If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(RealClearPolitics)   Mitt Romney is the reincarnation of Ronald Reagan   (realclearpolitics.com) divider line 114
    More: Hero, Mitt Romney, Ronald Reagan, upward mobility, positive economics, National Review  
•       •       •

1386 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 Aug 2012 at 9:55 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



114 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-13 10:36:08 AM

WombatControl: In terms of economic policy, yes, Romney is definitely in the spirit of Reagan.

But Romney has a long way to go before he can be compared to Reagan. One of the reasons that Reagan did so well is that he was able to communicate to the average American clearly and powerfully. Romney doesn't have that common touch.

What Romney can learn from Reagan is not to back down. Reagan made compromises in his Presidency - every politician must. But Reagan never backed down from his core principals. He didn't let consultants run his campaigns. He didn't feel the need to worry about being viewed as "extreme" - instead he ran as a conservative who would get America working again. And yes, the Democrats called him an "extremist" and much, much worse. But that made the Democrats look petty and Reagan look strong.

That's what Romney can learn from Reagan. He's been too timid thus far. He shouldn't bow down to pressure from the Democrats. When a Democratic attack group accuses you of killing a man's wife, your response should not be to talk about health care reform. Your response should be to get in front of the American people and remind them that only a party berift of ideas or decency would make such a charge, and that such desparate and disgusting tactics are beneath contempt.

Yes, Romney's economic policies are Reagan-esque. But for Romney to win, he's got to capture a lot more of Reagan's strengths than his economic policies.


So violating the law to sell arms to terrorists so that he could fund Central American drug runners was in line with Reagan's core principals.
 
2012-08-13 10:37:34 AM
Ronald Reagan died in 2004. So if he reincarnated right away, he'd be 8 years old, too young for the job.
 
2012-08-13 10:38:53 AM

qorkfiend: theorellior: Dusk-You-n-Me: He is arguing that a free-enterprise, supply-side program will rejuvenate jobs and economic growth.

Goddamnit, I wish someone would finally drive a stake through the heart of "supply-side economics" once and for all.

Not a chance. It's far too appealing to certain segments of the population.


And far too insane to ever be actually implemented, and thus disproven.
 
2012-08-13 10:39:11 AM
And, with some retroactive religion, Reagan and Ryan will eventually both be Mormons.
 
2012-08-13 10:39:40 AM

sprawl15: qorkfiend: theorellior: Dusk-You-n-Me: He is arguing that a free-enterprise, supply-side program will rejuvenate jobs and economic growth.

Goddamnit, I wish someone would finally drive a stake through the heart of "supply-side economics" once and for all.

Not a chance. It's far too appealing to certain segments of the population.

And far too insane to ever be actually implemented, and thus disproven.


So we half-ass it, and get the worst of both worlds. Sounds about par for the course, actually.
 
2012-08-13 10:40:52 AM

WombatControl: In terms of economic policy, yes, Romney is definitely in the spirit of Reagan.


Name 5 specific economic policies that Reagan and Romney have in common.
 
2012-08-13 10:41:56 AM
Zombie Reagan?
 
2012-08-13 10:43:05 AM

The Homer Tax: WombatControl: In terms of economic policy, yes, Romney is definitely in the spirit of Reagan.

Name 5 specific economic policies that Reagan and Romney have in common.


They both like to work with monkeys.
 
2012-08-13 10:43:19 AM

The Homer Tax: WombatControl: In terms of economic policy, yes, Romney is definitely in the spirit of Reagan.

Name 5 specific economic policies that Reagan and Romney have in common.


1. Significant increase in defense spending
2. Deregulation
3. Tax cuts
4. Deficits don't matter
5. Fark you, I got mine
 
2012-08-13 10:43:24 AM

Dr Dreidel: Romney doesn't like any concentration of power not directly related to shares or money and has picked a "deeply religious" Catholic Randroid (figure THAT out) whose signature accomplishment pisses off Catholics.


I think Ryan could be considered more of a Roman Baptist then a Roman Catholic.
 
2012-08-13 10:45:45 AM

qorkfiend: WombatControl: In terms of economic policy, yes, Romney is definitely in the spirit of Reagan.

But Romney has a long way to go before he can be compared to Reagan. One of the reasons that Reagan did so well is that he was able to communicate to the average American clearly and powerfully. Romney doesn't have that common touch.

