I guess Reagan is the only president that can execute executive orders for illegal immigrant amnesty......
@ over 2 years ago
Troy, MI 48083, USA
30 years ago
doesn't make it right then or now
different set of actual circumstances
what part of "illegal" don't people understand. (liberal votes)
@ over 2 years ago
Fort Belvoir, VA, USA
@ over 2 years ago
plc where does your article supply proof of its claim?
@ over 2 years ago
What proof would you like? The immigration law of 1986? The fact that Reagan worked with those on the other side of the isle as opposed to what we have now? What proof would you like that you can't find on your own?
your obfuscating. How does your article negate my point. Was that even the point of the article?
What were the executive actions/orders that Reagan took with regards to immigration that were contrary to what Congress at the time asked for?
@ over 2 years ago
Morningside Heights, New York, NY
Obama has certainly "evolved" in terms of how he views the legality/constitutionality of what he's planning on doing.
I'm just pointing out that there are major differences in the two. One was working WITH Congress and the other isn't. To try to say otherwise shows a lack of understanding of the situation. But that's not really shocking
amnesty did not have repubulican support
It was part of the agreed upon deal at the time, that's what was passed by Congress. I think the deal was amnesty and then enforcement. We know which part didn't come to pass.
If the Republicans didn't like it then and don't like it now, where's the issue?
PLC congress will not work with the president, not the other way around
regardless, he used EO for amnesty. the article's main argument is about the magnitude - not about the prior act's constitutionality.
@ over 2 years ago
South Side, Chicago, IL
Bam's actions are likely to go much, much further than these ones, that's for sure.
the scale of both reagan, and Poppy Bush's EO's on amnesty would be highly comparable to what Obama will likely do. the stats are nearly identical.
I thought we're gonna do like 5mil or so.
I think they need to work with each other. The President should be willing to work with the Congress and the Congress should be willing to work with the President.
based on numbers, probably.
but the concept and constitutionality is the same.
and the point on no calls for impeaching Reagan for an act of similar constitutionality is the same.
it's either constitutional or not.
Bam doesn't even wanna try to work with the new Congress if he plans on doing this now.
The D Senate has run interference by sitting on bills passed by the house. Not even giving the house the courtesy of an up or down vote.
i agree, plc.
which side is threatened by a primary challenge if they work across the isle?
Those days are over. Let's see how willing the President is to work with the Congress.
EOs working WITH congress are much different than EOs working AGAINST congress.
I think you, and the politicians themselves would be surprised by how much good will working across the aisle will garner. Way too many Americans are tired of the ultra partisan bull#### that has soiled a dirty business.
Why not just let I dunno a few days go by with the new Congress?
Or we're not even gonna do that anymore? Cuz you know Bam "hears" all the people who didn't vote and they support him.
this EO working with the current congress, and it agrees with the majority of Americans.
Troy, MI, USA
It's being done in the lame duck session for a reason.
I don't think unilateral action on immigration by the President agrees with the majority of Americans. I mean you already saw Oregon (an otherwise liberal state) voting against Measure 88 granting them licenses
how can you say that plc when republicans are already making threats once the new congress is in session?
look up national polls on it drew
my point is simply this republicans are already calling Obama's, un-executed, EO an impeachable offense when recent presidents have done the exact same thing regaardless of whose side supports what.......
plc not two fays after the elections republicans were discussing impeaching obama
at the end of the day though, Obama's presidency is done, and his legacy is etched in the history books. he waded use through aeconomic disaster, got the majority of our people out of the middle east, created a program that put bablance in the
healthcare system, and presided over millions of jobs created. H e is just going to cruise these last 2 years.
Republicans are making threats because he's not even trying to work with them. Unlike Reagan.
Two days after he was inaugurated Republicans were planning on undermining him. I can bet that same thing happened with Clinton. Also with Bush by Democrats. And Bush II. And Reagan. That's politics.
seriiusly dude i would not work with anyone who spat on me either.
?? Somebody spat on him?
republicans with their anti-american herifitage, personally insulting, an at times racist rhetoric.
but if you really want to get something done why come out the gateguns drawn making comments like that.
