Obama Slams Nancy Reagan
|
|
Imagine for just one moment that a Republican made a joke about ANY Kennedy, or a Clinton, or any one of thier families.
But what we will hear? “Oh relax… it was just a joke.”
Really? Had a talk show host or radio jock made a joke about Ted Kennedy, or anything like this about a Democrat, there would be calls for them to be fired, Olbermann would be pitching a fit and people would cry to boycott sponsors… But it was not a radio person. It was the next President of the United States who asked for a new civil tone and dignity in politics. Wow, between this comment and choosing Rohm “Republicans can go fuck themselves” Emanuel as COS (yes he said that in an interview in 2006), looks like we are off to a great start for “change”. (sigh)
TRIVIA: Guess which board Emanuel has served on? If you guessed Freddie Mac, you are right. Funny how these folks all seem to be connected to this crisis they now claim to have the answers for, isn’t it?
on 
Dude, Nancy DID have seances with dead Presidents. I agree, it was a joke made in bad taste but I hardly think it was a “slam” b/c she actually DID it.
As for your trivia quesiton, odd how you didn’t have an issue with McCain’s chief advisor receiving lobbiest money from Fannie and Freddie throughout most of the election. Nor did I ever hear you condemn Bush for choosing a VP who told Dems to go F themselves. Wierd that you’d be so partisan.
It’s obvious you are angry, but how about taking a deep breath and giving the guy a chance? Seems to me he’s taking a responsible bi-partisan approach to a crisis which the current Administration seems unable to grapple with.
Mark- your kidding me right. Exactly how many lobbyist are there in Washington in the first place; the difference between advisors in a campaign and advisors or COS “IN” the White House are not even comparable. The guy was not was on the Board for Gods sake, that carries a little more weight in “what did he know” catagory than a lobbyist of which Freddie and Fannie had hundreds.
Its not about anger either, its about integrity Mark. If you say you are going to do something , ie “change” the climate of politics than do it but don’t act like this COS is anything different than your sides views on Rove. Same breed my friend and it seems its business as usual. Thats fine. Its Obama right to select whom it see fit, but at least have a little level of integrity about it.
Emanuel was named to the board in 2000 by President Bill Clinton, he resigned in 2001 to run for Congress.
McCain’s CHIEF campaign advisor Rick Davis’ lobby firm was recieving $15,000 PER MONTH from Freddie Mac from 2005 until August of 2008 (when Freddie was siezed by the government). Now, you were speaking about integrity, right?
PS to compare him to Karl Rove, who is an underhanded, anything goes campaign strategist (and quite possibly a criminal, hopefully there will be an investigation starting next year), who destroyed McCain in 2000 to get his W elected, is illogical.
Nancy Regan claimed to have spoken with an astrologer on a regular basis, like horiscopes… She never claimed to talk to the dead.
But I do love how the defense of “It is ok for them to do it, not you” with Rohm and the Nancy Reagan remark has started. That Kool Aide is strong. Drink up my friend. The Messiah, is NEVER wrong.
So the CHANGE and new tone we were promised is allowed to be pushed aside beucase of what toher people have done in the past, Mark? Oh, ok, I see… Because when I think of a “ a responsible bi-partisan approach “, I think Rohm. You are delusionala.
But see, I live in Ohio, so I know I am not allowed to question the Messiah. If I do, I will be investigated by the henchmen… AKA the Governor of Ohio and his people.
http://bearingdriftohio.blogspot.com/2008/11/gov-stricklands-thugs-being.html
PS expect a LOT of “two wrongs make a right” and “Well Bush did this or that” or “Well Karl Rove did this or that” for the next four years. See, it goes to show that this “Change” thing was not a change for a positive, bipartisan government as we were promised. No, that was a lie in order to win power and CHANGE things to liberal elites way.
I know, I know, Bush, blah blah blah. Doesn’t change the fact that choosing someone like Rohm as COS and making hateful comments about Nancy Reagan is NOT a new civil tone and is NOT a civil bipartisan way. It is, however, that this man is a liar. And now, it is not that I am ‘angry’ or what ever other glib comment you chose to use, it means I have not drank the kool aide and know a liar when I see him (this is where you make another Bush comment) fine.
What is sad is, people like Mark used to get so angry that people would not admit when Bush was wrong. Well, since this President Elect was chosen based on emotion, and not on intellect, it will be worse. Sad too, because Mark is one of the most intellectual people I know. Guess we will have to wait 4-8 years for that honest intellect to return
The thing I did not like about the Nancy Reagan slam is Obama slipped up in answering the question, and then to cover his slip-up he changed the focus to Nancy.
This from someone who insisted that politic operatives were wrong to target Michelle. And Michelle was much more political than Nancy was.
I guess I should not be surprised since Mr. Post partisanship picked a very partisan chief of staff.
As far as Rove, he was a genius who got the job done so liberals hate him. They prefer guys that get things done who mail dead fish to enemies and who stab a table with a knife and says, “Dead” after naming each individual enemy.
By the way, I love how Rove once again got Californians to vote against gay marriage.
Actually, Nancy was into astrology. She never had a seance.
Seances were held by Hillary.
What fun it will be with Obama and no teleprompter!
True, I hate Rove because he got the job done. McCain would have been our President in 2000 not the inept “decider” we got. I think most of us will agree that America would be a far better place today with a President McCain leaving office than a President Bush…
(I for one - and I confess, I was a McCain supporter in 1999 - do not believe that McCain would have gotten us into the mess in Iraq).
But, I digress, SW, you’re my guy, but I have to differ with you on this one. Perhaps my partisanship is getting in the way, but I really think we need to all take a deep breath and give President Obama a chance. I hope, but I also belive that he will strive to have a bi-partisan administration (which we all must agree the last 8 years were in no way bipartisan, thanks Karl) - but, there will be some hardcore Dems in the administration too. Afterall, the Democratic Party did win the election any way you slice it.
The Nancy Reagan reference wasn’t BHO’s only gaffe. See the article by Dana Milbank in today’s WaPo.
Obama followed the offensive seance remark with a Lincoln referrence. I wonder if Mary Lincoln’s seances triggered that particular focal jump? Not an auspicious start, but at least he had the decency to call Nancy Reagan and offer a personal apology.
Regarding Rahm, maybe it’s just me, but i see his use even moreso in getting the Democrats in Congress to work with the adminstration. One of his major acts in Clinton’s administration was garnering support in Congress for NAFTA, hardly a policy heavily supported by the Dems. In fact, i believe he’s DLC, one of the two Democratic opposites (the other being the blue dogs) of the liberals/progressives. He’s got the same Chicago background as Obama, though obviously they manifest their “toughness” in very different ways. I can see how he’d be a good foil to Obama’s more withdrawn personality.
Obama becomes Orahma? Surrounding himself with Clintonistas?
This isn’t “change” - this is “rerun”
If he picks Summers as Sec Treas i may find myself in the awkward position of beginning to agree with you Brian. Clinton had a lot of very capable folks, and it would be foolish to dismiss them just because of that association. Not to mention that avoiding anyone with Clinton ties would shrink the talent pool considerably. But if it gets to the point that his Cabinet looks like a class of 2000 reunion party, I certainly won’t be happy.