Professor Bainbridge...on law, politics, religion, culture & food

It’s a shame that so many conservatives today lack that combination of hope and courage that Reagan has in this clip (not one GOP candidate gave anything that resembled a moving speech during this campaign).  I don’t agree with Obama on much - maybe 15% of the issues - but he has that combination of hope and courage that Reagan, JFK, and FDR seemed to have.

Given that a president’s agenda is set more by history than by him, I’ll take the candidate who has that special combination every day of the week, twice on Sundays, and thrice on election day.

I agree completely. Well said.

Except, of course, that Obama opposes virtually everything mentioned in that speech by Reagan.  Lots of charismatic leaders have lead their countries to ruin, particularly when the charismatic leader convinced the people to abandon their common sense to the magic of their voice.

The difference, of course, is that Ronald Reagan actually had something to say.  And that also has some importance, every day of the week, twice on Sunday, but (for those of us who are not Democrats) only once on election day.

I’ll never vote for that RINO.  Look at his record. He’s pro-choice, his supreme nominees would be squishy liberal moderates not anything like Alito or Roberts and he likes to work with Democrats.  Reagan Democrats! 

I’m sitting home.  At least when Carter messes up I won’t get the blame for it.

William Oliver is right.  Charisma is fine, but the ideology behind it is what’s important.

What you’re promoting is a cult of personality.

The prior was addressed at “KG”, not Prof. Bainbridge.

Reagan was the leader of a movement for change that was based on principles that he openly translated into tangible policies on taxes, defense and culture.

Liberals, I think including Obama, believe Reagan did this largely by charming the masses into following him into adopting policies that were not in their best interest.

Perhaps Obama thinks he needs to ween Americans from the popular Reagan-Bush (and even Clinton) bromides of right-center conservativism. 

Would it be surprising to learn Obama sees no relative harm in doing so by charming the electorate and bringing them to the paternalistic policies that he knows are “best” for them? 

If that means not having to convince them intellectually about the superiority of his policies, at least right away, so be it.  After all, Reagan did it.

I think (at least I hope) the popularity of Reagan was much more rooted in substance than he gets credit for from the liberals.  Hence, presenting Obama with his greatest challenge.

Just one difference, KG.  There was substance behind Reagan’s rhetoric.  Obama is an empty suit.

There is a difference in the times when Reagan made that speech.  This country was, from all measures, in a real state of gloom.  Not a fake state of gloom we spoiled brats live in today.  Double digit everything would make us all a little gloomy and needed an optimistic conservative to re-teach all of us that “Yes we can”.  Today, we are in single digit everything and when we smell a slight slowdown from the single digits, we look for a hand out.  Maybe not we, but the politicians are looking to give us one even if it makes the underlining problem worse.  We don’t need a slick politician telling us “Yes we can”, we need a realistic politician telling us “Yes we have” and we better work to fix those things that will take us from the “Haves” to the “Cans” in a generation. 

Cheers.

That’s cool how you regurgitate the Obama themes so purty like that. I just had me a Big Mac. Guess what? I’M LOVIN IT!!!!

Woops, “ween” is a rock band.  I meant wean.

"Our government has no power except that granted it by the people.”

That’s a litmus test I can live with.

It’s a shame that so many conservatives today so lack that combination of hope and courage that all they can do is haul out stale youtoobs of some dead guy. It’s so ... evocative.

no, KG, what’s a shame is that so many people are seemingly willing to vote for someone who they only agree with on “15% of the issues.”

the rest of us will be doomed to suffer through the presidency of a borderline socialist because voters like you care more about the ability to read from a tele-prompter than they do about messy little things like “issues.”

and what’s especially sad is that i suspect you somehow think you’re taking the moral high road.

you really ought to watch that reagan video again…

Roy Mustang:  Your comment on Reagan above was priceless.  Well done.

Jody, your grasp of today’s economics is, frankly, inadequate.

