Obama Vs. Reagan - Who's More Conservative?

[Big Orange]

Probably posted elsewhere in this forum before or at least known about, but here's how Reagan measures up to Obama by the Young Turks:



I doubt Reagan's amnesty to Latin immigrants was done on purely humanitarian grounds.

[Big Orange]

Double Post.

[Dalton]

Note on this...it's not The Young Turks, just The Dylan Ratigan Show guest-hosted by Cenk Uygur.

[Thanas]

Well, let's see the Obama apologists explain it.

"He promised change and then came out with policies more conservative than Ronald Reagan". A bit unfair, but on the specific issues mentioned here he is right.

[Mr Bean]

Well, let's see the Obama apologists explain it.

"He promised change and then came out with policies more conservative than Ronald Reagan". A bit unfair, but on the specific issues mentioned here he is right.

The problem (And Cenk will point out on his show every other day) is the simple fact that the right wing of the Republican party brings the Republican party further right with every election win or lose since Clinton first won.

Do they win? We won because we stayed true to our conservative values!
Do they lose? We lost because we did not stay true to our conservative values!

Reagen would be considered a liberal democrat by todays standards because the other half of the equation is... every time the Republicans go right the Democrats meet them half way.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Reagen would be considered a liberal democrat by todays standards because the other half of the equation is... every time the Republicans go right the Democrats meet them half way.

I wouldn't go that far, but Reagan would certainly be a centrist by todays standards. It's still a pretty big shift in the political spectrum, considering he was right in the middle if not somewhat to the right of the republican spectrum when he was first elected president.

[Mr Bean]

Reagen would be considered a liberal democrat by todays standards because the other half of the equation is... every time the Republicans go right the Democrats meet them half way.

I wouldn't go that far, but Reagan would certainly be a centrist by todays standards. It's still a pretty big shift in the political spectrum, considering he was right in the middle if not somewhat to the right of the republican spectrum when he was first elected president.

He actually raised taxes, that makes him a liberal democrat. Not even moderate democrats (Re:Obama) are willing to raise taxes anymore because they've met the Republicans half way so many times the only people they are willing to raise taxes on are the rich and to levels less than Reagan raised them on everyone.

[Marcus Aurelius]

He actually raised taxes, that makes him a liberal democrat. Not even moderate democrats (Re:Obama) are willing to raise taxes anymore because they've met the Republicans half way so many times the only people they are willing to raise taxes on are the rich and to levels less than Reagan raised them on everyone.

You can't determine someone's political orientation based on a single issue alone, even if it's as central as taxation. Furthermore, you also have to consider the context: Reagan could raise taxes because he wanted to make America strong against what was perceived to be an existential threat; the USSR and communism. The international terrorism or the "Axis of Evil" clearly do not present a similar level of threat, so the republicans and most centrist moving voters are not willing to accept raising taxes even for military purposes. During Reagan's time they already did not support raising them for better social security, education or any other such issue. Obama wants to hold the trust of the centrists that abandoned republicans after the mistakes of the Bush administration and because of that he can't raise taxes. Without their support he can't be re-elected.

[Big Orange]

Obama is a disappointment that has shown a remarkable lack of balls in face of the opposition, but at the same time Obama would've probably been judged less harshly if he came after Clinton or Gore, and he's just another symptom of Washington DC's problems. I glad I don't have to vote in America and Obama is still preferable to those Tea(nut!)baggers; the US voters will perhaps get a Hobson's Choice.

[General Zod]

Obama is a disappointment that has shown a remarkable lack of balls in face of the opposition, but at the same time Obama would've probably been judged less harshly if he came after Clinton or Gore, and he's just another symptom of Washington DC's problems. I glad I don't have to vote in America and Obama is still preferable to those Tea(nut!)baggers; the US voters will perhaps get a Hobson's Choice.

What do you mean "after Clinton or Gore"? Gore was only ever Vice President.

[Marcus Aurelius]

What do you mean "after Clinton or Gore"? Gore was only ever Vice President.

He obviously meant that if Gore had been elected in 2000 instead of Dubya and managed to stay in power for two terms like he did.

[General Zod]

What do you mean "after Clinton or Gore"? Gore was only ever Vice President.

He obviously meant that if Gore had been elected in 2000 instead of Dubya and managed to stay in power for two terms like he did.

Even if that really was what he meant it still doesn't make any sense considering how harshly Clinton was treated.

[Thanas]

Why is this in testing?

[Patrick Degan]

Reagan could raise taxes because he wanted to make America strong against what was perceived to be an existential threat; the USSR and communism. The international terrorism or the "Axis of Evil" clearly do not present a similar level of threat, so the republicans and most centrist moving voters are not willing to accept raising taxes even for military purposes. During Reagan's time they already did not support raising them for better social security, education or any other such issue. Obama wants to hold the trust of the centrists that abandoned republicans after the mistakes of the Bush administration and because of that he can't raise taxes. Without their support he can't be re-elected.

