The new Old Gipper

[one...two...tree 2,762]

By Scot Lehigh, Boston Globe

HERE'S A NOTION so heretical I hardly dare voice it.

What if Barack Obama turns out to be the Old Gipper?

The new Old Gipper, that is.

Many a stalwart Republican knight has tried to don Reagan's storied mantle, of course.

George H.W. Bush ran on Reagan's legacy. Bob Dole obligingly pledged to be "another Ronald Reagan if that's what you want." Spurning the presidential patrimony of preppy Poppy, George W. Bush made the Gipper his model.

This year's GOP contenders jousted jealously for the Reagan role. Phlegmatic Fred Thompson cast himself as Reagan's easygoing heir. A rhapsodic Mike Huckabee signed up former Reagan impresario Ed Rollins, who promptly proclaimed him "the next Reagan." Mitt Romney, who, vexingly enough, hadn't planned far enough ahead to revere Reagan during his actual presidency, executed one of his patented pirouettes, declaring himself a retrospective Reaganite. Rudy Giuliani boasted of his days in the Gipper's Justice Department.

John McCain frequently cites Reagan as his hero. In her vice-presidential debate, Sarah Palin even appropriated one of Reagan's resonant rebukes, chiding "there you go again" when Joe Biden put forth the outlandish suggestion that the immediate Republican governing record was somehow relevant to this campaign.

So if Obama is indeed the new Reagan, why, it would be political kingdom shaking, the modern-day equivalent of the unassuming, overlooked Arthur of legend sliding the sword from the stone.

I don't mean to suggest that Obama is like Reagan in policy terms. Heaven forfend. That would appall both Reagan and Obama fans. But Obama does seem to be creating the Democratic equivalent of the Gipper Gestalt, the Dutch Dynamic, which led to . . . the Ronnie Tsunami.

Folksy, funny, and infectiously optimistic, Reagan was an accomplished communicator. Less witty but more cerebral, Obama is also a compelling speaker, with a Reagan-like faith in the power of ideas. Just as the charismatic Reagan did in running against an opponent with a nasty streak, Obama radiates a basic likability.

And certainly 2008 is starting to look a lot like 1980, the year Reagan beat Jimmy Carter.

Back in those troubled times, Carter, leading an administration viewed as inept, had worn out his welcome. People clearly wanted to vote the incumbent and the governing party out, but weren't quite sure about the challenger.

Reagan, they were told, was a scary figure. A warmonger, even.

Then the two debated. Seeing the avuncular Reagan on the stage, Americans concluded he wasn't the radical ideologue of caricature, and that he'd make an acceptable alternative.

Lingering doubts resolved, he won in a landslide.

Voters now face the same basic question about Obama, says Democratic pollster Peter Hart. To wit: "Would [he] be somebody I could feel safe and comfortable with?"

Hart thinks Obama is crossing that threshold. "With two solid debate performances, Obama has conveyed that he knows what he is talking about and that he has a temperament that makes people more assured they are not just taking a roll of the dice," he says.

Indeed, a CNN post-debate poll found that not only did voters consider Obama the winner, they also said he seemed like a stronger leader during the encounter. Further, by an astounding 65 percent to 28 percent, they called him more likable than McCain.

With things moving Obama's way, the McCain-Palin campaign has apparently decided its best shot at beating Obama is to try to delegitimize him on character issues. That explains Palin's ludicrous attempt to turn Obama's regrettable but distant relationship with former violent extremist William Ayers into a case of "palling around with terrorists."

But just as it was difficult to view Reagan as a warmonger after seeing him debate, so is it hard for fair-minded people to watch Obama soberly discussing issues and seriously entertain the notion that he harbors anti-American sentiment or is a crypto-radical.

Which means that as the campaign enters its closing weeks, McCain and Palin may just be accomplishing something H.L. Mencken would have considered impossible: going broke by underestimating the intelligence of the American people.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editoria...new_old_gipper/

[dalegg 143]

,,

Edited October 12, 2008 by dalegg

[IAMX 3,055]

And people suggest Obama is a messiah. Hell, it's clear as day Ronald Reagan is nothing less than the conservative messiah. I await the Ronald Reagan edition of the Bible.

[dalegg 143]

History is repeating itself, but you've got the wrong election. This election is more like 1976 when the public ousted Ford for being associated with the last Republican they were pissed off at, creating a congress controlled by Democrats with a Democratic President.

Then, like now the election was clearly more punishment based rather than by any rationale. People were angry, but they never changed their ideals.

In 1972 Nixon won by a landslide of 49-1 states and in 1980 the landslide returned to the Republicans with Reagan winning 46-4 states as people got over their anger and returned to rationalism, and even returned control of the Senate to the Republicans.