Rs and Ds don't agree. That's the way it works. You try to meet in the middle. The senate sitting on house bills is not a way to deal with the differences. Let the people chosen by America to represent them to vote.
When it's voted down, try to figure out the middle. You'll never get to that by crying that somebodys been spat on.
there is two sides to that coin plc
Anti American herifitage? Personaly insulting? racist rhetoric? I would say that you are way too sensitive if you think any disagreement is anti American, insulting or racist.
I'm not sure what a "gategun" is but the one coming out swinging is the president saying he'll do this before the new year. Totally unwilling to even try to compromise with the new congress.
What are the two sides?
Dassssss racist! How dare you disagree with Obama!
at this point both sides are unwilling to work with each other
@plc - if an eo is unconstitutional, it doesn't matter if it's working with or against congress.
that part is irrelevant
St Paul, MN 55111, USA
What's interesting about Obama is unlike Clinton (who triangulated and went center), - - when Barry gets a shellacking he moves further left.
My issue isn't with the amnesty but in that it is a very short term solution. Why is amnesty required in the first place? What are we going to change strategically about how we approach immigration
@ over 2 years ago
Villa Park, IL, USA
These are the questions I want answered and I have heard little from either side.
It's a reward for sending all those kids here this summer! Well done! Here's our red carpet.
Upper West Side, New York, NY
Amnesty now, enforcement later? Maybe not sure, probably not.
I think that's the plan. Also people keep saying executive order, it's actually most likely gonna be an executive action, (a distinction without much difference)
an EO in it of itself is not unconstitutional. But an EO deliberately meant to undermine the constitutional powers of the congress very well could be.
I also want to make the side note about the general opinion of the country. The majority of people are NOT in favor of amnesty. They are in favor of immigration reform.
The President making a big deal out of his anyway eo is pure political gamesmanship. If he was truly interested in making a difference with the quality of our immigration system he'd be a in a room discussing not at the podium yapping.
Anyway = amnesty
isn't there already a Senate bill waiting for the house to vote on?
@ over 2 years ago
The Senate hasn't sent it to the House yet
does the house have a bill
John Galt... Bernie Is A Socialist
@ over 2 years ago
North Olmsted, OH, USA
does noonan think Pres Obama is running again
Silver, yes, there is a bill sitting with the House. I guess it isn't one they want to bring to a vote. There are many bills sitting in Reid's desk as well. You are correct when referring to that specific bill.
But all the same the President should not act on this executive order without doing it in tandem with passable legislation that provides long term immigration reform
If Bam does this during the lame duck session, it shows he doesn't even wanna attempt to try to work with the new Congress on anything.
Yorkville, New York, NY
what's the other spin? ah well. republicrats at it again.
@ over 2 years ago
Cerritos, CA 90703, USA
we're way beyond....
mightvas well hang s sign at the Oval Office: NO BLACKS
@ over 2 years ago
Strongsville, OH 44136, USA
Strongsville, OH, USA
the current house doesn't want to work with him now or they would do something with the Senate bill...why will that be better in a few months...unless of course it has only been about politics which is cool but don't make this about anything else
Arbutus, MD, USA
Noonan thinks Obama is a narcissistic self centered crazy liberal.
Politics are definitely a factor (see Keystone XL, poor Mary can't even get a vote). I will say that if Barack waits until the next Congress, and the Republicans show the same lack of interest in addressing reform, then they will only be shooting
Addison, IL, USA
themselves in the foot.
It's also very possible that the House would send back the bill with changes that the Democratic Senate would have issue with resulting in a net waste of time.
so waste their time
Madison Park, Baltimore, MD
but he is not running again galt you might want to bring her up to speed
Bush didn't run in 2008 but the Democrats still ran against him. Just the way it is
oh absolutely they should run against him...and I was of the mind that Pres Obama shouldn't do the EO thing but now I think he should to force them to do something on immigration...his moving on immigration in 2012 helped the dems and it will here
Why would it force them to do anything?
If anything it would take the pressure off them
Really Obama isn't running again? Why is he always giving campaign speeches,...... I know, if he had any experience running anything, he start working with Congress.
to the contrary, their inaction would show that he needed to do something on the issue because the reps refuse to...that is how it will be sold and that is how people will buy it
Catonsville, MD, USA
...and galt still has nothing to offer to the debate...at least you're consistent
That's how the people who believed "if you like your plan, you can keep it. Period" might buy it, yeah sure.