What Romney can learn from Reagan is not to back down. Reagan made compromises in his Presidency - every politician must. But Reagan never backed down from his core principals. He didn't let consultants run his campaigns. He didn't feel the need to worry about being viewed as "extreme" - instead he ran as a conservative who would get America working again. And yes, the Democrats called him an "extremist" and much, much worse. But that made the Democrats look petty and Reagan look strong.

That's what Romney can learn from Reagan. He's been too timid thus far. He shouldn't bow down to pressure from the Democrats. When a Democratic attack group accuses you of killing a man's wife, your response should not be to talk about health care reform. Your response should be to get in front of the American people and remind them that only a party berift of ideas or decency would make such a charge, and that such desparate and disgusting tactics are beneath contempt.

Yes, Romney's economic policies are Reagan-esque. But for Romney to win, he's got to capture a lot more of Reagan's strengths than his economic policies.

Romney's problem is that we tried Reagan's economic policies, and they didn't farking work. 30 years of voodoo economics has made a few people very, very rich at the expense of everyone else.


It wasn't a glitch, it was a feature.
 
2012-08-13 10:46:32 AM
I may have not agreed with his policies but I liked Reagan as a person. He was also smart enough to know how to talk to the other side without turning into a screaming match. When he was shot one of the first people by his side was the very Democratic, Tip O'Neil.

Romney just...no, just no.
 
2012-08-13 10:47:06 AM

Lionel Mandrake: By Larry Kudlow

aaaaaand I'm done reading



Seriously, who gives a fark what Phoebe from Friends thinks about politics.
 
2012-08-13 10:47:36 AM
It's going to be a long Silly Season, isn't it?
 
2012-08-13 10:47:37 AM

WombatControl: In terms of economic policy, yes, Romney is definitely in the spirit of Reagan.

But Romney has a long way to go before he can be compared to Reagan. One of the reasons that Reagan did so well is that he was able to communicate to the average American clearly and powerfully. Romney doesn't have that common touch.

What Romney can learn from Reagan is not to back down. Reagan made compromises in his Presidency - every politician must. But Reagan never backed down from his core principals. He didn't let consultants run his campaigns. He didn't feel the need to worry about being viewed as "extreme" - instead he ran as a conservative who would get America working again. And yes, the Democrats called him an "extremist" and much, much worse. But that made the Democrats look petty and Reagan look strong.

That's what Romney can learn from Reagan. He's been too timid thus far. He shouldn't bow down to pressure from the Democrats. When a Democratic attack group accuses you of killing a man's wife, your response should not be to talk about health care reform. Your response should be to get in front of the American people and remind them that only a party berift of ideas or decency would make such a charge, and that such desparate and disgusting tactics are beneath contempt.

Yes, Romney's economic policies are Reagan-esque. But for Romney to win, he's got to capture a lot more of Reagan's strengths than his economic policies.


The trouble is that Reagan was a hopeless incompetent, who was largely responsible for sending this country on the road to ruin. The only true qualities he possessed were charm and charisma - and those are innate qualities that can't be "captured" - especially if you are a human being like Mitt Romney, who has all the charm and charisma of a dead bullfrog.
 
2012-08-13 10:47:37 AM
An addle-brained plutocrat, who doesn't give a flying fark about the poor and middle classes?

Sure...
 
2012-08-13 10:48:22 AM
That would make him a Democrat in today's landscape. No, Romney would call Reagan a commie.
 
2012-08-13 10:51:06 AM
Reagan, for all his political faults, was at least very charismatic and knew how to stage a good show for the people and press.

Romney is a dork who has zero charisma and can't even hold a policy position for more than two seconds.

I fail to see any comparison between the two,. Reagan would take one look at Mittens and go "George, your son is a dork.".
 
2012-08-13 10:54:53 AM

hubiestubert: It's going to be a long Silly Season, isn't it?


40moreyears.jpg
 
2012-08-13 10:54:54 AM

qorkfiend: Romney's problem is that we tried Reagan's economic policies, and they didn't farking work. 30 years of voodoo economics has made a few people very, very rich at the expense of everyone else.


Keep pushing those same talking points, and maybe if you repeat them enough, you'll magically pop into an alternate universe where they're true!

This is why I keep pointing out how dangerously out-of-touch the left is. They honestly believe shiat like this. You can point out a million graphs showing GDP growth in the last 30 years, showing personal income growth, showing job growth, etc. and it wouldn't change their minds. They believe that Reagan was a failure because they have to believe Reagan was a failure. It can't be that their ideas were thoroughly repudiated 30 years ago after they'd failed completely. Because if that were true, they'd have to challenge their intellectual preconceptions, and that's just not something that a rigid thinker can do.

