Skip to main content

Home/ Dole Group/ Group items tagged ronald reagan

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
cody s

Andrew Sullivan on the Promise of Obama's Second Term - Newsweek and The Daily Beast - 5 views

www.thedailybeast.com/...se-of-obama-s-second-term.html

george bush election barack obama romney mitt romney reagan ronald reagan second term

shared by cody s on 25 Sep 12 - No Cached
  • cody s on 25 Sep 12
     
    This article addresses the potential of Obama's second term. Andrew Sullivan is a great writer (you all should look at his blog) and in this piece he predicts that in the event of an Obama win, several things would happen. First, he says, the Republican party would (might) experience a kind of whiplash from its extreme radicalization and loss, becoming more moderate. This - the cooperation of the Republicans in the Senate - could allow Obama to become a bi-partisan hero, dealing with the deficit and immigration reform. Why he chose Reagan to compare to I don't really know, but it's an interesting read.
  • ...2 more comments...
  • John West on 30 Sep 12
     
    The part about the "whiplash" for the Republican Party that you mention is compelling to me, partly because I've read things (I think a few on this Diigo group) that have suggested the exact opposite. Some Democrats are hoping that the radicalization of the Republican Party will continue and make a Democrat victory in 2016 a sure thing. What Sullivan is suggesting seems to make more sense. What he portrays as an entirely new second-term America under Obama seems to fit perfectly with the President's message of "finishing the job," and frankly strikes me as a little idealistic. The section on the first page that describes the unique conditions for a Reagan status second term (tax cuts, deficit was smaller, etc.) is very telling to me: from what I can tell, these circumstances don't exist in the same way today. For him to transform into the "bi-partisan hero" you are talking about with things like immigration reform, it seems like he will need to not simply "finish the job," but take on a totally new strategy (like, as Sullivan points out, Reagan did in his second term).
  • Anna Schutte on 01 Oct 12
     
    This is a very compelling argument for giving Obama 4 more years to finish what he has started. Even though it talks about "potential not prediction." More and more I'm understanding that Reagan was more of a centrist and more practical than idealogical.
  • mabel taylor on 08 Oct 12
     
    I like the idea in this article that you brought up Cody, about Obama becoming a widely supported bipartisan President if he wins again, but it is pretty debased throughout by the constant references to today's great polarization between left and right. While the great partisanship between states and people and politicians is mentioned about other ideas, it seems pretty dreamy to think Obama could sidestep this in terms of his own legacy. Though Obama may not be able to change how the right perceives him, I think the difference between Sullivan's prediction about Republicans becoming more centrist compared to earlier ideas we have discussed where Republicans just become further absorbed in their sparsely-supported and deeply conservative views is really interesting and I am fascinated to see how that plays out. I can see how another win for Obama would lead Republicans to reconsider their platform and targeted voting blocs, but also the idea of withdrawing into their misguided viewpoints in a protectionist-type way also makes sense.
  • Eli Melrod on 11 Nov 12
     
    Well, it looks like what Sullivan predicted is right. The Republicans did experience a "whiplash" for all of their super right wing policies. I heard an interesting statistic that if the Republicans hadn't been able to do so much redistricting for their house seats, demographically, they would have lost the majority in the house.
Eli Melrod

We Need a 'Conservative' Party - 6 views

www.nytimes.com/...need-a-conservative-party.html

conservative_values ryan

shared by Eli Melrod on 06 Sep 12 - No Cached
  • Eli Melrod on 06 Sep 12
     
    I found this op-ed piece interesting, because I think it gets at the underlying problem with the current Republican party: there is no room for middle ground, because nowadays that means weakness. Although a centrist to philosophy to all problems does not work, I thought Friedman painted a nice picture of why little gets done in Washington due to the stark contrasts between the two parties. Basically, radicalization of the Republican party is one of the biggest problems with the current political situation.
  • ...3 more comments...
  • John West on 07 Sep 12
     
    I really liked this piece. The terrifying part to me (the author points this out really well) isn't just how little gets done, but how little gets talked about. The list of three other massive issues - more demanding and globalized jobs, energy crisis, and immigration - can hardly be brought up with the radicalization of the parties you mentioned. The reason this election is "about" jobs and the economy is that it is the only issue the parties can agree to disagree about constructively. Any one of the others, I think, would become about ideology and not about reaching a sensible compromise.
  • Cameron G on 09 Sep 12
     
    This article, to me, really does address the main obstacle to becoming a united nation, which is radicals on either side of the political spectrum, but particularly conservatives. As a conservative myself, I find that often times I am frustrated by how stubborn or radical the leaders of the Republicans can be and this article makes an excellent point as to how that is affecting our nation. What our leaders need to understand is that they are never going to fully get their way, but instead they need to learn to compromise. Otherwise, nothing will get done. I agree with John that all of the other important issues need to be addressed, but they can't because of the radical ideals of a few powerful people.
  • Anna Schutte on 09 Sep 12
     
    This editorial, along with John's article, show how important it is for the Republicans to become less radical. John's article shows that Karl Rove is actually already trying to do this by supporting more traditionally, conservative politicians and publicly taking more moderate stances. However, Romney and most of the Republican ads continue to cater to the radical right and their "no new taxes" and anti government positions. I wonder what would happen if Romney actually took the more moderate positions of Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush. Would he lose the Republican base? I also found Murdoch's observation about immigrants being "natural Republicans" very interesting. Is this because they he imagines they have more conservative social opinions?
  • cody s on 10 Sep 12
     
    This one really echoes a lot of what I've been hearing about the republican party. It seems like the tea-partiers have gotten big enough that the Republicans are shifting to the right so as to avoid a tea party candidate cropping up and splitting the vote (I read that somewhere, don't remember where). This issue really just reinforces, for me at least, the problems with the two-party system. Instead of having three parties, two for sane people and one for the tea partiers, the republicans have found themselves in a situation where they're straddling the widening chasm between moderates and radicals, and it seems to me like they've chosen the radical side as their base.
  • miles henderson on 10 Sep 12
     
    I found this article interesting because it addresses the problems with both parties concerning national debt. I really enjoyed how the article poked fun at the election, saying " we celebrate the fact that it might include a serious debate about one of the four great issues of the day, though even that is not clear yet". After reading this article, I am beginning to think more of a conservative approach is needed to fix the issue in America concerning debt. Although in the past conservative presidents(George Bush Sr., Reagan) have used tax revenue and budget cuts to fix debt, I do not think it is out of reach for President Obama to fix debt issues in another 4 years if he takes a more "right-winged" approach. I do believe the job of fixing national debt is not the job for a radical member of the G.O.P or a very strong liberal, but for the best candidate who can make the most people happy while doing what is best for the country with a strong approach.
1 - 2 of 2
Showing 20▼ items per page