SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Contra Expectations

JULY 30, 2008

Contra Expectations

BY ELI LAKE

On his first day in office, President Barack Obama will head to the situation room for a video conference with his most important commander, General David Petraeus. If the conversation is chilly, it is not just the awkwardness of virtual chatting. Obama and Petraeus have a history. While Obama has called for withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq, Petraeus oversaw the deployment of more than 30,000 additional troops. To win support from the left, Obama postured as a skeptic of the general's Iraq strategy during congressional hearings. Meanwhile, Petraeus has emerged as something of a hero to the right--and, despite his protestations, might someday run for president as a Republican.

But, more than any campaign rhetoric or past slights, the relationship between the general and his commander-in-chief will hinge on much larger questions about Barack Obama and the war on terrorism.

And, while it's easy to dismiss the conservative critique of Obama's foreign policy as a politically motivated caricature, you can see why McCain supporters have tried to tag him as a latter-day Jimmy Carter. During the primaries, Obama talked about the war on terrorism with the fastidiousness of a civil libertarian--emphasizing the constraints that he would impose on our military and CIA and rarely mentioning specific methods for prosecuting it. He has, for instance, talked extensively about closing the Guantánamo Bay prison and ending the policy of extraordinary rendition.

There are arguably many moral and strategic reasons for this agenda. But the insights gleaned from the counterinsurgency in Iraq and seven years of fighting Al Qaeda across the world also yield harsher lessons. American national interests often demand collaboration with security forces, militias, and tribal leaders who don't conform to our highest ideals. What's more, a key plank of the Petraeus strategy in Iraq is to isolate and shrink the pool of irreconcilable insurgents. That means in practice paying off former bomb-makers, torturers, and terrorists to entice them to join the fight against Al Qaeda--and these are, needless to say, not the types to fret over the nuances of the Geneva Conventions. Or, as one former Sunni insurgent turned ally in Fallujah told The Washington Post, "We never tortured anybody. Sometimes we beat them during the first hours of capture."

If you read the fine print of Obama's policy papers and talk with his advisers and examine their careers, you'll find something surprising about how an Obama administration would view this dark side of the war on terrorism. Far from eschewing alliances with unsavory proxies, these ties are essential to Obama's plans for destroying Al Qaeda. As he has put it, the United States must develop the "partnerships we need to take out the terrorists." Obama hasn't fully fleshed out what he means, but his advisers have some ideas. They told me that he would deepen cooperation with Pakistan's government and military and Somalia's transitional federal government in their battles with Al Qaeda--and that, while opposed to the troop surge, he applauds the partnership between the U.S. military and Iraqi tribal leaders that helped turn the tide in the fight against Al Qaeda there.

So, even though Obama and Petraeus have rhetorically gone in diametrical directions in the last year, they have actually converged on substance. In important ways, an Obama approach to the global insurgency of Al Qaeda mirrors Petraeus's counterinsurgency in Iraq.

 

Before unpacking the Obama view of the war on terrorism, let's dismiss the comparisons to Jimmy Carter. A bit of a refresher course in the horrors of the late 1970s: Jimmy Carter pledged to enshrine human rights as a central value in U.S. foreign policy. That was an admirable goal, but Carter didn't just inject human rights into U.S. foreign policy; he allowed it to rule policy, no matter the implications for the fight against communism. During the Carter era, the United States cooled its relations with vital client states like the Shah's government in Iran and the Somoza regime in Nicaragua, even as they fought for their lives. The locus classicus of this critique was, of course, Jeane Kirkpatrick's Commentary essay, "Dictatorships and Double Standards," where she excoriated the Carter administration for its studied neutrality as pro-American autocrats fell to Marxist-Leninist revolutionaries. She concluded that Carter's foreign policy was incapable of distinguishing between real democratic activists and would-be totalitarians who cloaked their ambitions in the rhetoric of democratic self-determination. "Liberal idealism need not be identical with masochism, and need not be incompatible with the defense of freedom and the national interest," she wrote.

Does her critique apply to Barack Obama, too? That's what John McCain has, in essence, alleged. But to understand why this charge won't stick--and to understand the intellectual DNA of the Obama approach to counterterrorism--you need to review the careers of Richard Clarke and Rand Beers.

Both Clarke and Beers are lifelong national security bureaucrats who left the Bush administration in protest of the Iraq war. Both have offered private advice to Obama and might well hold top posts in his war cabinet. Clarke helped draft the campaign's counterterrorism strategy, and Beers contributed ideas for his August 1, 2007 counterterrorism speech. Both also have the trust of the party's antiwar base and have, in many ways, articulated the Democratic Party's most substantive critique of Bush's war on terrorism.

From some of their criticism of the Bush administration, you might think them soft-power squishes. But, during their careers, they have never expressed much hesitation about working with proxy armies with less than admirable human rights records. During the Clinton administration, Beers served as the assistant secretary of state for international narcotics and law enforcement affairs, a bureau known as "drugs and thugs." In that post, he helped conceive Plan Colombia, which has, over the last eight years, funneled about $5.5 billion to the country's military. Much of that has been spent combating the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), which has funded its Marxist- Leninist rebellion by presiding over a vast drug empire.