What's dangerous about that is that the Democratic Party is now being increasingly controlled by people who don't remember the lessons of the 1970s. And so they will keep making the same mistakes that were made back then, and the economy will crater just like it did back then. And millions of Americans will suffer in the process.

Keynesianism doesn't work now any more than it worked for Nixon in the 1970s or the Japanese in the 1990s. So why are the Democrats embracing it again now?

The high-tax, high-regulation, industrial welfare state didn't work for the UK in the 1970s and it doesn't work in places like California and Detroit. US cities are going into bankruptcy because they can't pay pension costs for government workers. Yet we're supposed to believe that more of the same will work?

It's funny - the "conservatives" are supposed to be the ones who are inflexible and wedded to the status quo. But when you suggest reforming any government programs, it's the "liberals" who are demanding no substantive changes. When you suggest moving from the failed policies of the 1970s, it is the "liberals" who are demanding we repeat the errors of the past.

America can't afford to repeat the mistakes of the 1970s while the rest of the world boldly moves into the rest of the 21st Century.
 
2012-08-13 10:57:42 AM

WombatControl: You can point out a million graphs showing GDP growth in the last 30 years, showing personal income growth, showing job growth, etc. and it wouldn't change their minds.


Personal income growth in the last 30 years has been dreadful for everyone other than the very rich. GDP growth has been solid, but is subsumed by the preceding sentence. And job growth has not been good.

What are you talking about?
 
2012-08-13 10:58:08 AM

WombatControl: This is why I keep pointing out how dangerously out-of-touch the left is. They honestly believe shiat like this. You can point out a million graphs showing GDP growth in the last 30 years, showing personal income growth, showing job growth, etc. and it wouldn't change their minds. They believe that Reagan was a failure because they have to believe Reagan was a failure. It can't be that their ideas were thoroughly repudiated 30 years ago after they'd failed completely. Because if that were true, they'd have to challenge their intellectual preconceptions, and that's just not something that a rigid thinker can do.


What three specific things did President Reagan do that resulted in this 30 years of prosperity?
 
2012-08-13 10:58:15 AM
WombatControl:

You're probably the worst troll on this site. Your amount of effort dumped into your posts - despite them not actually saying anything - is just wasted. Learn from better trolls that float around who can inspire triple the outrage with a tenth the pixels.

Or, if you want to go the wordy route, make your posts amusing. Look up StopArrestingMe for a fantastic gimmick (though don't just straight up copy it unless you want to embarrass yourself).
 
2012-08-13 10:59:38 AM
Mitt Romney is the reincarnation of Ronald Reagan? That must mean that he is a mixture of Gordon Gekko, Paulie Walnuts and Alzheimer's.

"I want to take all of the assets out of your company and then kill you...... but for some strange reason I have forgotten why. Mommy, where are my jellybeans?"
 
2012-08-13 11:00:06 AM
Well that helps explain why Romeny acts like an 8 year-old sometimes. Also, wouldn't that make him ineligible to run for president?

/Wher berf certifict, whar!?
 
2012-08-13 11:00:53 AM

WombatControl: You can point out a million graphs showing GDP growth in the last 30 years, showing personal income growth, showing job growth, etc. and it wouldn't change their minds.


spfaust.files.wordpress.comwww.demos.org

Gee, why wouldn't graphs like these show people that Reaganomics was a success for the average American?
 
2012-08-13 11:02:13 AM

WombatControl: This is why I keep pointing out how dangerously out-of-touch the left is.


No doubt they believe the earth is older than 6000 years and that Obama was born in Hawaii and not Kenya.
 
2012-08-13 11:04:41 AM
Reagan's policies had the effect of raising taxes on high net worth individuals. Linky
 
2012-08-13 11:05:53 AM

EvilEgg: I can't stand the hero worship of Obama.



'cause you know he's good and 'cause he's going to be a two term president. enjoy the butthurt.
 
2012-08-13 11:06:16 AM
Link Oops. I did it again.
 
2012-08-13 11:07:07 AM
if ronnie raygun was alive, he wouldn't let Mittens Rmoney wipe his ass for him.
 
2012-08-13 11:12:14 AM
What, he doesn't recall?
 
