Barack Obama is the new Ronald Reagan

Ronald Reagan was always a popular president. When he took office in 1981, he promised change — an historic shift away from the policies that had left America subject to the upheaval of the 60s and 70s. More importantly, his charismatic personality naturally endeared him to Americans. He looked great on camera. His speeches were touching sermons on God, nationalism, and America’s “destiny.” He was often referred to as the “Teflon” president due to his ability to seemingly deflect any blame or bad press by sunny disposition alone.

Of course, while Reagan was blitzing the American people with PR stunts, his administration was rolling out some of the most devastating legislation of the era — from the counterproductive escalation of the War on Drugs to the trickle down economic policies that continue to hollow out the American middle class. Yet for whatever reason, this never really seemed to matter. His persona had already wedged him firmly into the hearts of conservatives forever.

Today, Reagan has become more legend than man in conservative circles. He is credited with the economic booms of the ’90s, absolved of his negotiations with terrorists and generally held up as an icon of all things good on the Right. Asked which living president is their favorite, current Republican candidates struggle not to say Reagan, who has been dead for eleven years. If Reagan and Jesus ran in a Republican primary, they’d both lose to Ted Cruz, who would be considered the most Reaganesque.

Ronald Reagan, via Wikimedia Commons

Ronald Reagan, via Wikimedia Commons

There are a number of striking, worrisome parallels between Reagan and our current president, Barack Obama. If Obama has — in theory — been on the opposite ideological side of the fence of his predecessor, his model of political leadership seems quite similar. That is, he’s quite good at the press-kits and the rhetoric; he’s maybe not so great at actually fulfilling the ideals he so often preaches. When first elected, Obama (like Reagan) proffered the carrot of radical change — promising to end the belligerent warmongering and corruption of the Bush administration, and to transform American society for the better. These promises, of course, were never fulfilled.  

Yet progressives and liberals love him just the same. And much of that adoration comes, I suspect, from his skillful manipulation of the media, and his practiced public relations campaigns. Indeed, it makes me a little sad to see how many millennials seem to blindly champion the president because they saw him on Between Two Ferns, or because he did that cute “Thanks, Obama” video on Buzzfeed, or because he merely mentioned that he “supports gay marriage.” In the business, they call that propaganda — a means of engendering your goodwill without actually doing the work. And our president is quite good at it. So good, in fact, that in 2008 he even won the Marketer of the Year award from PR industry giant Advertising Age, beating out Apple.

Yet if we look past the president’s speeches and printed opinions, Obama’s actions rarely match his rhetoric — and they certainly don’t conform to any rubric of progressivism. Let’s take his human-rights policies, for example. On Human Rights Day, Obama made a statement about how America “was founded on the idea that all people are endowed with inalienable rights, and that principle has allowed us to work to perfect our union at home while standing as a beacon of hope to the world.” Yet contrary to this idea, many of Obama’s foreign policy decisions have exacerbated human rights atrocities, not curbed them. As of 2014, his ever-expanding drone program is responsible for the deaths of somewhere between “168 to 200” children, to say nothing of the hundreds of other civilians killed during the current presidency. Similarly, Obama’s unyielding support for Israel has allowed for untold atrocities in Gaza to go unpunished. He’s been credited with exacerbating tensions with Russia and pushing us into a new Cold War. Other critics claim Obama’s foreign policy helped aid the rise of ISIS in Syria. Somewhere deep down, the President must find it deeply ironic that he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize before taking office, only to become the hawkish pioneer in a new brand of warfare where the line between the bad guys and civilians is vague and the attacks are indiscriminate.

