Obama: GOP The Party Of Ideas

What do you think Obama meant by this?

Not very Reaganesque to me. See, Reagan said HIS Party was the "party of ideas."

Oh btw, here is an extended clip of Obama on the fights of the 60s. I guess disrespecting Dr. King and other leaders of the "fights of the 60s" is ok if you are Obama:

< Open Thread | Chris "Tweety" Matthews Makes Amends >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Short Version Of Obama Strategy (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 05:16:10 PM EST
    Republicans did great things and had all the ideas and I'm not as bad as the other Democrats. So please vote for me.

    On the second clip, Barney Franks speaks for me

    More importantly, the only way I can think of to avoid "refighting the same fights we had in the 1990's", to quote Senator Obama, is to let our opponents win these fights without a struggle.

    The only difference I have with Rep. Franks comment is that some of the fights of the 60's are being refought today.

    Dumb (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by athyrio on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 05:19:20 PM EST
    Obama wouldnt be a serious candidate for president if it wasn't for the 60's... Maybe he forgot that...A lot of people went thru hell to bring it this far....

    no kidding (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Judith on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:08:43 PM EST
    he was alive in the 60s - how can he pretend he is untouched by it?

    Ideology Aside (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by BDB on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 05:37:39 PM EST
    I think what appalls me most is that he apparently learned his political history from media talking heads.  

    If he doesn't get the nomination, he'd make an excellent addition to This Week.

    Cound not (none / 0) (#7)
    by RalphB on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 05:52:06 PM EST
    have said it better.  Would make an excellent media tool.

    Two points, each with a rejoinder: (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by scribe on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 05:38:00 PM EST
    1.  What Obama says in the first clip - about the "party of ideas" - is that (a) the Repugs claimed that title for themselves, first, and (b) then had some success in actually being the driving force with their ideas, for a while.

    That the Repugs' ideas were crap, destructive for the country, and have revealed themselves as nonsense is, in this context, irrelevant.  What is relevant is that they took the initiative, held it, and used it to implement their program, mischegoss as it was.

    Now the rejoinder:
    Putting the Dems in that same position - of being the "party of ideas" - requires that you actually have some ideas, Senator.  "Kumbayah", "transcending differences", "Leadership" (without actually doing anything remotely resembling "leading" like, say supporting Dodd's next FISA filibuster), "Change" and "let's all get along" are slogans or methods, not ideas.  

    (Just as an example:) Rectifying the tax structure so as to facilitate rebuilding the country's infrastructure in a way which discourages further dependence upon fossil fuel is an "idea".

    Undoing the damage the Republicans did, just to take us back to where we were in 1999, on the other hand, is not so much an idea as it is maintenance on the constitutional structure.  Like repairing the roof on the house.

    2.  What Obama says in the second clip, about the fights still being over the topics of the 60s and 70s, is both true, and irrelevant.  It's also both inane and undercuts his own happy, peaceful sing-around-the-campfire message. The fights he talks about - culture wars, war and peace, aggregation of power v. dispersing it, etc. - are eternal.  The fundies, thugs and authoritarians will always find something new to fight about, or bring an old issue back from being settled to a new argument if they run short.

    And, as to this not being a "70s love-in", and saying that in a derogatory way.  Well, you got a couple things wrong there.
    A.  It's generally accepted the 60s ended in 1973, about the time oil went from $2 a barrel to, what. $5 or $10.  Love-ins were a 60s thing.
    B. We realize you were out of the country until the mid-70s, and might not have been there for them.  And, you were a little young for all that adult stuff, anyway.  We'll excuse your ignorance, there.
    C.  The world - and particularly this country - was a lot better place in the 70s.  And, that is not euphoric memory (i.e., where you forget the bad and remember only the good) speaking.  We didn't have a culture in which "Don't Tase Me Bro" became a T-shirt logo and a comedic punchline - it would have been truly shocking then.  We didn't have a new movie to come out this summer "Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo".  The criminal War on Drugs had not put a quarter or so of young black men into the criminal justice system.  Indeed, a lot of the cigarette companies were rumored, then, to be developing brands and taking out trademarks for the marijuana cigarettes they were going to sell once pot was legalized.  There were no urine tests to get a job stocking shelves at the supermarket.  And, every word you said or wrote and transaction you engaged in was not recorded and stored forever by your government - the very thought of that was anathema to Democrats, then.

    Frankly, I'd take 1973, Nixon and all the rest of what went on then, over today, any day.  

    You're to the right of Nixon, and you shouldn't be.

    If you want to be the "change" candidate, and the candidate of the "party of ideas", that is.

    Obama Is Seriously Mistaken (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by BDB on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 05:49:33 PM EST
    I've been thinking about this refighting the 60s or the 90s or whatever.  And aren't those battles the same battles liberals have always been fighting - for a more inclusive, more just, more fair society.  The fight for civil rights and gay rights and women's rights and a better environment and an end to poverty and all the other "culture wars" didn't start in the 1960s, they are struggles that have been going on in this country since its founding.  

    And Obama is not going to be able to end them.  All you have to do is listen to Huckabee, who has a considerable following, and know that Obama is not going to be able to bring the country together on many of these issues.  The best any next president can do is make progressive because these struggles don't belong to any generation, they belong to all generations.

    And as a member of Generation X I used to mock the 1960s and 70s, too, but then I graduated from high school.

    Oh, and not for nothing, but Barack Obama is a baby boomer.  I don't care how many times he denies it.  He's still talkin' 'bout his generation.


    he isnt a boomer (none / 0) (#9)
    by Judith on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:03:36 PM EST
    he is right after.  He is 46.

    Boomers (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by BDB on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:19:12 PM EST
    The baby boom generation are those born between 1946 and 1964.  Obama was born near the end of it.

    I read somewhere (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Judith on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 07:03:53 PM EST
    that it goes to 1960.  But I dont remember the source so you may well be right.

    Regardless of when he was born, (none / 0) (#27)
    by ding7777 on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 07:54:00 PM EST
    is Obama really a product of the USA boomer generation since he spent most of his childhood in Jakarta/Hawaii?

    (yes, I know Hawaii became a state in 1959, but did Hawaii experience the same cultural "boomer generation" as the continental USA?)


    Let me (none / 0) (#8)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 05:53:25 PM EST
    get this straight:
    the 70's were good because oil was cheap?  Of course China was at the end of 44-72 million being killed in the name of international socialism, they had no impact in regards to oil consumption.  India and the rest of the sub-continent was still using animals for transportation.  Think that had anything to do with it?

    I fiund his comments (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Judith on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:07:09 PM EST
    in the second clip obnoxious - particularly as related to Vietnam.    

    Bottom Line (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by athyrio on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:57:51 PM EST
    Is that I cannot vote for Obama as I have a serious illness and need health coverage badly...Only Edwards and Hillary offer TRUE universal health coverage...I don't mean to sound dramatic but the lives of many Americans might depend on getting this...

    GRRRRRRRR (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by athyrio on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 07:18:36 PM EST
    GRRRRRRRR just heard someone on MSNBC say that Reagan was ok to all Americans except the extreme left wing of the democratic party.....GEEEZZZZZZ

    Obama was just on? (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 07:25:15 PM EST
    heh (none / 0) (#25)
    by andgarden on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 07:29:08 PM EST
    No, Lawrence O'Donnell who used to know better (none / 0) (#29)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 08:02:32 PM EST
    It was snark (none / 0) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 08:19:49 PM EST
    and Lawrence O'Donnell HAS NEVER known better.

    Yer bad (none / 0) (#38)
    by Alien Abductee on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 11:26:46 PM EST
    Lawrence O'Donnell on Keith Olberman (none / 0) (#30)
    by LadyDiofCT on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 08:03:15 PM EST
    I think you are referring to the comment made by Lawrence O'Donnell on Keith Olberman.  I too was surprised by his comment that only the far left take issue with Obama's Reagan comments, and that this was probably set up for the 'Reagan loving' California electorate.  Even Keith passed on this.  Ronald Reagan brought morning in america to the weathly through tax cuts and poverty throught program cuts!  What is he talking about?  Shilling for Barack has become the favorite pasttime on MSNBC.

    Someone should ask Obama if the Philadelphia (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by MarkL on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 09:02:07 PM EST
    speech by Reagan exemplifies the hope and sunny optimism he admires in Reagan.

    come on btd (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by andreww on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 09:57:57 PM EST
    he didn't disrespect Dr. King one bit in this.  Don't put words in his mouth with your description of the video.

    Umm (none / 0) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 07:12:30 AM EST
    what were the "battles of the 60s" about?

    He switched into General Election mode (none / 0) (#3)
    by kindness on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 05:27:59 PM EST
    before the Primaries have spoken.

    Not a smart move Obama.

    It's been somewhat frenzied on other sites seeing Obama supporters go to town on anyone who remotely criticizes him.  Funny thing is they seem to always lead with accusing the others of being Hillery supporters or Republicans.

    We all get thin skinned at times.  I guess this is their time.  What gets me is that if Obama's camp thinks Republicans aren't going to slime and slander Whom ever wins the Democratic nomination, they are deluding themselves, no matter how much he loves Ronnie Raygun.

    Can post the whole video instead of snippets (none / 0) (#12)
    by jb1125 on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:08:48 PM EST
    so what he said about Reagan, the Gop...can be seen in context : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TfCOX22g2E

    Seeing (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Jgarza on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:16:38 PM EST
    the entire interview does put it in the a better context, but you are supposed to post links on this site like this.

    Does not change the context one bit (none / 0) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:53:28 PM EST
    another excerpt (none / 0) (#15)
    by mike in dc on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:32:36 PM EST
        We've had a federal government that has gotten worn down and ineffective during the course of the Bush Administration, partly because philosophically this administration did not necessarily believe in government as an agent of change.  But it precedes the Bush Administration.  I think that one of the missions I have as President is not to create a bigger government, but to restore some luster to the federal government and to recruit the best and the brightest and to say that service in the federal government is something that is critically important to the well-being of the American people...that is something I want to change...

        I want to make government "cool" again.


    somehow I just can't see a Republican saying that.

    I can (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:47:06 PM EST
    especially this part - "But it precedes the Bush Administration."

    WHAt precedes the Bush Administration?

    It get worse and worse frankly.


    I would say (none / 0) (#20)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 07:06:29 PM EST
    the government that governs least governs best.

    ahem (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by andgarden on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 08:22:43 PM EST
    and by these standards we have set up a fabulous government in Iraq

    Ron Paul supporter? (none / 0) (#26)
    by RalphB on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 07:52:03 PM EST
    Not at (none / 0) (#40)
    by Wile ECoyote on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 06:32:34 AM EST

    Don't you really mean the government that ignores (none / 0) (#28)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 07:55:14 PM EST
    the plight of its citizens governs best?

    The gov't (none / 0) (#41)
    by Wile ECoyote on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 06:33:45 AM EST
    that makes all decisions for its citizens, No more personal responsibility is obviously best.  

    Long-Term Health Care (none / 0) (#21)
    by Mary Joan on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 07:14:36 PM EST
    No one is offering true universal health coverage because no one is seriously tackling the abyss that is long-term care. The kind of care most elders suffering from chronic diseases like Alzheimer's, Parkinson's etc. need is  custodial care which is not covered by private insurance or Medicare. Nursing homes in the New York City area cost over $100,000 a year; home health agencies charge up to $20 an hour, don't pay their aides half of that. Medicaid kicks in as the last resort when people have used up all their resources. But obviously Medicaid isn't going to be able to pick up the tab for baby boomers. Long-term health insurance can be a scam; often there are no many exceptions and qualifications that people don't get the care they require unless they hire a geriatric case manager to advocate for them.  Both Medicaid and long-term health insurance don't emphasize home care enough.

    Just a talking head on MSNBC (none / 0) (#24)
    by athyrio on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 07:29:01 PM EST
    talking about reagan comment yesterday....I think my old democratic party has been hijacked by the kumbaya bunch.....:(

    Maybe Obama Is Reagan (none / 0) (#34)
    by BDB on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 09:46:05 PM EST
    I was listening to an interview he did on NPR on my way home from work.  They asked him how his stimulus package differed from Hillary Clinton's and he said that his relied mostly on "tax cuts" and hers on putting the money into "government programs."  He thinks it's best to goose the economy through tax cuts because the money gets into consumers' hands quicker.  Maybe he's right, but I think part of our problem is relying too much on goosing consumer spending through tax cuts.  However, I'm not an economist.

    Tax cuts is the normal way to fight a (none / 0) (#39)
    by DA in LA on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 01:14:15 AM EST
    recession, whether liberal or conservative.

    Keep (none / 0) (#37)
    by athyrio on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 10:42:59 PM EST
    keep spinning those remarks but that doesn't make them democratic values and never will

    Not ready, not ready, not ready (none / 0) (#43)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 10:50:07 AM EST
    has no idea what is really going on yet!  Lots and lots of potential but not ready.  Needs to take a few monkey bumps on the Hill before he knows what he's talking about.  Staying above the fray makes it awfully hard to get bumped up though.