Web Search powered by YAHOO! SEARCH
TEXT SIZE: A A A A
Email this post | Back to Blog home
Monday, June 30, 2008
Krugman to Obama: I knew Reagan...you're no Reagan

The NYT's Paul Krugman has a good column this morning about Reagan, Clinton, and Obama:

The candidate’s defenders argue that he’s just being pragmatic — that he needs to do whatever it takes to win, and win big, so that he has the power to effect major change. But critics argue that by engaging in the same “triangulation and poll-driven politics” he denounced during the primary, Mr. Obama actually hurts his election prospects, because voters prefer candidates who take firm stands.

In any case, what about after the election? The Reagan-Clinton comparison suggests that a candidate who runs on a clear agenda is more likely to achieve fundamental change than a candidate who runs on the promise of change but isn’t too clear about what that change would involve.

Of course, there’s always the possibility that Mr. Obama really is a centrist, after all.

Read the whole thing -- Krugman does a good job laying out the differences between Reagan's approach to politics, Clinton's style, and the road that Obama is heading down. The thing about Reagan is that he governed much more pragmatically, and a willingness to compromise -- but as a candidate he was a lot more prone to saying what he thought and less what some focus group told him than any other major candidate in recent memory. Of course, people like Krugman (or lowly me) disagree with some of Reagan's core beliefs, especially on the economic side -- the "hope" was that maybe Obama could be a progressive version of Reagan, with a confident new direction for a nation that feels lost right now.

So far, we're still stuck in the focus group.

I'm very interested in this topic, which dovetails with my newest project. I could tell you more about it today, but I'd have to kill you -- details to hopefully come soon. It is very exciting, though.

P.S. I just saw on MSNBC that Olbermann has "a special comment" coming -- how much do you want to bet that it's an Obama bash?