No, Reagan raised taxes because Kemp/Roth blew a hole right through the federal budget and the red ink started flowing in like a floodtide. Basically, he had to plug the dike. Additionally, Reagan signed off on a plan to stabilise the financing of Social Security. The thing to note here is that when reality intruded upon the dearest fantasies of this president who was perhaps starting to go half-senile around 1984, he actually chose fiscal responsibility of sorts. By contrast, Dubya would have eagerly stayed the course and did do through seven disastrous years of fiscal irresponsibility which was capped by financing two wars wholly on credit. By contrast to that maladministration and today's Republinut Tea Party, that does indeed make Reagan a liberal democrat on the scale.

Obama could have gotten the centrists in line by tying the fortunes of the whole Democratic Party, including themselves, to whether his presidency stood or fell, but it would have taken an LBJ to force that sort of logic upon them and Obama is no LBJ. Instead, he's been playing to not lose instead of to win and that's why his whole agenda is now on the rocks.

[Gandalf]

I just watched the video. Can't MSNBC find a better set of talking heads to bicker? The conservative guy fell into his regular talking points really quickly. It was as though something snapped in his head and he just had to exclaim that "Reagan won the cold war!". Though the liberal guy was notably better than other TV liberals.

However, what struck me the most wasn't the slogan spewing, but rather the irritating sound effects whenever some of the graphics on the screen changed. Why do news shows do that? However, I liked the host.

[SirNitram]

Reagan raised taxes to stop the red ink, worked to stop nuclear weapons, tried enemy combatants in courts of law, and granted amnesty to three million people in the country, allowing them to work for a decent wage.

So basically, he was a flaming liberal.

[mr friendly guy]

What is with conservatives going on to talking points? The guy didn't ask you about smaller government, but you had to try and somehow fit it into the question. Are these guys just stupid, or do they know that it works on stupid voters?

[Koolaidkirby]

What is with conservatives going on to talking points? The guy didn't ask you about smaller government, but you had to try and somehow fit it into the question. Are these guys just stupid, or do they know that it works on stupid voters?

its because they know it works on stupid voters, and they know most of their "ideas" fall apart under frank discussion.

[Thanas]

What is with conservatives going on to talking points? The guy didn't ask you about smaller government, but you had to try and somehow fit it into the question. Are these guys just stupid, or do they know that it works on stupid voters?

its because they know it works on stupid voters, and they know most of their "ideas" fall apart under frank discussion.

You should have seen what happened when some of these clowns tried to defend their viewpoints on European television. It was a one-sided slaughter.

[Niz1]

Id be interested in seeing that Thanas if you could post some examples.

[mr friendly guy]

What is with conservatives going on to talking points? The guy didn't ask you about smaller government, but you had to try and somehow fit it into the question. Are these guys just stupid, or do they know that it works on stupid voters?

its because they know it works on stupid voters, and they know most of their "ideas" fall apart under frank discussion.

You should have seen what happened when some of these clowns tried to defend their viewpoints on European television. It was a one-sided slaughter.

Can you post some links. I would like to see some journalists that can ask the hard questions and don't let them evade the question. I don't see that a lot on Australian television and the only American journalist (limited exposure to be sure) that use such tactics which I am aware of is Keith Olberman and Murphy Brown. And one of them is a fictional character.

[Dalton]

However, what struck me the most wasn't the slogan spewing, but rather the irritating sound effects whenever some of the graphics on the screen changed. Why do news shows do that? However, I liked the host.

Side note: I test them every day to make sure that they make that very sound.

[Ritterin Sophia]

However, what struck me the most wasn't the slogan spewing, but rather the irritating sound effects whenever some of the graphics on the screen changed. Why do news shows do that? However, I liked the host.

Side note: I test them every day to make sure that they make that very sound.

Dalton is officially the biggest troll SDN has ever seen, he should be banned.

[Thanas]

Id be interested in seeing that Thanas if you could post some examples.

John Bolton, Iraq war cheerleader and Anti-UN point man gets taken apart.

See? That is how you confront people with what actually happened. Not this "give everybody enough time to spout their party line" BS.

Ann coulter.

Paxman is the only one I could find videos off on Youtube, but he is far from being the only hard-hitting one.

[TC Pilot]

A lot of the video in the first post is either misleading or frivolous. So Reagan met with Gorbachev "without preconditions"? Somehow, talking with the head of state of a country you've been doing that sort of thing with for a half century doesn't strike me as quite so remarkable. I seriously doubt Reagan could/would have done that with any of the countries blacklisted these days by American political "culture." The comparison between Iraq and Lebanon is also flimsy. Obama inherited a half-decade long occupation force of hundreds of thousands, Reagan "inherited" a peace-keeping force of 1800 that'd been on the ground for half a year. The "Who was the first to invite a gay couple" also struck me as really stupid. Alright, so Obama wasn't the first because Reagan was... therefore Reagan's more liberal?

Edit - as for the immigrant amnesty? I figure it was just a salve on his conscience for all the Central Americans who were being murdered/tortured/terrorized by American-backed dictators and terrorists.

The rest seemed to degenerate into the typical vapid bickering. I gave up when the bald guy threw up the idiotic "Reagan won the Cold War" line. Probably a more interesting and valid comparison would be Obama and Nixon, though it wouldn't have nearly the same punch as Saint Reagan. It did, however, nicely showcase a great deal of Reagan's hypocrisy, but your mileage will vary depending on to what extent you believe he was even privy to the happenings of his own administration.