Similarly, Obama has often paid lip-service to the needs of the middle-class while twisting the knife in their backs at every turn. The 2008 bank bailout, which he endorsed, has made the very criminal organizations that crashed the national economy more powerful than ever before. What little of the subsequent Dodd-Frank reform bill that has been implemented has proven ineffective. In 2010, he personally extended the Bush tax-cuts, which awarded “a quarter of the tax savings…to the wealthiest one percent of the population” while “the only group that..[saw] its taxes increase are the nation’s lowest-paid workers” (at the time, Obama said the tax cuts were “a substantial victory for middle-class families across the country”). In 2012, he shoved through his JOBs bill — which criminologist and former fraud prevention expert William K. Black said was essentially ghost written by Wall Street as a means of weakening market regulations. And now Obama’s secrecy-shrouded Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement has many progressive activists saying that the deal will kill jobs in America while empowering a small plutocratic elite, whose sovereignty will be protected from U.S. law by secretive international tribunals.

Of course, it hasn’t been all bad with Barack (the Affordable Care Act, as flawed, and as poorly rolled out as it was, is sure to be a significant help for millions of Americans); but it wasn’t all bad with Reagan either. Just mostly bad.

It is important to acknowledge that Obama–like Reagan–has often earned the adoration of the public while playing to the interests of the private elite. This criticism isn’t about simply being anti-Obama; it’s about having clarity on what we really want from the leader of the free world. It’s about understanding that when we vote with our feelings instead of our critical faculties, we surely leave ourselves open to manipulation. We voted for Obama because he was a symbol of change — not because he had a long track record of actually achieving it.

Now we have another presidential election on our hands and, yet again, another symbol of change. Hillary Clinton could very well be the first woman president. Historic, yes. Yet once we get beyond this awe-evincing fact, we’ll be faced with the reality that she’s just another politician tasked with leading our country. The president we need right now is going to be supportive of the 99% in this time of economic inequality at home and wayward foreign policy abroad. It’s not very hard to see that Hillary isn’t that leader. She may tell us what we want to hear; she may be a historic president, even. But any minor perusal of OpenSecrets will show you who her real friends are when the cameras are off and the reporters have all gone home.

I’ll give you a hint: it isn’t us.


Lucas Ropek is a journalist based in Massachusetts. He worked for the Working Families Party in NYC on issues of income inequality and worker rights. His interests include U.S. foreign policy, pop-culture, and freedom fries.

Share This Post

  • DesertMac

    I’ll tell you to go fuck yourself, David, how about that for NOT being snarky as most of us gay men you’ve come to meet over the years have been? No snark there, just a plain old up front suggestion as to what you should do with your attitude and bigotry.

    And no, Hell no, we DO NOT feel “appreciateive” of the second worst president in our history, a man who couldn’t even bring himself to say AIDS aloud until 1988. I have nothing but vitriol and invective to offer to asshole idiots like you who revere this sorry human being and insist on sainthood for the doddering old fool. I don’t need snark to reply to idiots like you.
    Be more appreciative? What I would appreciate most is people like you opening your eyes and actually looking at the record, at the history of Raygun and his pet organ grinder monkey wife. What I would be more appreciative of is conservative trolls like you staying in Faux News land and leaving us the hell alone. Bitch.

  • PostAmerican

    Do you understand the difference between the debt and the deficit? In 2010 the deficit was 10% of GDP, today its around 2%. The debt has grown, but it will never go down unless Republicans and Democrats tackle entitlements. Obama made Bin Laden his #1 Priority, he’s the commander in chief, he gave a risky order, and it paid off. Its better than attacking the wrong country, TWICE! I didn’t serve because of DADT. What did you fight for in Iraq? WMD? 911? Freedom? Democracy? The Islamic State? Go read a book.

  • David Mangold

    I hope your comment about not being snarky was mean’t to be interpreted sarcastically. You’re about as snarky as they come. As are most gay men I’ve come to meet through the years.

    As FSDA has shown below, you should be more appreciateive when it comes to Reagan and his efforts to combat a deadly virus that, for the most part, only affected a population of people whose sexuality was one with which he most likely did not approve.

  • Three Palms II

    That’d be good. We don’t need conservative revisionism.

  • David Mangold

    Only because progressives will be writing the history books.

