Now he thinks he’s Reagan AND Roosevelt


Team Obama Finds Hope for 2012 in a History Lesson

Weeks before the debt-limit showdown came to a head, White House chief of staff Bill Daley held an unannounced retreat for his senior staff at Fort McNair, an Army base near the southern tip of the District of Columbia. The agenda for the June confab was wide-ranging, including a lecture of sorts from the presidential historian Michael Beschloss. The question Daley asked him to address was the one on everyone’s mind these days in the West Wing: How does a U.S. President win re-election with an unemployment rate far higher than voters can bear?

The answer Beschloss provided gave some lift to Obama’s team. No law in politics is ever 100% accurate, he said. Two Presidents in the last century, Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1936 and Ronald Reagan in 1984, won re-election amid substantial economic suffering. Both used the same basic strategy. They argued that the country, though in pain, was improving, and that the ideas of their opponents, anchored in past failures, would make things worse.


In 1984 the economy was growing at a rapid rate. In 1936 FDR was still trying to get the New Deal past SCOTUS. The Democrats GAINED seats in Congress in 1934.

What has Obama done? What’s he still plan to do? His policies are even less popular than he is. He single-handedly brought the GOP back from the dead.

Now he thinks he can run against them?


Ronald Obama


This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to Now he thinks he’s Reagan AND Roosevelt

  1. votermom says:

    Are you sure it’s not Ronald MacObama?

  2. Mary says:

    Oh puhleaaaase. FDR or Reagan he AIN’T, and never will be. Ugh.

  3. imustprotest says:

    Wait! I thought he was a “Kennedy Brother”? MLK? Malcom X? Denzel Washington playing Malcom X?

  4. Monster from the Id says:

    Obummer has only two real hopes for re-election:

    [1] His masters in the Malefactors Of Great Wealth will be so pleased with his performance that they will order their Corporate Media to sing his praises again, as they did in 2008, and order the other major party–since the MOGW control both major parties–to nominate a loony wingnut that only the noisy wingnut minority could love, or else an android like Romney, to scare or disgust enough people into voting for Obummer.

    [2] If that fails, the MOGW will simply use their control over the unaccountable voting machines to make him Prez again, anyway.

  5. Dario says:

    Hoover kept to old conservative policies and refused to do anything bold to fix the economy. Obama is closest to Hoover than Carter or Reagan. Carter did not sell himself as anything than an honest man. Carter was too tentative to do anything big, but he wasn’t an empty suit. Carter failed to fix the horrible inflation of the time, but he did put Volcker as chairman of the Fed who brought inflation under control. Reagan was not afraid to surround himself with people who knew policy. Reagan was not afraid to listen and truly pivot, as we saw when he pulled the soldiers from Lebanon after the barrack bombing, and use Keynesian stimulus (military) to bring the economy back from the abyss.

    He might be also a little bit of Lincoln because that president was not afraid to commit war crimes (it wasn’t a war crime then) against the South, such as the burning of towns, like Atlanta to win the war.

  6. Dario says:

    Another win for the G.O.P.

    Amending his request to speak before a joint session of Congress about jobs, President Barack Obama has agreed to move the date of the speech back one day to Thursday, September 8th.
    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20100176-503544.html

  7. ralphb says:

    Bachmann draws 80 at an event in Des Moines. Uh, oh.

  8. ralphb says:

    More fun news.

    Tea-party group to protest other tea-party group’s event because Romney is speaking

    http://hotair.com/archives/2011/08/31/tea-party-group-to-protest-other-tea-party-groups-event-because-romney-is-speaking/

  9. teresainpa says:

    Obama is so weak. It is amazing, he seems to have no ability to lead at all unless it is in running a nasty race baiting political campaign.
    My brother said the other day I should lay off Obama and that if I thought Hillary or any other democrats would have had an easier time in office I was dreaming. I don’t even know how to answer that anymore. It is not about having an easier time, it is about being able to handle whatever happens. I mean really, is there an easy time to be president? Are we supposed to grade on a curve?

  10. teresainpa says:

    ralphB, love that story. I guess it goes to show that they tea party peeps are not all exactly alike.

    • WMCB says:

      Oh, there are some loonies out there. No loosely-knit nationwide political movement can avoid a few nutballs.

  11. Uppity Woman says:

    I didn’t think Reagan could look more scary, but you managed to pull it off.

  12. SWPAnnA says:

    The morph of Reagan and Barak is actually appealing: the smiling eyes of the Reagan personna reveals a whole lot of maturity and people-skilled ability to respond … with Obama you get the hooded, dark, threatening eyes that burn with animosity and convey threatening reprisal and oppression. With Reagan, the visage extends good will and delight in the exchange with people who are alive with their own intelligence. Obama passes himself off as a Super model showing off whatever the onlooker wishes to see, while he himself is a demanding, high-maintenance prima donna who extracts tribute by limiting access to himself to only those who delight in his mere presence, asking nothing of him but to permit them to sing his praises, remind all of his brilliance and interpret his malicious, petty games as strategy. I’m no Reagan – worshipper, but I cringe every time I view a news clip showing 44 glaring out at the crowds while he speaks derisively of citizens whom he should be courting.

Comments are closed.