2012-08-13 11:13:00 AM
Given that Ronald Reagan was an unmitigated disaster who accelerated are economic problems, engaged in massively immoral and anti-American dealings with terrorists and, toward the end suffered from significant cognitive impairment, I could definitely go with that comparison for Mitt.

People who lionize Reagan are not smart people.

/ and his movies sucked too
 
2012-08-13 11:17:09 AM

WombatControl: qorkfiend: Romney's problem is that we tried Reagan's economic policies, and they didn't farking work. 30 years of voodoo economics has made a few people very, very rich at the expense of everyone else.

Keep pushing those same talking points, and maybe if you repeat them enough, you'll magically pop into an alternate universe where they're true!

This is why I keep pointing out how dangerously out-of-touch the left is. They honestly believe shiat like this. You can point out a million graphs showing GDP growth in the last 30 years, showing personal income growth, showing job growth, etc. and it wouldn't change their minds. They believe that Reagan was a failure because they have to believe Reagan was a failure. It can't be that their ideas were thoroughly repudiated 30 years ago after they'd failed completely. Because if that were true, they'd have to challenge their intellectual preconceptions, and that's just not something that a rigid thinker can do.

What's dangerous about that is that the Democratic Party is now being increasingly controlled by people who don't remember the lessons of the 1970s. And so they will keep making the same mistakes that were made back then, and the economy will crater just like it did back then. And millions of Americans will suffer in the process.

Keynesianism doesn't work now any more than it worked for Nixon in the 1970s or the Japanese in the 1990s. So why are the Democrats embracing it again now?

The high-tax, high-regulation, industrial welfare state didn't work for the UK in the 1970s and it doesn't work in places like California and Detroit. US cities are going into bankruptcy because they can't pay pension costs for government workers. Yet we're supposed to believe that more of the same will work?

It's funny - the "conservatives" are supposed to be the ones who are inflexible and wedded to the status quo. But when you suggest reforming any government programs, it's the "liberals" who are demanding no substantive changes. ...


US cities are going bankrupt in many cases from dolts who continue to cut farking taxes because they're morons and fail to see that taxes help the community. Detroit died not because of some bullshiat about high regulation and high taxes but because of white flight and the car companies moving production elsewhere. NAFTA dealt the final death blow.

Germany and the Scandinavian states are high regulation and high taxes, explain why they're doing just dandy? The UK certainly has its issues but is doing OK comparatively. Oh, and Canada. They're doing just fine as well.

There are no more conservatives left in the GOP. There seem to be radical nutters who want to hate on everything this country stands for so their "team" can win.

Your facts are wrong and so are you.
 
2012-08-13 11:20:43 AM

FlashHarry: EvilEgg: I can't stand the hero worship of Obama.

rolling. on. the. floor. laughing. my. ass. off.

0/10

c'mon, man. try to be at least credible.


Hey, I got a few bites. You'd think posting that in a Reagan worship thread would be a dead give-away.
 
2012-08-13 11:28:32 AM

Aarontology: Ronald Reagan is too liberal for today's GOP.

The real Reagan, not the demigod father figure the GOP has mythologized.


Reagan's diaries show he regretted becoming a Republican
When the bible thumpers moved in (Repubs look it up)

Reagan also says "I could never in good concious vote for Bushs' son, I know he is incapable of the Presidency"

Look it up the diaries are at the Reagan library in Simi Valley California

/Reagan couldn't stand that douche either
/ is that Semi Valley?
 
2012-08-13 11:29:59 AM
So he was born in a log house that he build himself?
 
2012-08-13 11:33:38 AM

WombatControl: But Reagan never backed down from his core principals.


Well, except for:
- trading arms for hostages
- deciding to cut and run from Lebanon
- raising taxes
- hugely expanding the size of government
- never actually trying to eliminate abortion
- violating his oath of office by defying Congress to arm the Contras

He didn't let consultants run his campaigns.

But he let an astrologer run his schedule.

In fairness to Kudlow I do see one parallel: If Michael Reagan walked up to him, Romney probably would have no idea who he was, either.
 
2012-08-13 11:36:24 AM

Lionel Mandrake: By Larry Kudlow

aaaaaand I'm done reading




This.
 
2012-08-13 11:37:44 AM
maybe not Reagan, but definitely the one we need now.
 
2012-08-13 11:44:25 AM
So.... the nut job republicans are claiming that the Rayon / Mittens is the reincarnation of Reagan?