That said, as the US fiat money credit crisis rocks the entire world, and as it settles in to dominate what is certainly going to be the worst recession since The Great Depression over the next 24 months, the question becomes one of just how President Obama’s New, New Deal is going to flame out.  Not if.  How.

There is no way on earth a massive, Democrat-led socialized central plan to artificially re-re-stimulate the economy can work—Alan Greenspan showed us all what happens when we print to cover the problem with printing. 

But that pales next to the damage a New Deal-like federal program under the simply massive Obama social taxation system will surely cause.

Sure, Bush is playing fast and lose with something he clearly doesn’t understand, as are the Socialists in Congress.  (That nobody questions the right to mess with the private sector like this is quite amazing; it’s what made The Great Depression so bad).

But an Obama economy will only hold off an even larger eventual recession.  There’s absolutely no way to pay for Obama Nation except to print even more currency, which is precisely what got us into this mess.

This isn’t a question of attitude and a stiff upper Reaganesque lip, may he rest in peace.  This is a question of 40 years of chickens coming home, regardless, to roost.

DO NOT, in the name of all that is holy and good, boycott the election.  GO VOTE! 

1.  In the words of Robert Heinlein, there may be no candidates to vote FOR; don’t let that stop you. There are always candidates to vote AGAINST. Find a candidate whose positions you like, and vote for that one. He’s not going to get elected, you say? Who cares? Not voting says that you don’t care; a vote for a principled 3rd party candidate sends a much more powerful message than you staying home.

2.  Don’t like any of the presidential candidates? There are OTHER races; every representative and 1/3 of the Senate seats are up for grabs.  If you have no other criteria, then simply vote against every incumbent.  Even if the new guy is a ditz, it’ll take him a few months to get the hang of things, a few months in which he is causing no more harm than drawing a government paycheck. Next election, vote against HIM. There are State senators and representatives; again, “Vote The Bastards Out!” is generally a good policy if you haven’t kept up on the actual issues.

3.  There may be judgeships or ballot propositions in play. Here in California we typically have half-a-dozen or more initiatives and referenda.  Again, if you have no more definite idea, then vote NO on all judges and NO on all bond measures. For the propositions, you can often decide how to vote by reading the names of the people who write the supporting and opposing ballot statements.  For example, if somebody from the American Federation of Teachers likes the idea, then it probably stinks, and you don’t really have to bother with actually READING it. As a last resort, read the local newspaper’s recommendations, and vote the other way.

4.  You may not have to actually go to the polls.  If possible, register to vote absentee; that avoids the last minute deluge of negative campaign ads, which you can then ignore. Also, you don’t have to worry about potential foul weather, or a competing TV show, or just wanting to take a nap. Here on the Left Coast, we don’t even have to give any reason to request an absentee ballot; YMMV. If you need an excuse, then say that you’re planning a vacation or attending your out-of-state mother-in-law’s birthday or something.

Just VOTE.  For or against, it probably doesn’t matter. But do it.

He sounds like Bush.  George W. Bush is going to be the last great American president - the last one who knows how to keep liberty at the forefront of his vision.

I still can’t decide whether Obama is an empty suit, or worse, a truly excellent dissembler hiding a concrete agenda he has been careful not to reveal.

As to Reagan, the phony praise many liberals gave him upon his death was sickening—back in they day hated him every bit as much as they hate GWB.  The worst genuinely thought Reagan and Ed Meese were going to build concentration camps any day.  His great appeal even in death meant they had to pay lip service, so they tried to play it both ways—praise him for merely being “optimistic” and burying his substance and correctness.

Obama reminds me less of Reagan than of Mussolini. Charisma is not enough.

I seem to have kicked up a hornet’s nest.

Obama seems to have a vision of what America can be - again, like Reagan, JFK, and FDR.  He absolutely is not an empty suit, he talks policy and his policies are available on his website (there’s a 60 page pdf document that lays a lot of it out, one which I’ve just recently been working my way through).

I would very much like to have an inspirational leader these next four years.  Someone that I can be proud to call POTUS… sadly, the last time I was able to proudly refer to the president, I was in the fourth grade - in 1988.