  • David Mangold

    Slashed the deficit? It’s increased by a “few” trillion dollars.
    Killed Bin Laden? No, the seals did. But he made the call? Sure. But who wouldn’t?
    Saved GM? Bush got that ball rolling and then Barak jumped in for the alley-oop.
    Ended the “FUBAR disaster” in Iraq? Did you serve? For some reason I doubt it. If you did, I sense that you’re some kind of jaded blue falcon fobbit, sick call ranger, who never could quite hack it.. Do you know where our troops are going right now? Back to Iraq.
    You should probably stop watching so much Comedy Central.

  • DesertMac

    Hardcore liberals like me, if we’re honest with ourselves, have had to acknowledge and accept that Obama IS a corporate whore who has steadfastly coddled and protected Wall
    Street Thugs and done a whole lot toward eviscerating the 99%. Not ONE banker has gone to prison for their egregious crimes. Obama has embraced and expanded Bush’s NSA and others’ spying on all of us, and he’s prosecuted and suppressed more whistleblowers than anyone else. The TPP is Obama’s love child that will destroy what’s left of America, and he’s still insisting that pot be a Schedule One drug, condemning thousands more to ill health and even more to prison.
    JUST because he “evolved” on gay marriage and is trying to effect some good climate change measures does not mean he deserves the unblinking adoration that many progressives lavish on him. I too was smitten by him at first, but I had a huge red flag when he– as a senator running for prez– voted for the Patriot Act, saying with a wink that he would change it when he got elected. Yeah, right. He sure followed through on that one, didn’t he? Why, he assured us that the NSA was NOT collecting data on all of us….. but of course that turned out to be a big fucking lie.
    On the campaign trail, he said he would put on his walking shoes and stand on the front lines of any movement to save unions and fight union busting. But when Walker attacked the unions in Wisconsin, Obama uttered not a word of even support, let alone solidarity. He is not an honorable man. I say that for many reasons.
    On the other hand, I am constantly defending him from rightwingnuts— who all complain about the wrong things– and I really do cringe at defending him when I am so disgusted with him on so many fronts. But in a progressive setting like this I can be honest about how I feel about him.
    I love how he has embraced gay marriage and other civil rights issues. There are certainly good and great things he has done, but it’s these more complicated, non-transparent issues like the big bankers and their criminality, and TPP…… these things are what are hastening our path to destruction of democracy. He is being a major player in the death of our nation—- a death spiral that Reagan set in motion—- and no one seems to recognize that or talk about it. The author is pretty much right that there are some parallels.

  • DesertMac

    Oh puleeeze! Take your partisan blinders off and actually look at Raygun’s record. He was pathetic and a doddering fool.

  • Jackanapes11

    I think you’re missing the point. The article is not saying that Barack Obama QUITE LITERALLY is Ronald Reagan. It is saying his style of political leadership–the way he appeals to the public, while serving elites–is akin to Ronald Reagan.

  • Mike_in_the_Tundra

    Believe me, I see nothing wrong with being gay. Being gay has made me quite happy.

    Reagan never budgeted as much money as the City of San Francisco did in combating AIDS. That’s pathetic and deserved to be protested. I did try to look at your link, but I refuse to join just to read it. You can read my link without joining anything. Did you read it?

    Please cut out the “Cheers!” It sounds like you’re trying to be nice.

  • FSDA

    Mikey –

    Something wrong with being gay? I thought not. But no surprise that you wasted much of your time with Act Up.

    No surprise either that you might miss the point regarding JC.

    As to Reagan’s record, you seem unimpressed and disinterested with anything factual, but

    http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/1ba50dbc-ecda-11e3-a57e-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3fDXPTL3B

    As for shade throwing, you seem to be the champ.

    Cheers!

  • Lee Larsen

    Barack Obama is Barack Obama, a personality and history unique to Barack Obama. I think the author has taken one too many hits off the pipe to see any correlation between Obama and Reagan.

  • Mike_in_the_Tundra

    Is the Kool-Aid to your taste? So their’s no doubt, I’m quite gay. You seem to have an interesting set of facts. If you are correct about Reagan’s contributions to the AIDS battle, I, along with countless others, wasted a lot of time protesting with Act Up.

    First, how was Jimmy Carter suppose to do anything about it unless he had a really great crystal ball?