Which means they believe in reincarnation, correct?

So they are going against their 'faith' to believe that St Reagan has returned.


\There, there, baby Jesus. Don't cry. The scary people will be gone soon.
 
2012-08-13 11:49:09 AM

colon_pow: maybe not Reagan, but definitely the one we need now.


It appears from everything I read from the right wing that what "we" need now is "ABO" - "Anyone But Obama." To even hint that Romney represents the best that the country or the GOP can offer as a presidential candidate seems to me to be so ridiculous that no reasonable person could believe it for a second.
 
2012-08-13 11:51:29 AM
No.

No He's not.

Not even Close.
 
2012-08-13 11:59:19 AM

Satanic_Hamster:
I think Ryan could be considered more of a Roman Baptist then a Roman Catholic.


FTFY
 
2012-08-13 11:59:43 AM
The Uncomfortable truth that most "conservatives" would like to forget:

FOr at least 2/3rds of his second term:
i.ytimg.com

=

farm4.static.flickr.com
 
2012-08-13 12:03:37 PM

MAYORBOB: Zombie Reagan?


Sure he ate my brains, but he was so darned likeable!
 
2012-08-13 12:07:58 PM

Flaming Yawn: colon_pow: maybe not Reagan, but definitely the one we need now.

It appears from everything I read from the right wing that what "we" need now is "ABO" - "Anyone But Obama." To even hint that Romney represents the best that the country or the GOP can offer as a presidential candidate seems to me to be so ridiculous that no reasonable person could believe it for a second.


you're pretty far gone, dude.
 
2012-08-13 12:17:26 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Gee, why wouldn't graphs like these show people that Reaganomics was a success for the average American?


So you're saying that because incomes have allegedly been flat since the 1970s, it's all Reagan's fault? That he's so astonishing that his policies actually effected the economy ten years before he was President?

And, for those who are interested in why these graphs are very misleading, this article debunks them thoroughly:

The claim that the standard of living of middle Americans has stagnated over the past generation is common. An accompanying assertion is that virtually all income growth over the past three decades bypassed middle America and accrued almost entirely to the rich.

The findings reported here-and summarized in Chart 8-refute those claims. Careful analysis shows that the incomes of most types of middle American households have increased substantially over the past three decades. These results are consistent with recent research showing that the largest income increases occurred at the top end of the income distribution. But the outsized gains of the rich do not mean that middle America stagnated.


The analysis showed that between 1975-2006, the income for the middle class increased on average between 44-62%.

Would you really like to live in the economy of 1975? I thought it was the right that was supposed to be the side wanting to return to a non-existent idealized past...
 
2012-08-13 12:19:20 PM
Reagan quadrupled the national debt.

You're welcome. :)
 
2012-08-13 12:25:48 PM

WombatControl: Philip Francis Queeg: Gee, why wouldn't graphs like these show people that Reaganomics was a success for the average American?

So you're saying that because incomes have allegedly been flat since the 1970s, it's all Reagan's fault? That he's so astonishing that his policies actually effected the economy ten years before he was President?

And, for those who are interested in why these graphs are very misleading, this article debunks them thoroughly:

The claim that the standard of living of middle Americans has stagnated over the past generation is common. An accompanying assertion is that virtually all income growth over the past three decades bypassed middle America and accrued almost entirely to the rich.

The findings reported here-and summarized in Chart 8-refute those claims. Careful analysis shows that the incomes of most types of middle American households have increased substantially over the past three decades. These results are consistent with recent research showing that the largest income increases occurred at the top end of the income distribution. But the outsized gains of the rich do not mean that middle America stagnated.

The analysis showed that between 1975-2006, the income for the middle class increased on average between 44-62%.

Would you really like to live in the economy of 1975? I thought it was the right that was supposed to be the side wanting to return to a non-existent idealized past...


Heh, did you actually read the farking article?

Adding missing income

The final step in calculating the income gains made by middle American households requires a closer look at differing definitions of "income." The Census Bureau uses a narrow definition of income in its report on median household income that focuses on money income and excludes nonmonetary sources of income. The BEA, in contrast, defines personal income as income received from all sources. Examples of income excluded by the Census Bureau, but included by the BEA, are employer contributions to employee pension and insurance funds and in-kind transfer payments such as Medicaid, food stamps and energy assistance. These sources of income contribute to economic well-being and should be included in the definition of income.7
 
Displayed 50 of 114 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report