Rose Hill, New York, NY
Please explain how is the executive branch at the end of the legislative process, stopping the legislative branch from doing their job. This President has been begging the Gop six years to produce a bill on immigration
@ over 2 years ago
reform. The Senate has passed a bipartisan bill, that house refused to bring to the floor for a vote.
The legislative branch doesn't have to do the President's bidding. They can do whatever they like. They are equal in power.
Palatine, IL, USA
whatever...they will buy it...mainly because it's true
xactly ami...they don't have to obviously...and they don't like doing anything on immigration
Not in the current split but we'll see what they put forth in the new unified Congress
So please explain again how the President refuse to work with the Gop in Congress. You just said they do not need him to do their job.
why on fücking earth would Africans (who reside in America)
want fücking immigrants sucking up low paying jobs and welfare\foodstamp monies?
I can understand the jobs for most but the government money will be divided by more.Now there's an example of the stupidity and lack of economic understanding right?
Pink I take exception to your use of the term African. The vast majority of Africans who find their way here are educated professionals who are less likely to receive welfare than any color of American.
roger that AM I stand corrected I actually meant the ancestors of the slaves who are living here destroying the fücking place
let's just call them undocumented
Hey, thinker! How is Michigan treating you and the family?
et in Arcadia ego
@ over 2 years ago
Dallas, TX, USA
It's so important that the D controlled congress from 09-10 didnt send the president anything either.
Giving the ability to work legally to a few million people who snuck across the border at a time when many were losing their jobs? Not politically smart.
Because they were sending other important legislative to the President desk. The healthcare Law, Ledbetter act, Chip program, the reauthorization of the Patriot Act, NSA things the right
Temple, TX, USA
praised W as keeping us safe. The House hadn't done anything about immigration, at least the Senate has passed a bipartisan bill, that's sitting on boner's desk..
So what you're saying is that immigration was low on their priority list. So low that it was still years until they actually attempted to put a legit immigration bill on the table. And after all these years they expect everyone to jump when
and how high they say to.
Yes, It was lower than the other bills on his agenda. But he has always been asking the legislative branch to produce something he could sign for the pass six years. House leaderships say it's important, just not important to actually do
something about it.
pretty good sir glad to finally be back the new company is awesome
Sterling Heights, MI, USA
all i was doing was making a simple point. an executive order is an executive order.
Madison Heights, MI, USA
besides all the side fluff about which side of congress agrees with what.
republicans have publically stated that they will move for impeachment if he approaches immagration
That would be poltical suicide and a huge waste of tax payer dollars
what to impeach Obama?
lol, I know....
if you think they won't test the waters you must not know the new GOP.
Not when this President does one. This EO is just like the one Reagan done in 87, to cover the 1.5 m children not covered in the 1986 bill. Thanks Reagan for the quote "Anchor baby".
especially since they have control of the house and sensate
i will say this the next 2 years will be interesting.
i think there shear hate for the guy get them to at least test the waters.
that is also my point bhaven.
my last point is that we should be the last country blasting "illegal immagrants". Everyone in this country today is "illegal". But I forget what country I am talking about here. We are the ignorant hypocrites of the world. We tell the world how it
should live, but refuse to address the pronlems in our own country, we tell "illegal" migrants to this country you have to go back where you come from, but won't address our own illegality. GOD BLESS US!
our sovereignty over this land we call America was attained by tyrannical acts. Our history riddled by violence, and depravity. What gives us our rights? a document written by people who were themselves corrupt hypocrites to the ideals they put in
the documents that laid the foundation of our great country. we are all here together and we have learned from our past. we should embrace the people migrating here and make it easier because we have learned the lesskns of our past.
thinker, I get the whole evil colonists argument but some of the people here were pretty damn brutal as well
the whole peaceful, Earth loving, American Indian is as much of a lie as anything
white people guilty off violence and depravity? Pink, any comment?
Southwood Riviera, Torrance, CA 90505
Ami, You might have that same mentality if some strange people with their diseases, and culture just moved in your house claiming they discovered it.
agreed, I am not saying they weren't. They were great warriors, but that isn't my arguememt.