    Second, yes the disease is avoidable, but we didn’t know that at first. It took awhile to determine that it could be passed on in certain bodily fluids. By that time, many were infected. Most men my age learned to avoid the disease, but the only way to be entirely sure is celibacy. Even Catholic priests can’t handle that.

    Third, we don’t need your timeline. You’re preaching to the choir.

    I am including a link about how much Reagan did to combat AIDS: http://sfaf.org/hiv-info/hot-topics/from-the-experts/2011-02-reagans-legacy.html?referrer=https://www.google.com/ I hope you take time to read it.

    I have tried to not be as snarky as you. You’re an accomplished shade thrower.

  • K P S SURESH

    SORRY, The author got it terribly wrong. He doesn’t know who is/was Reagan….nor does he knows who this Obama is…Never ever compare Reagan to anyone else. He is an undisputed leader.

  • FSDA

    Mike –
    Yours is an idiotic post, even if you’re gay.
    An entire generation of gay men was nearly lost to initially untreatable, but avoidable viral disease. And you blame Reagan? Why not Jimmy Carter?
    But as president, Reagan more than fulfilled his responsibilities, funding research that identified the pathogen by 1983 and increasing related HIV/AIDS spending from $8 million in 1982 to $2.3 billion in his 1989 budget. I’ll let you do the percentage change math, if you can.
    By 1985, the first HIV blood test was approved by the FDA. In 1987, AZT became the first approved treatment for the disease.
    The better analysis is that Reagan saved gays from themselves.
    Cheers!

  • Jim Kucera

    You can’t be serious. Barack Obama is nowhere near the status of Ronald Reagan. Barack Obama will go down in history as the worst president of all-time.

  • Mike_in_the_Tundra

    Don’t expect a lot of support from commenters on this blog. There are a lot of gay men and their allies posting here. Reagan was one of the main reasons we almost lost an entire generation of gay men.

  • Indigo

    Clearly, the swirl of controversy around Ronald Regan hasn’t faded away in the least. I felt oppressed by him then and appalled that anyone has a favorable comment about him now, but there it is. The fact is, there are people who remain convinced that he was an effective president, just as there are those who remain convinced that Obama has been an effective president. As far as I can see, Ronald Reagan was just a B movie actor who was positioned in the White House by those Powers that scripted his comments. He was an effective actor but never a presiding force. Obama, much to my surprise, embraced that same role, a tool of the Powers (Wall Street) who has unswervingly served their purposes, advanced the Corporate Party to new heights, handed American health care to a cartel of opportunistic insurance monopolies, and reduced the American military to a mercenary army scattered around the Middle East, holding onto oil fields the future does not need, once alternatives are fully developed. One man’s black, the other’s white. There’s not a whole lot of difference if that’s all they got.

  • FSDA

    Ronald Reagan was a superb president, one who left a lasting positive legacy at home and abroad, which also explains his lasting popularity.

    The shame is that he was followed by such ciphers as 41, 42, 43, and 44, failed presidents all.

  • goulo

    Is writing “//” instead of “N” in your racist blather supposed to be clever?

  • goldenrog

    You had me interested until you started talking about Israeli “atrocities” Go and move to the Middle East. You’ll have to become a Muzzie or you’ll lose your head

  • Lionel Hardy

    He lied and he continues to lie b/c that is the //igger way – lie, lie and deny. The POS was raised to hate white people and America.

  • Lionel Hardy

    Pour some Kool-aid on your daily dose of cumjuice, Rosie Palms. You have bought the liberal talking points hook, line and sphincter. Go home and beat your wife/gf like a good //igger-loving atheist POS.

  • Lionel Hardy

    Just like your mother did earning a living?

  • Lionel Hardy

    //iggers taste good hung and fried.