All we are seeing is history repeating itself, and in 4 years normalcy will return as the cycle completes and people cool off.

Take a look at this 1976 Red-State/Blue-State map. Boy have things changed!

[IAMX 3,055]

History is repeating itself, but you've got the wrong election. This election is more like 1976 when the public ousted Ford for being associated with the last Republican they were pissed off at, creating a congress controlled by Democrats with a Democratic President.

Then, like now the election was clearly more punishment based rather than by any rationale. People were angry, but they never changed their ideals.

In 1972 Nixon won by a landslide of 49-1 states and in 1980 the landslide returned to the Republicans with Reagan winning 46-4 states as people got over their anger and returned to rationalism, and even returned control of the Senate to the Republicans.

All we are seeing is history repeating itself, and in 4 years normalcy will return as the cycle completes and people cool off.

Take a look at this 1976 Red-State/Blue-State map. Boy have things changed!

As long as other parties return to rationalism, maybe people will follow. However, in both major parties, there is little rationality in recent years.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

History is repeating itself, but you've got the wrong election. This election is more like 1976 when the public ousted Ford for being associated with the last Republican they were pissed off at, creating a congress controlled by Democrats with a Democratic President.

Then, like now the election was clearly more punishment based rather than by any rationale. People were angry, but they never changed their ideals.

In 1972 Nixon won by a landslide of 49-1 states and in 1980 the landslide returned to the Republicans with Reagan winning 46-4 states as people got over their anger and returned to rationalism, and even returned control of the Senate to the Republicans.

All we are seeing is history repeating itself, and in 4 years normalcy will return as the cycle completes and people cool off.

Take a look at this 1976 Red-State/Blue-State map. Boy have things changed!

The pendulum swings both ways, but to suggest that swinging in one direction vs. the other is less rational is silly. If there's anything we can learn from our history is that the American voter is somewhere between left and right....each American leans towards one way or the other on various issues, from healthcare to tax policy...and, IMO, are flexible when it comes to embracing one idea over another, particularly when one idea has been tried and failed.

[dalegg 143]

The pendulum swings both ways, but to suggest that swinging in one direction vs. the other is less rational is silly. If there's anything we can learn from our history is that the American voter is somewhere between left and right....each American leans towards one way or the other on various issues, from healthcare to tax policy...and, IMO, are flexible when it comes to embracing one idea over another, particularly when one idea has been tried and failed.

Correct. Once this one bombs and people see that they are even worse off, they will repeat 1980.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The pendulum swings both ways, but to suggest that swinging in one direction vs. the other is less rational is silly. If there's anything we can learn from our history is that the American voter is somewhere between left and right....each American leans towards one way or the other on various issues, from healthcare to tax policy...and, IMO, are flexible when it comes to embracing one idea over another, particularly when one idea has been tried and failed.

Correct. Once this one bombs and people see that they are even worse off, they will repeat 1980.

TBH, I haven't been closely watching any of the congressional races, but I have seen where there is a chance that the Democrats will gain 10 seats in the Senate and possibly 25 in the House. If Obama is President (which is looking more likely everyday), the Democratic Party will have the weight of this country on its shoulders. I hope that both Obama and Congress will be work toward bringing down the Federal Deficit through budget surplus. It would be great if Senator Clinton authored a healthcare bill and see it pass within the next 4 years, but I don't know if they'll try to do it while we are in this recession. I have read opinions (Keynesian) that passing a national healthcare bill would actually help stabilize our economy in spite of conventional wisdom.

Edited October 12, 2008 by Jabberwocky

[HAL 9000 96]

The pendulum swings both ways, but to suggest that swinging in one direction vs. the other is less rational is silly. If there's anything we can learn from our history is that the American voter is somewhere between left and right....each American leans towards one way or the other on various issues, from healthcare to tax policy...and, IMO, are flexible when it comes to embracing one idea over another, particularly when one idea has been tried and failed.

Correct. Once this one bombs and people see that they are even worse off, they will repeat 1980.

TBH, I haven't been closely watching any of the congressional races, but I have seen where there is a chance that the Democrats will gain 10 seats in the Senate and possibly 25 in the House. If Obama is President (which is looking more likely everyday), the Democratic Party will have the weight of this country on its shoulders. I hope that both Obama and Congress will be work toward bringing down the Federal Deficit through budget surplus. It would be great if Senator Clinton authored a healthcare bill and see it pass within the next 4 years, but I don't know if they'll try to do it while we are in this recession. I have read opinions (Keynesian) that passing a national healthcare bill would actually help stabilize our economy in spite of conventional wisdom.

It would introduce pretty dependable costs now wouldn't it? But yes... I am not sure that this economy is anywhere ready for that type of change just yet.