Bhaven, no, some people have good intentions. Some people do not. The are plenty of both in every group of people. American Indians were not some unified group, they were often brutal to one another. The colonists simply added another
the indians were a people that had not matured
They weren't a singular people though, this is what I'm saying! The Cherokee and the Navajo were as different as night and day
It was a land of many many nations. Not a nation of different peoples
Nah, man, they didn't fight at all. They were one big happy family and in harmony with nature, Avatar-style (just not blue or with magical dreadlocks).
all of which had sovereignty.
We have sovereignty too yet here we are about to give amnesty to millions of invaders
Either we're much more welcoming than the Indians were or we're way bigger suckers
we took soveriegnty here. Big difference.
Didn't the east coast tribes accept the white invaders because they saw them as a powerful ally in defending their territory from other indians?
@ over 2 years ago
Yellow Springs, OH 45387, USA
So did they. You think they just all wandered in together and peacefully divided up the land? Nope, that's not how things worked back then.
That may have been the first American case of unintended consequences.
Colonists just helped to unified the different tribes against a common enemy, The Great European discoverer of this new land. If they have good intentions, it would be alright
for them to move in your house.
Bhaven, that's not correct either. Many tribes were allies with the colonists. Just so you don't think I'm some sort of cheerleader for the young American nation, I thought the Indian Removal Act was heinous and cruel.
But I tend to see the world very pragmatically and try to avoid cemented positions (even though as being human I can get caught up in that trap sometimes)
AMI, invaders? do you REALLY feel that way?
No, just fighting hyperbole with hyperbole.
Northeast Torrance, Torrance, CA
Why does ANYBODY celebrate this holiday.
Christopher Columbus: What Really Happened: http://youtu.be/aF_unlvjccA
Detroit, MI, USA
It's an important date, no matter how one commemorates it.
its a lie and another example of how history is white washed, and messaged into falsehoods.
Seems the people on Hispanola got things off to a bad start by killing the first 30 colonists
That fact aside, I have never fully understood why we celebrate a person who never set foot in what is now our country.
Yeah. They should have just built a fence.
Obama said something very racist, he called illegal immigrants..... Bed makers and fruit pickers.
Fruit pickers and bed makers: http://youtu.be/4uDA5Eccws0
they did no doubt, but columbus was had the hispaniolas defeated. Why did he proceed to enslave and exterminate natives.
You know, that is pretty darn racist!
Rome should be totally destroyed and forced to pay reparations.
Egypt, a huge slave nation should be forced also.
England, Spain, ...
Let's make history reflect liberal ideals of 2014…
thinker because that's what conquering nations did back in the day.... It was the common (not justified) way to establish dominance and forcefully assimilate one culture into another
are you serious? racist, no...... he was demonstrating and posing an empathetuc argument.
funny how current democracy nations are all liberals wish to complain about.
Russia, China, north Korea, pick a middle African country,, all are great to a liberal.
hell liberals even find Hitler's actions justified.
and by difinition it is not racist. For something to be racist there must be a group that is offended. show me a video of mexicans that were offended by that.......
He totally left out the ones who mow our lawns and clean our pools.
that is what you call racist john? no I see why you have nothing to say about things that ARE racist.....smdh.
It would be even harder to produce a video of a white personel cleaning a hotel room.
I see white hotel staff all the time jc. Sure they're typically Eastern European but they definitely aren't Hispanic
my fingers are too fat for this keyboard
i point to mexicans because i remember that speech and it was one of his many pushes for immigration reform.
AMI,, OK. I should have said west of the Mississippi. My bad.
Oh you meant "over there"
all i am saying is it should not be a national holiday.
No, it shouldn't. There are many, much more honorable people available to be celebrated
Regarding Columbus. It's one thing to celebrate, it's another to commemorate, he ushered in a ton of changes... Just like other historical events that have good and bad. And while he didn't get to our country, he certainly set up our exports.
on that we can agree.
Spotsylvania, VA 22553, USA
It's commemorated still in places where most of the people view him as doing a *lot* more damage than here.
Of course it's racist, if a Republican said it, your head would explode.
The discovery of the new world should be celebrated. Period.