I hear plenty of reasons to vote against Obama (which, I may end up doing in the end).  But I’ve not heard a single reason to vote for any Republican since I first began following presidential elections all the way back in the fourth grade.

Courage and hope are powerful things, and this republic understand them better than any other on this planet.  Obama offers both in a time when we are rutter-less, so I’m willing to hear him out and give him the benefit of the doubt. 

And let me be clear, I don’t believe that I’m somehow morally superior for supporting Obama at this point.  I think of all the candidates available this year, he has the best temperament for the job, in that he has a conservative temperament - he’s pragmatic, in his approach.  Compared to the mix of a fundamentalist and addict mindset we’ve seen the last 7 years, it’ll be a welcome breath of air.  I don’t believe that Obama’s policies will be best for this nation, and if I do end up voting for him, I’ll be voting for a Republican Congress to balance him, but I do believe his temperament is exactly what this nation needs today.

If you want great temperament I would just say don’t overlook border collies.

wow! what a contrast to St. Obama’s empty speeches.

Obama’s America is dark and depressing and Reagan’s is indeed uplifting.

Reagan saw the potential in each of us to rise, and St. Obama talks about the potential how big government can gets.

Obama promotes a lazy America and Reagan’s American is full of opportunities that one can get if one try hard enough.

I really wonder how statements like this have been made: “But that pales next to the damage a New Deal-like federal program under the simply massive Obama social taxation system will surely cause. “

Where is there any evidence that this is his plan?

There is virtually nothing in Reagan’s speech that Obama would be against that I know of.

And in fact, Obama’s goal to making government decisions more transparent is something Reagan would likely applaud and would use as a tool to lower spending.

And I would like to see a much more conservative congress. But I don’t think that’s what we got from our last Republican congress.

Unfortunately the conservatism I want, small government keeping out of my life, has been replaced in the Republican party with fear mongernig, draconian protection schemes that I fear have no effectivness, and spending policies that are driven by corporate needs as opposed to what we need to do to protect adn promote the country.

If Obama can sell more transparency to the nation, that could be the best thing to happen to conservatism since the Gingrich era and could be used as a great tool by future presidents.

Nothing that Reagan would be against ? OMG, whatever it is you’re smoking, drinking, eating or otherwise consuming, stop it since it is clearly dangerous.

In history many people have been able to talk nice.

Sen Obama has bluntly said that he would withdraw the troops in Iraq, he says it in every speech.

As I find it unlikely that our foes will decide to stop fighting just because Obama chooses to and will paint said withdrawal as a great victory and enlistment tool this is a bad thing.

So the choice is simple, nice speaker lose the war or Republican with problems on some issues and fight (and likely win) the war.

As I constantly say you can repeal laws you can’t unlose a war.  That has to be the deciding factor.

KG is pretty much right on, IMHO.
It’s a sad day when the party that produced the platforms of Reagan and Gingrich can only manage to nominate dictatorial party hacks. Character counts. Appreciation for what makes America special counts. Jefferson and Adams disagreed on much at the policy level, but they both understood America. Now we have an entrenched set of career politicans and lobbyists who have far more in common with each other than with the rest of the country. I’d rather have a debate of ideas with a President who believes in the people and keeps an open mind.

Ken Hahn - not only is charisma not enough; I consider it a negative.  The speaker who can inspire you has proved he can take you in.  Give me boring politicians who will just go to work.

Nothing that Reagan would be against ?
-- I never said that.

And I’m not sure Reagan would have been for invading Iraq. He was a historian and the idea of a Christian country occupying a Muslim country long term would have scared him alot more than GWB is my guess and drove him to more cautious use of his resources.

How many ironies do I find in these critiques? Oh, the left is for a controlling, paternalistic government, as if we hadn’t just had seven years of attempting to regulate behaviour by legislating the Bible, attacks on due process and systematic violations of discovery and privacy.