  • Butch1

    Saved Capitalism by jamming through a TPP deal? (please spare me.)
    Killed Bin Laden? (That’s questionable . . . there are different stories on this )
    If you haven’t looked, we are STILL IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN!!!!!!! and we may have “boots on the ground” there and at the border of Ukraine . We have military in Somalia and at least three other places that are classified.
    We have NOT banned TORTURE – Jeremy Skahill proved that it was still going on at a Black site at the air port where a CIA site was found where prisoners were still being taken to be “interrogated” (e.g. tortured) Obama lied to us. When asked about it, he actually reddened then stuttered and didn’t have an answer for the question.

    You do NOT know the answer about GITMO because there are no plans to give it back at the present time. ( don’t make things up for him ) He’s raising taxes on US and not the rich! He wants to cut social security and veteran’s benefits to find extra money. He will NOT touch any tax money from the rich!

    Why do you think I get on his case so much. Bernie Sanders isn’t afraid to attack the rich. Clinton is. That’s because she’s been in bed with Wall Street for so long.
    We live in a Democratic-Republic. You could also stand to close your own pie hole just long enough to know that it can be said another way as well. You apologists are unbelievable.

  • Butch1

    In the dictionary he will be described as “A man of words.” ;-)

  • Butch1

    Really?

  • Butch1

    I could believe that; he was a good flim-flam artist and fooled many people including myself the first time around. Perhaps it was ten years of listening and watching Bush and then seeing an articulate man speak for the first time telling us believable lies that did me in. I didn’t fall for it the second time, though.

  • Reagan negotiated with Iran in 1980, before he was president and before he had any right to do so. Accordingly, he committed a treasonous act by interfering with ongoing negotiations by the legitimately elected U.S. government at the time — the Carter administration. The goal of his negotiations? To ensure the embassy hostages would remain imprisoned until he (Reagan) took office. Within hours of his taking the oath of office, the Iranians released the hostages. And it wasn’t because they were afraid of what Ronnie might do — it was precisely according to the terms of the deal he’d worked out with them.

    The quid pro quo was an additionally illegal deal to sell arms to the Iranians, in contravention with U.S. law. And then Reagan had that money directed to Nicaraguan rebels, also an illegal act.

    Reagan should have been impeached.

  • nicho

    Yes. Reagan was the last president. He destroyed our democracy. He turned it into a corporate dictatorship. A mentally ill useful idiot, Reagan effectively ended the US.

  • nicho

    Which are you?

  • George Splane

    As I recall Reagan was not at all popular by the last two years of his time in office. Numerous small scandals, Iran/Contra, the ongoing vapidity of his message finally wore thin.

  • 2karmanot

    Yep!

  • 2karmanot

    I think that “complex” is called sociopathology.

  • 2karmanot

    He will take his place with Wilson and Hoover as acceptably incompetent, but will stand with Daniel Webster as one of America’s greatest orators.

  • 2karmanot

    I’ve seen the First Lady wear muslin, but not Obama.You may be right about Ronnie, he was America’s poster boy for Al-anon.

  • 2karmanot

    My ears are ringing! RINGING I SAY!

  • Jackanapes11

    Good argument.

  • ssmithjr

    Are you high? Or are you retarded?

  • arcadesproject

    I caught on to the Reagan-ness of O long ago, even before O acknowledged that he is a Reagan Republican. Remember when he said, Funny how views change. 20 years ago I would have been called a Reagan Republican.

    That’s what he is. That meant crap policy then and it means crap policy now. (Also, identification with the over-class and a commitment to the upward redistribution of wealth.)

  • I couldn’t agree more with everything you said here, Butch. Well put.

  • Bill_Perdue

    Do stop shouting and admit that Obama’s border policy of mass deportations ( with the lives of over 2 million workers and their families torn apart) is racist at it’s core.

  • Bill_Perdue

    Wrong. He puts the rich first. He’s a political prostitute like all Democrat and Republicans politicians and judges. .

  • Bill_Perdue

    I’m certainly no liberal but you raise good points. My only disagreement is that he didn’t really sell us out. He was never on our side. He was hired to be a right wing scab, warmonger and bigot by the rich and he’s very good at that in spite of his numerous attempts to rebrand.

  • Bill_Perdue

    All Democrat politicians are as huge a disappointment as their Republican brother and sisters are predictable.