Also people forget that indigenous people ended up dying mostly by disease brought by colonists. The Europeans had some immunity for stuff like small pox, it had never been encountered in the New World.
Which meant that missionaries and other good people who tried to help, often ended up spreading that as well.
thats the thing he didnt discover the "new world".
No one really knows who did
Of course he did......
no matter who you subscribe to discovering the "new world", the earth was considered "Flat" until Columbus returned.
he as a minimum opened up the world to it's potential. good & bad.
Courtland, VA, USA
nations/people have settled, conquered, lost, dominated, submitted from the beginning of man.
to assert 1 nation or race is responsible for all the ills & misfortunes in the world is just a misinformed display of prejudices
Humans are humans
here is a simple concept you can't discover what what has already been found.
european believed the world was flat...... the idea that the world was round was discovered long before columbus' travels
I thought that the Europeans (well the learned ones anyway) thought the earth was round well before Columbus. His problem was just that he thought it was round but much smaller.
Columbus also didn't even discover the new world for Europeans, the vikings got there earlier. However, the knowledge of it was long gone by Columbus's time.
Early Greek philosophers were the first to state that the Earth was spherical. Educated persons for the most part never reverted back to a flat Earth past that point.
I'm going to agree with AMI and thinker. it was an accidental event that wrought many changes.
Cerritos, CA, USA
to defend John, it was discovery for Europe and Columbus. If we were to celebrate anything, though, it would be his seamanship. That's about it.
I bet Pink would really appreciate his seamanship
Maybe we could celebrate National Seamanship Day!
Dammit Drew, you sunk my subtlety
Obama's teleprompter is racist.
Put your banjo down Cletus and brush your teeth.
srorriM & ekomS
@ over 2 years ago
Obama only injected those job descriptions to diffuse the arguement that they are taking our Jobs. Bush did the same thing. Except he just said that they are doing the Jobs that Americans don't want to do.
Well now that it is legal for them to work maybe they'd like to try for something better than fruit picker or bed maker.
not much chance of that. If an immigration unfriendly president wins in 2016, any immigrant in a higher visibility job would likely be deported.
Immigration unfriendly or illegal immigration unfriendly?
Yeah they might as well just keep slaving away
I like the idea of a new President changing, by exec order:
business tax rates
capital gain taxes
abortion clinic rules
affirmative action rules
I'm pretty sure dems wouldn't care, after all it's got precedence now.
heck even Obamacare can be altered
Who needs Congress to change a law now! wheeeeee
What undocumented immigrants can't work legally according to the law???? Executive order!
They won't care because republicans haven't won a presidential election without a bush or Nixon on the ballot since 1928
this didn't establish precedent...TJ established precedent...we may be able to push to Washington depending on what exactly is meant by precedent
bush was on the ballot with reagan...nixon with ike
Good point Silver
about this not establishing precedent...thanks
Sure. .. But I'm trying to determine exactly where an executive order would be considered an abuse of power. At which point does it tip the balance of power to the Executive branch?
Also Obama said for years he did not have the authority to do what he just did. Was he wrong all those years? Or did he lie? Or did he just not know what he was talking about?
did he say that?
what exactly did he say?
… With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed …. - See more at: http://m.speaker.gov/general/22-times-president-obama-
Biden must have squared him away
Must have been it
illegal OR legal. They are related.
That is immaterial unless there is a minor involved
More than that even, Bam has said similar stuff to Univision and to hecklers at his speeches. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/11/18/us/by-using-executive-order-on-immigration-obama-would-reverse-long-held-stance.html?referrer=
I guess he's "evolved" now?
I thought univision is where ami got his quotes
Well the point is, Obama claimed he did not have the power to do exactly what he just did on numerous occasions.
And here's the thing. Despite everyone (supporters & opponents) recognizes that he's changed his own position on executive authority... He, Barack, won't admit to that.
Drew, the guy is comfortable in his deceit and most of his supporters are more than happy to embrace the illusion. He is a fantastic American politician.
They eat up whatever diarrhea of lies the man spews.
every president's supporters do that. this is not new. but look at his popularity now. not so fantastic.
other presidents have spewed better lies, and pulled most of the nation along with them.