Oh, small-government. Funny how the government got bigger under Reagan, shrank under Clinton, and is now truly enormous. And if you didn’t consider it, running an unbalanced budget (and borrowing it all from the Chinese) equals even bigger government, if you consider yours and your children’s eventual tax burden part of the onus of a large government.

Oh yes, big and lazy government, Communistic totalitarian control of your personal life. As it is, we are so deep in worship of the corporatocracy we are unaware we are completely disenfranchised by lobbyists anyway. What has the conservative movement done to alleviate any of these symptoms? Oh yes, empowered the Christian right to try to impose a paternalistic set of rules on us based in bad scripture (as well as bad theosophy, policy, and economics). Submit to the powerful, they know what’s best. The poor are poor because they are morally defective.

What’s all this about morals? Seems to me I remember some rhetoric a few years ago how we were morally superior to other cultures because we have due process of the law, we don’t mistreat our prisoners, we honor our laws and treaties, and so on. Well, you know, these days being conservative means that the head of state can label you an enemy of state, and your sentence can be carried out before trial. Nice. Is this how we get the moral authority to label a leader of another country a tyrant?

The conservative movement has been sniffing its own farts for so long it has lost sight of what America is really about. Forget your dreams of lurching further and further to the right until you have some sort of politico-religionist authoritarian regime. People are sick of all the snake oil that the Liberal Bashing Industry has fed us. Too much bad, bad policy has come of the Republicans’ policy of no internal dissent.

I’m old enough to remember when conservatives could be trusted to kick the tires on a new idea and express skepticism. Now, we see in-group/out-group attitude policing that makes sure the worst ideas rise to the top. I’m so old I can remember when Christians believed in social justice. Now all they want is just a few more pregnant teenagers to excoriate so they can stand on their Pharisee’s pulpit of moral righteousness and call out the unfortunate as the architects of their own abject condition.

We don’t need that annoying guitar music in the background.  The Reagan words are music enough.

You don’t know where folks get the idea Obama’s a Big Brother Socialist?

--

Obama’s National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank Will Cost $60 Billion Over Ten Years; Equal To $6 Billion A Year And $24 Billion Over Four Years. Obama: “I’m proposing a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank that will invest $60 billion over ten years.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks On Economic Policy, Janesville, WI, 2/13/08)

Obama’s Health Care Plan Will Cost Up To $65 Billion A Year; Equal To $260 Billion Over Four Years. “[Obama] campaign officials estimated that the net cost of the plan to the federal government would be $50 billion to $65 billion a year, when fully phased in, and said the revenues from rolling back the tax cuts were enough to cover it.” (Robin Toner and Patrick Healy, “Obama Calls For Wider And Less Costly Health Care Coverage,” The New York Times, 5/30/07)

Obama’s Energy Plan Will Cost $150 Billion Over 10 Years, Equal To $15 Billion Annually And $60 Billion Over Four Years. “Obama will invest $150 billion over 10 years to advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure, accelerate the commercialization of plug-in hybrids, promote development of commercial-scale renewable energy, invest in low-emissions coal plants, and begin the transition to a new digital electricity grid.” (Obama For America, “The Blueprint For Change,” http://www.barackobama.com, Accessed 1/14/08, p. 25)

Obama’s Tax Plan Will Cost Approximately $85 Billion A Year; Equal To $340 Billion Over Four Years. “[Obama’s] proposed tax cuts and credits, aimed at workers earning $50,000 or less per year, would cost the Treasury an estimated $85 billion annually.” (Margaret Talev, “Obama Proposes Tax Code Overhaul To Help The Poor,” McClatchy Newspapers, 9/19/07)

* Obama’s Plan Would Raise Taxes On Capital Gains And Dividends, And On Carried Interest. Obama’s tax plan includes: “ncreasing the highest bracket for capital gains and dividends and closing the carried interest loophole.” (Obama For America, “Barack Obama: Tax Fairness For The Middle Class,” Fact Sheet, http://www.barackobama.com, Accessed 1/8/08)