  • PostAmerican

    Actually Young Republicans and Christian Millennial Evangelicals overwhelming support marriage equality, immigration reform, along with the fight against climate change. They’re more pragmatic than their elders.

  • Three Palms II

    In the future, kids that study history will wonder what was wrong with Republicans. Republicans don’t care about their legacy; they are proud to be minority haters, women haters, gay haters as they shove their weird brand of Christianity down our throats.

  • Three Palms II

    “You LIE” Ooops, that’s from a Republican congressman. No wonder Republicans get a 3% approval from blacks.

  • Three Palms II

    Reagan could never win with Republicans today. Republicans are too hateful, too disrespectful, too Christian for Reagan to stand a chance. Frankly, he was too liberal for Republicans of today. Republicans that revere Reagan as some sort of God are as phony as they come.

  • Three Palms II

    Must have tasted good. Republicans love puke.

  • Earthman

    One name need to be mentioned. Oliver North.

  • PostAmerican

    Sanders isn’t actually going to win anything, but go ahead and throw your vote away. Obama saved Capitalism, killed Bin Laden, Saved GM, ended the FUBAR disaster in Iraq. He banned Torture. He will give GITMO back to Cuba in the next 12 months, he slashed the deficit, by raising some taxes and cutting some spending, he’s fought for the middle class, he has brought the uninsured rate down to 10%, what is wrong with all you nattering nabobs of negativity. What more do you want? Political Purity, the world is more complex than that. We don’t live in a Democracy, but in a Republic.

  • mgcic

    ARE YOU RETARDED? OBAMA IS REAGAN? REALLY? THIS IS WORSE THAN BLAMING CONGRESS ON IMMIGRATION. W.H. SAYS OBAMA HAS DONE EVERTHING HE COULD

  • Willie Wonka

    Reagan loved the United States. Obama is an evil Muslim liar who is trying to destroy it….between golf games. Fluck Obama.

  • Butch1

    Balderdash! If that is what his purpose is to do in government, he should be impeached. He was voted into office to do what he promised to do. Now, I realize the reality of the situation with a Republican government that wants to use gridlock as their method of governing, but we had a chance to do something in the very beginning and through feckless governing by Pelosi and Reid, all we got was saber rattling and Kabuki Theatre when they were in POWER! They lost it and then they whined the rest of the time about what they would do “IF” they were in power. Nonsense! They had it and they proved they wouldn’t do anything. They have proven that they are no better than the republicans when it comes to being connected to Wall Street.

    No one listens to their constituency anymore, save when it comes time for re-election. THEN the lies come out and they listen once again and tell us all how much they are going to do what WE want them to do. Even tax the rich!

    We’ve heard all of this many times in the past and how many more times are we going to fall for it? They are never going to fix this government. They work perfectly with the republicans and they do not want to change this. Wall Street continues to help them get re-elected by supporting their campaigns. It has been out of our hands for years. This is why we need to stop this and soon. Continuing to vote for the same old people and the same old parties isn’t going to fix the same old problems. This is insanity.

    If you want change you have to do something different for a change. If Sanders actually wins this, (probably a long shot because the fix is in for Clinton and so is the money by Wall Street), but let’s say he get’s the nomination, I will back him. If not, I’m going third party again. We need to get rid of this Wall Street fascist connection to our government; it’s killing our Democracy.

  • Indigo

    Swallow.

  • Indigo

    The Secret President (cf. Adult Swim, The Venture Brothers) and Wall Street used their very impressive powers of persuasion to help him get on board with their agenda.

  • Indigo

    Exactly. That one was white, this one is black. Otherwise, no major differences.

  • Indigo

    Really?

  • Indigo

    I don’t see it quite that way. Obama’s administration is in many ways a major turning point, possibly the last administration of the 20th century (which is taking strangely long to get off the stage) but Hoover-Bush was the preceding administration, this is Reaganesque, definitely, with a soupçon of Wilson for flavoring. In many ways a disappointment but in other ways, a Wall Street triumph over good intentions frittered away.