That's true Undr... Lots of the goodwill towards Obama has been exhausted.
UW, not all Presidents have been equal in their deception and not all have received the same levels of blind support. And, the sad thing is that although many might disapprove of Obama, they'd still vote for him.
It's weird though he lies about this though, claiming his position hasn't changed. What's the purpose of it, I don't think his supporters would give a #### if he declared that he's "evolved' on this, and it wouldn't help with his opponents.
Drew, yes but for many a disappointing Democrat is the better option versus any Republican.
If they decide to vote in the first place
By the way, Obama has special telepathic powers like Professor X from X-Men where he can hear the voices of millions of nonvoters
You never know what technology they have these days
Hahaha, non voters unite.
AMI, re blind support, I'll agree to disagree with you there. I've seen plenty in the past.
as for the non-voters; I still contend it's political fatigue.
Plenty doesn't mean equal
Things were on a whole different level with Obama. None of the other guys really had that kinda worship. I don't know if we'll ever see that again for a while.
Poltical fatigue or not, his statement that he "hears" them is non committal. It sounds good but means absolutely nothing. But that's pure Obama after all.
In the words of that horribly repetitive John Mayer song, say what you need to say
political fatigue from the very first election...
lazy, don't give a ####,, just as happy with a communist government, a dictatorship, or a democracy..
but Obama hears them
his self denial of the election results.
"there just can't be that many conservatives in the country."
oh, I agree that it's meaningless coming from him, or any other politician for that matter.
Lakewood, CA, USA
in terms of worship, besides a couple of high profile individuals, I really haven't seen it.
people who criticize him often bring it up though.
Remember the stadium speech with the pillars? The children singing about Obama? The ####íng Nobel Peace prize? Come on man surely you jest. Obama was near deity status. Loyalty to him has waned, but like said before, they'd vote for him again
Hope springs eternal
Silly people, wishing for hope and a more promising future. You know why he won the election and the Nobel prize? You know why "they" would vote for him again? Because he's not Bush. That's how bad Bush was.
The republicans knew how badly they had fûcked up the country and how much people hated them so they took a dive in 08 and immediately started to play "blame the negro" for four years.
Then the best candidate they could come up with was Mitt Romney! It's pure genius. Sit on the sidelines while all your oil and defense buddies reap billions in profits from the chaos you've caused.
Yell loudly how inept and inexperienced our president is and whisper that he might be a Kenyan Muslim.
Mitt's biggest flaw was that he was too similar to Obama.
There was never any good answer to "well, what about Romneycare?"
No he was too similar to Bush. A politician's son born of privilege. Never had to earn or work for anything in his entire life. Didn't have to go to Vietnam.
That's why when he put on jeans and a flannel no one believed him.
Romneycare is totally different! How?? *silence*
Romney had the election won a few weeks beforehand, but he pissed it down his leg.
"Obama was born as poor as poor can be. - Dr Evil. "
Romney was a loser all the way...he didn't lose it at the end...he was always a loser...as a presidential candidate
you should run him again
Yeah, I'll give him a call, whatever
YES WE CAN!
Caught this one on RCP. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/cartoons/images/2014/11/20/nick_anderson_current_cartoon_2014-11-20_5_.jpg
even in Libesota, I find far more people who rabidly hate him due to misinformation than blind worship.
fwd:fwd:fwd:re:fwd:look what the seekret mooslim Kenyan community organizer is doing now
Rochester, MN, USA
Silver,, I believe Mitt actually is ramping up for another run. If enough money shows interest, he'll give it another try. He probably believes that the country regrets not having elected him.
similar to obama...... in what way? the contrast was stark....
so just because of a policy agreement, or disagreement because romney ran away from romneycare faster than pink running away from a straight orgy, they were a different as night and day.
I don't doubt ya Skål, blind worship of Obama hasn't been fashionable for quite some time.
It's something you saw pre-election 2008 and in the honeymoon period afterwards.
Thinker, nobody really knows how a President Romney would actually govern. You're just basing what you think is distinct from his electoral appeals.