Posted by Will Bunch @ 9:18 AM  Permalink | 14 comments
SAVE AND SHARE
Comments
Posted by mookie 09:34 AM, 06/30/2008
"Krugman does a good job laying philly reporters"....... A former Kuwaiti Guantanamo Bay detainee conducts a suicide attack in Mosul Two Kuwaiti al Qaeda operatives who conducted suicide attacks were featured at the end of the video. Abu Omar al Kuwaiti, also known as Badr Mishel Gama’an al Harbi, and Abu Juheiman al Kuwaiti, also known as Abdullah Salih al Ajmi, are both shown on the video, along with their attacks in Mosul, said Kazimi. Harbi, who claimed to be a “veteran of the jihad in Afghanistan,” conducted a suicide car bomb attack on a police station in Mosul on April 26, 2008. Ajmi was released from Guantanamo Bay and was searching for “a way to reconnect with the jihad.”
Posted by SteveMG 09:34 AM, 06/30/2008
I caught a teaser about it. It seems to be about the eavesdropping bill itself, and that it grants the telecoms civil immunity but not criminal immunity.
Posted by Talking point sleuth 09:54 AM, 06/30/2008
"....and a willingness to compromise -.." Just curious, Will, do you have any actual examples of Reagan's "willingness to compromise?"
Posted by jmc 10:10 AM, 06/30/2008
Why is it that liberals can't articulate a clear message? It is because liberalism turns most people off. Oh sure it's easy to say that Bush is unpopular so I'll do the opposite of what he's doing. A lot of people like that notion, but when you have to articulate the nitty-gritty of a liberal ideology, which Obama is more than capable of doing, people will make a face. People want change, but they don't want liberalism. So Obama, like Clinton, has to water it way down. Talking specifics for a liberal is political death. On the other hand, Ronald Reagan didn't have those issues. He knew most of the country was generally conservative and just delivered the message. He didn't have to hide. He told people what he believed knowing that for the most part he was articulating the beliefs of the voters. That is one of the reasons why Reagan is a towering figure in American history, and Clinton was kind of a place holder President with nothing particularly earth shattering to his credit.
Posted by Talking point sleuth 10:15 AM, 06/30/2008
Good point, jmc. Because as anyone can tell, McCain has articulated a clear and consistent ideology. Lol!
Posted by Talking point detective 10:23 AM, 06/30/2008
Will, can't wait for that book to come out in 2015
Posted by will 11:04 AM, 06/30/2008
Reagan's willingness to compromise? Other than his bipartisan bailout of Social Security, agreeing to the largest peacetime tax INCREASE in US history in 1982 (and a series of other tax increases) and a 1986 tax reform heavily steered by congressional Democrats and pulling the Marines out of Lebanon rather than "surging" after a terrorist attack and negotiating a series of arms pacts with "the evil empire" including the withdrawal of intermediate range nuclear weapons from Europe and naming centrist Anthony Kennedy to the Supremes when Bork was rejected and not pursuing a radical social agenda, like overturning Roe v. Wade, because he knew most Americans wouldn't support that....no, other than that, Reagan never compromised. Oh, and did you know that as governor of California he enacted the largest state tax increase in US history (at the time, anyway) and legalized abortion. But other than that, he never compromised. OK, actually he did.
Posted by Talking point sleuth 11:30 AM, 06/30/2008
That's great, Will, so Bush is also a great compromiser. Afterall, he withdrew Myers' nomination, got the resignation of Gonzales, increased the troop level although he didn't think it was necessary initially, relinquished his goal of restructuring social security, supported a compromise position on immigration. Reagan did what was politically expedient in order to pursue political objectives, just like Bush has done.
Posted by pal 11:35 AM, 06/30/2008
The campaigning to the right, centrist, left ideas is irrelevant now, because we know what we DON'T want - the McSame forever war in Iraq, Iran, and anywhere else McCrazy feels like bombing. We don't want more of huge deficits, unsustainable tax cuts for the wealthy, unaccountable war-profiteering, unregulated businesses and Wall Street (we've seen how that is working out). And for the record, Reagan was the beginning of an economic horror-story, that was taken to a new level of horror with Shrubby.
Posted by will 11:42 AM, 06/30/2008
TPS, to use just one part of your comparison, Myers -- Reagan would have withdrawn Sandra Day O'Connor, who some conservatives didn't like, replaced her with Bork, and rammed him through Congress, to do what Bush did there.
Posted by will 11:47 AM, 06/30/2008
TPS, to use just one part of your comparison, Myers -- Reagan would have withdrawn Sandra Day O'Connor, who some conservatives didn't like, replaced her with Bork, and rammed him through Congress, to do what Bush did there.
Posted by Talking point detective 11:54 AM, 06/30/2008
I sense trouble in paradise between TPS and will...where has the love gone?
Posted by bon 03:50 PM, 06/30/2008
As an outsider looking in, neither Obama's pragmatic dishonesty nor the collective liberal shock surprise me. It is an old political story. Democrats would rather fall in love with blinders on than see things for what they are. :)
Posted by Archimedes 10:16 PM, 06/30/2008
Will, I actually heard Olbermann's special comment, in which you were prominently mentioned (as the asker of the question that got Obama to state clearly what he should do if elected). Obama has veered what appears to be to the right on several recent issues, but his speeches and campaign appearances mostly stick to what he has been saying all along. And I never bought the idea that Obama is a big liberal in the Bernie Sanders or Barbara Boxer way. Read his second book (if you haven't already). He has always been pragmatic with an agenda tilted toward fairness for the public and toward following the Constitution.
14 comments
About Will Bunch
Will Bunch, a senior writer at the Philadelphia Daily News, blogs about his obsessions, including national and local politics and world affairs, the media, pop music, the Philadelphia Phillies, soccer and other sports, not necessarily in that order.

E-mail Will by clicking here.

PLEASE COMMENT WITH PASSION...

...but not with racial slurs, potentially libelous allegations, obscenities or other juvenile noise. Such comments will, at our discretion, be deleted in their entirety, and repeat offenders will be blocked from commenting. ALSO: Any commenter advocating killing any government official will be immediately banned.

Thanks.

Advertise Here
blog_widget