased government intrusion, and while he says deregulation, he is instituting the most onerous regulation the nation has ever seen.  President Reagan believed optimistically in any American’s ability to rise to what ever standard of living and accomplishment they were willing to work to attain.  President Obama believes that all Americans need a nanny to make their decisions for them and that without government dependency, we will all end up screwing our neighbors descend to anarchy.   President Reagan believed in American exceptionalism and the strength of entrepreneurialism to keep our country at the forefront of discovery, leadership, and prosperity.  President Obama believes that our leadership role in all of those areas are unjust and imperialistic.  He further demonstrates his belief that American Prosperity is due to our chicanery and deceit.  In the world view of liberals, life is zero sum, and wealth can never be created, merely stolen.  So while President Reagan fought against the concept of wealth redistribution masquerading as, “social justice,” President Obama is fighting full tilt for wealth redistribution thinly veiled as, “social justice.”  In an ironic note, Social Justice is a term openly used today by several dozen of Obama’s hand picked czars.  15 years ago, most Americans would have seen right through this.  President Reagan believed in achieving peace through strength.  He built up our military’s capability and developed new defensive weapons designed to convince would be attackers that it would be pointless to show any aggression towards us or our interests.  President Obama is gutting the military, during a time of war, and when our enemies are actually engaged in both sabre rattling and actual attacks against us and our interests.  His belief is that our military’s strength is immoral and unjust.  The only similarity between the two that I am able to find, is that they are both male, and both ran to become President of the United States.  Other than that, Time’s fauxtograph should have been Carter’s arm around Obama’s shoulders.  At least that would have been honest, and possible to get without faking, as Obama is still alive.

Crossposted at Musings of a Mad Conservative.

Happy 100th Birthday President Reagan!

by Bob in Breckenridge ( 80 Comments › )
Filed under Cold War, History, Patriotism, Politics, Republican Party at February 6th, 2011 - 4:30 pm

As most of you know, today is President Reagan’s 100th birthday. He is, in my opinion, the third greatest President ever. Only Presidents Washington and Lincoln, for obvious reasons, are above him. FDR? No way! Yeah he was good during World War Two, but his handling of the economy during the depression of the 1930’s was atrocious.

Yet the libs who regal him seem to think his leadership was magnificent. What a crock of crap! The fact of the matter is FDR’s “New Deal” economic policies not only did not help the economy recover, they made the depression last longer by years, as many honest economists have written.

It was WW2 starting in 1939 when Hitler and Nazi Germany invaded Poland that finally ended the depression, by all the jobs that were needed for wartime production, even before we entered the war, and building up the military. At the time Pearl Harbor was attacked, the U.S. unemployment rate was still around 10%.

If ever there was a time that not only the U.S., but the world, needed a great man and leader like President Reagan in the White House, it’s now. Instead, we’re stuck with an incompetent socialist boob with an incompetent administration masquerading as a President for two more years.

Happy Birthday, Mr. President!

Here’s President Reagan’s brilliant speech commemorating the 40th anniversary of D-Day on 6 June 1984…

And his address to the American people on the Challenger disaster on 28 January 1986…

And here is a six part video called “Remembering Ronald Reagan, A Tribute”