@drew - does posthumously fellating Reagan count?
if so, that's at a level far beyond the temporary excitement from Hope and Change™
What do you consider posthumously "fellating", and I think what happened with JFK goes beyond what happened with Reagan (in JFK's case you had his detractors actually withholding from publishing critical books for a few years)
I don't think liberals ever really withheld much with Reagan
I think when someone dies though and isn't in office, there's a different dynamic. And you can say with JFK because he was assassinated, that's different too.
Enough years have passed to obliterate the bad, and exaggerate the good in both cases. JFK lived in a time when the press actually protected the presidency. Nixon was the first "No holds barred" POTUS in my memory.
Jc, yet right after JFK died before enough years had gone by.. Victor Lasky pulled his book for a few years.
Sure. I believe an earlier release would have been met with public outrage. JFK achieved instant sainthood. Reagan needed the passage of time.
Uninspiring pretty boy presidency, helped to create the Cuban Missile Crisis in the first place. Huge disconnect between how historians (of all flavors) rate him and public view
Just ask any young conservative about Iran-contra, or the savings and loan debacle. You will be met with a blank stare.
posthumously fellating = activities similar to what you ascribe as worshipping
how many times has St. Reagan's name been invoked by politicians and commentators the last 8 years...
Press protected the presidency because there might have been atomic war at any moment. I guess it's sorta understandable. Although, it's not like that concern ended after JFK.. So not really sure.
Skål, then why does Eastern Europe do it, eh?
How many times was Reagan painted on crucifixes... Not by politicians, but just by random artists?
JFK blew it with the bay of pigs. He played a strong hand in the missile crisis mostly because of bad Intel. He traded away a missile system, and managed to keep it secret. The public thought he won when he actually broke even.
I don't think he broke even, I think he fúcked up. It's like some dude leaving a bunch of oil soaked rags around his farmhouse and managing to barely put out the fire.
Yeah I know.. He didn't start the fire, it's been always burning since the world's been turning
As far as the press treatment goes, FDR and Ike were also handled with kid gloves. I believe it was just a respect for the presidency. Not the president.
Anyway, I don't think you can compare Reagan-worship or JFK worship with the Obama stuff. Different dynamic. The Obama stuff was completely blind, with JFK and Reagan depending on your view, you could say people are looking at
the past through rose-colored glasses. But they are still looking at the past.
I believe a lot of the Obama mania evolved from a feeling that America was healing the wound inflicted by slavery. More than a few people voted for him just because they thought they were a part of an historic event.
It's conceivable that those same voters will come out for Hilary. Especially if the economy continues to improve.
Well, it was an historic event (or is it *a* historic event, grammarists are conflicted)
They aren't the only ones.
It's taken as a given that Hillary will run, but her health is still a wild card. She's had scares in the past, I don't wish that on anyone though.
I think even if she runs, she won't inspire the same fervor, she's just not new enough. The far left could project their hopes on Obama, they can't do that with Hillary, - - Elizabeth Warren they could
I don't know, Drew. There is a lot of nostalgia regarding the Clinton years. If I thought there was a chance for four years like that, I'd vote for the old broad.
she's not bill
she now has baggage (good & bad)
she's much older now
health is questionable
she will win.
Yes there a lot of suppositions in her candidacy, but, if Hillary runs and makes it through the Primaries, she will win.
@ over 2 years ago
Huntsville, AL 35806, USA
she may be the only viable woman presidential candidate. another potential historic event.
Jc, still it's different. With Obama it was a blank slate basically, and anyone any degree left of center was projecting onto him. The far left considers Hillary to be too centrist and too hawkish. They'll get behind her anyway but
You're not gonna see Hillarymania from them.
put condi on the rep ticket..
hill dies on the vine
just not sure she holds up under a presidential campaign.
Voters want that new car smell.
This is the current smell. http://youtu.be/-pEhqiCD27E.
B.B.O is right!
Drew,, You might be right. It should be her turn. But the dems don't follow that rule as much as the republicans. If a well groomed hispanic lesbian shows up, Hilary could be out of the running again.
well groomed like not mustachioed?
Uh, uh, uh.. Didn't think of that one, uhh uhh. http://www.mrctv.org/blog/watch-president-obama-fumble-easy-question-precedent
Alphabet City, New York, NY
if obama signs an executive order that bans midget porn im joining the tea party!
live free or die!
@ over 2 years ago