  • PostAmerican

    The fact that Obama has the loons on the far left and far right so hysterical, means that he is doing something right. History will judge him very kindly.

  • Butch1

    These Obama apologists are still apologizing for him even after his Drone assassination program and Indefinite Detention program after Occupy Wall Street happened. Spineless fools is what they have turned into.

  • Butch1

    How do you consider it my blame? I fell for his “flim-flammery” like many other liberals who believed in his “hopey-changey” BS. He is a pathological liar! He fooled many people, yet you blame us? Please spare me your BS! He ran as a moderate democrat, but he was nothing more than a moderate republican.

  • Lionel Hardy

    I just threw up in my mouth.

  • 2karmanot

    Barack O’Hoover will go down in history as two short hairs short of incompetent.

  • 2karmanot

    The Obot has spoken

  • 2karmanot

    BINGO!

  • Rhyna

    How on earth can you name America’s last president in the same line with Obama.

  • caseysmydog

    Oblameo wouldn’t make a pimple on Ron’s ass….

  • PostAmerican

    Obama campaigned and has governed as a centrist who puts country first. As an independent voter, this is a good thing. If you are disappointed you have no one to blame but yourself.

  • Butch1

    “Yet progressives and liberals love him just the same. ” Not so fast” ;-)

    This liberal doesn’t. I went from euphoric when he won in 2008 to “what in the world happened to the man that I voted for” the minute he stepped into the White House. There was a different man in there from the minute he took over. He continued Geo. Bushes’ programs and selected Republicans to his cabinet along with people from Wall Street to run his economic program. What was wrong with hiring Krugman, or Stieglitz, two Nobel Prize winners in economics that were on the left side of the aisle? No, he chose conservatives! What the hell was wrong with him, I thought? He immediately started lying to us as well about the Affordable Healthcare package he was working on with the Congress. We wanted Universal Healthcare in the package and he told us he was “trying very hard” to put it in the package whilst all along he was reassuring the Insurance moguls in the backroom that it would never be in the package at all! When we, on the left would get on his case, he started deriding us through the media and that was when I knew he was never “one of us.”

    This “liberal” has watched him sell us down the road for almost eight years and we have had to push him on many of the social issues as well to get him to move on them. If you recall, in the beginning, his administration was writing those amicus briefs to California AGAINST us on Prop 8. The material they were using was from thirty years ago. Some of the other cases in Boston were the same. We had to jump on them and embarrass them to get them to stop. Out of one side they were for gays and then in the courts they were against us. Then, he dragged his feet on DADT. He tried to sink it by adding two others to have to sign off on it to weaken his power as Commander in Chief even to the point of writing up a questionnaire for the “spouses” of military personnel to ask them what they thought of their spouses co-habituating with gays. They tried everything to ruin DADT, but it didn’t work.

    Then there was putting Social Security on the chopping block! and his infamous Chained-CPI.
    A euphemistic program, nothing more than robbing Senior citizens of their Social Security and Disabled Veteran’s of their benefits to bring down the national debt whilst not asking the rich for one dime.

    No, this liberal “does not love him just the same.” I voted for a third party candidate the last time he ran.

  • Hue-Man

    Missed: Failure to prosecute war criminals Cheney, Bush, et al.
    Failure to limit the Federal Spy State.

    No meaningful reduction in hugely wasteful War Department.

    Obama is criticized about his relationship with Congress. The U.S. system (versus parliamentary) bug/feature is that it encourages a Marketing President since it’s not his fault if legislation doesn’t pass, especially when the legislature’s aim is to make him a one-term president. The voting public seems to want more sizzle than steak – the “voters” who count – Koch et al – just want power.

  • Indigo

    The Regan/Obama meld was recognized early during O’s first term but the loyalist Demos hushed it up. Now’s a good time to recognize it but, frankly, it’s history book material at this point. The interesting history of this administration, indeed of this decade, won’t be written until well after mid-century and then . . . oh, myyy!

  • taxicolor

    How painful and how true this is. Obama was a huge disappointment. Clinton, if elected, won’t be a disappointment as she is already known from her past.

© 2017 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS