As Obama and Shrillary continue their scorched-earth campaigns across the Democrat party landscape, I found the following column, by Gary Hubbell for the Aspen Times Weekly, extraordinarily enlightening.
In election 2008, don’t forget Angry White Man
If, like me, you are lucky enough to have a husband, a father, and/or a brother who fit the moniker of "angry white man" as described therein, you'll also find the column highly entertaining.
Come to think of it, maybe I'm a female "angry white male"...
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Friday, February 1, 2008
The Reagan Legacy
It's the political season. (It has been for what ... the last 3,000 days? But I digress.) Despite disapprobation from uber-partisans, even Democrat candidate Barack Obama has sought to tap into the mystical mantle of Ronald Reagan! Obama observed how Reagan "changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not." (View video here.)
Uh-oh. Obama could've gotten away with the first half of his sentence. But he crossed the line into Democrat heresy by daring to slam Bill Clinton!
[ASIDE: Therein lies one explanation for people's disdain toward politics in general and the incessant complaint of "too much partisanship." Perverting Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment ("Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican"), those who criticized Obama's comments live by another maxim: "speak no good of anyone who has an (R) after his name."]
I respect Barack Obama for conceding Ronald Reagan, as a person and in his capacity as President, is worthy of admiration for his noteworthy accomplishments.
(Reagan himself successfully transcended a good bit of the usual political party orthodoxy. In my view, his success in doing so was the direct result of Reagan's refusal to sacrifice core values. Instead, he allowed inner conviction to trump political orthodoxy and expedience.)
The rest of Obama's comments on Reagan are equally interesting ... and curious. "[Reagan] put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing."
Remember the malaise of the Jimmy Carter years? Yes, Reagan did take a "fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it." Ready? I'll say!
CHANGE seems to be the dominant theme of Obama's campaign, so this statement from him sounds curiously ... well, conservative ... when he speaks about how "government had grown and grown" and people were yearning for clarity, optimism and "a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing." Wow! A Democrat who views big government as troublesome, perhaps even problematic? Who'd a-thunk it?
Indeed, Ronald Reagan "changed the trajectory of America" and in doing so, left his mark on many of us — regardless of party affiliations. Reagan's unique clarity of vision enabled us to grasp the Rendezvous with Destiny he articulated. His irrepressible optimism mirrored the heart and soul of the American spirit.
History will confirm the breadth of Reagan's legacy; a lone Democrat has — at long last — acknowledged it.
Uh-oh. Obama could've gotten away with the first half of his sentence. But he crossed the line into Democrat heresy by daring to slam Bill Clinton!
[ASIDE: Therein lies one explanation for people's disdain toward politics in general and the incessant complaint of "too much partisanship." Perverting Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment ("Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican"), those who criticized Obama's comments live by another maxim: "speak no good of anyone who has an (R) after his name."]
I respect Barack Obama for conceding Ronald Reagan, as a person and in his capacity as President, is worthy of admiration for his noteworthy accomplishments.
(Reagan himself successfully transcended a good bit of the usual political party orthodoxy. In my view, his success in doing so was the direct result of Reagan's refusal to sacrifice core values. Instead, he allowed inner conviction to trump political orthodoxy and expedience.)
The rest of Obama's comments on Reagan are equally interesting ... and curious. "[Reagan] put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing."
Remember the malaise of the Jimmy Carter years? Yes, Reagan did take a "fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it." Ready? I'll say!
CHANGE seems to be the dominant theme of Obama's campaign, so this statement from him sounds curiously ... well, conservative ... when he speaks about how "government had grown and grown" and people were yearning for clarity, optimism and "a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing." Wow! A Democrat who views big government as troublesome, perhaps even problematic? Who'd a-thunk it?
Indeed, Ronald Reagan "changed the trajectory of America" and in doing so, left his mark on many of us — regardless of party affiliations. Reagan's unique clarity of vision enabled us to grasp the Rendezvous with Destiny he articulated. His irrepressible optimism mirrored the heart and soul of the American spirit.
History will confirm the breadth of Reagan's legacy; a lone Democrat has — at long last — acknowledged it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)