Tumbleweed wrote:I see. The Iraq war vote. The one Obama wasn't a part of. Another one of his lip service votes.
The Ronald McDonald comment. Obama said that Reagan delivered on what people were looking for — controlling an overgrown government, for example.
I can't think of a single time in recent history that a Democrat has shrunk the size of government. Obama is not going to either.
Or maybe Obama thinks that raising the national debt in order to bring the country out of a recession was a good move. Either way Obama left his comments open to interpretation, then bitches about it when someone tries to figure out what he meant. Reagan didn't control government spending or the size of government.
Seems like Obama was endorsing Reaganomics to me.
Boy - you are a good Clintonite - you have got the twisting and spinning down pretty good.
Unfortunately, Billary, I did not write that they were lying about the "Iraq Vote". I wrote this:
"Lying about:
What he said about Ronald Reagan
The "fairy Tale" of his war opposition. "
Please note the difference. There is not the word "vote". Obama was not in the Senate for the 02 vote and therefore did not cast a vote on it. Hillary, on the other hand, coming off her 8 years of being very involved in the white house decisions, and a sitting senator with all the access to intelligence that she wanted - for 10 years - cast a YES vote.
Obama is on public record and with recorded speeches voiced his opposition to the war - going against the 70% majority. Obama didn't take a poll to decide which way to come down on the issue.
Now - Bill Clinton finds Obama's votes with Hillary for funding the war once he was in the senate to be the problem. Hence his calling his opposition to the war a fairytale. Nice attempt to change the subject and mislead readers about my statement.
Reagan
I don't think that you have read or watched the Obama quote - here it is.
Obama's Reagan Remarks to Reno Gazette-Journal,
Jan. 14, 2008
Obama: I don’t want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what’s different are the times. I do think that, for example, the 1980 election was different. I mean, I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that, you know, Richard Nixon did not, and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path, because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like, you know, with all the excesses of the '60s and the '70s, you know government had grown and grown, but there wasn’t much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating, and I think people just tapped into – he tapped into what people were already feeling, which is we want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism, and, and, you know, entrepreneurship that had been missing.
I think Kennedy, 20 years earlier, moved the country in a fundamentally different direction. So I think a lot of it just has to do with the times. I think we’re in one of those times right now, where people feels like things as they are going right now aren’t working, that we’re bogged down in the same arguments that we’ve been having, and they’re not useful. And the Republican approach, I think, has played itself out. I think it’s fair to say that the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10, 15 years, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom.
Now, you’ve heard it all before. You look at the economic policies when they’re being debated among the presidential candidates, it’s all tax cuts. Well, we know, we’ve done that; we’ve tried it. That’s not really going to solve our energy problems, for example.
Hillary Clinton LIES:
[He] has said in the last week that he really liked the ideas of the Republicans over the last 10 to 15 years, and we can give you the exact quote. ... They were ideas like privatizing Social Security, like moving back from a balanced budget and a surplus to deficit and debt.
SitemapIndex
RSS Feed