In many ways, the program was a great success. Today, the FARC is nearly defeated, and the civil war in that country is over. But Plan Colombia worked in part because Beers was prepared to assist a national army that worked closely with pro-government death squads--and, for that reason, Plan Colombia provoked the ire of Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy and the left wing of the Democratic Party. Beers takes criticism of this brand of alliance seriously but considers it surmountable. He told me that such alliances require that the United States conditions its assistance: "We are prepared to work with you, but you are going to have to change your stripes. You are going to have to operate in a fashion where that kind of behavior stops." Indeed, in the Colombian instance, there's strong evidence that Beers's plan also helped curb the worst excesses of America's military partners.

Clarke is a somewhat more familiar figure. During congressional testimony, he famously apologized for allowing September 11 to happen while serving as the National Security Council's terrorism czar. He left a long paper trail on Al Qaeda, including the "Delenda Memo" of 1998, which takes its name from the Latin word to "blot out" and was based on a more detailed strategy for regime change in Afghanistan. In both its goals and rhetoric, that strategy harkened back to the cold war. It spoke of "rollback," and, taking a page from the anti- communist strategy of the Reagan years, it called on the government to fight a proxy war against Al Qaeda and their Taliban hosts.

Like Beers's Plan Colombia, Clarke's approach placed the United States in bed with thugs. He proposed "massive support" to the anti-Taliban coalition that included the sadistic warlord Abdul Rashid Dostum, who would, in 2001, load thousands of Taliban fighters into sealed containers. When the captives pleaded for air, Dostum's men shot holes in the containers--and many of the prisoners therein. The strategy also called for covert assistance to the regime of Uzbek dictator-for-life Islam Karimov, who has allegedly ordered the boiling of his political opponents. Clarke told me that he and his staff knew that, if such alliances managed to neutralize the threat from Al Qaeda without a major attack, they would face political heat for their tactics: "Everyone would say we were crazy because the disaster never occurred."

Clarke and Beers in effect were drawing on a time-honored tradition of foreign policy that goes back to the Gurkhas: finding proxies to fight an enemy. It was a tradition for America that found its apotheosis in the Reagan Doctrine of the 1980s, which was defined by Charles Krauthammer as "unashamed American support for anti-Communist revolution," regardless of whether or not such support respected the sovereignty of communist states. It was a policy that manifested itself in U.S. support for the Nicaraguan Contras, Jonas Savimbi's insurgency in Angola, and the Afghan mujahedin. In a sense, the Reagan doctrine was a full-throated rejection of the Carter era. It was Kirkpatrick's Commentary essay put into practice. So here we arrive at the central irony of the charge that Obama will revive Carterism: The two most important architects of his counterterrorism policy came of age at the height of the Reagan Doctrine, and that thinking continues to inform their strategy.

Last November at a foreign policy forum in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, Obama said there may be "40,000 hard-core jihadists with whom we can't negotiate." He went on. "Our job is to incapacitate them, to kill them." In that spirit, he famously announced that he would strike terrorist bases in Pakistan if President Pervez Musharraf ever refuses to move on actionable intelligence against Al Qaeda--a threat that earned him the chastisement of John McCain, among others.

Of course, the opportunities for that kind of strike are rare and the diplomatic costs can be high. That's where we begin to see the interesting confluence that will likely emerge as the Obama Doctrine. His counterterrorism policy will bear the imprint of the Beers-Clarke experience in the national security apparatus. And that pedigree will be coupled with the lessons that David Petraeus has gleaned from Iraq. The result will likely be a combination of force and kindness. In the search for allies against Al Qaeda, the U.S. military will aggressively seek out allies among the tribes that co-mingle with the terrorists, as well as the police and intelligence agencies in those countries. Our military would try to pry them away from Al Qaeda by offering them money and basic infrastructure--and then send them into battle against the terrorists. But, at the same time, through that engagement, it would also attempt to instill practices that minimize the brutality and corruption of local police.

A good guide to what such an ambitious program would look like is Obama's plan to give frontline police and intelligence agencies $5 billion over three years through a "Shared Security Partnership Initiative." His campaign materials promise the plan will extend "from the remote islands of Indonesia to the sprawling cities of Africa."

Or take the Pakistan example. Richard Clarke envisions a policy that would pressure and entice the Pakistani military, which has been markedly reluctant to challenge jihadists, to use the same sorts of tactics that have flourished in Iraq: "The Pakistani army is not trained and equipped for counterinsurgency. One of the things we say is, 'We know you are reluctant to do this. But we would like to help you, give you military aid and create an ability to do this. '" As one of Obama's top foreign policy advisers, Susan Rice, puts it, "Obama will support efforts to encourage the legitimate leaders in Pakistan's tribal areas who seek to thwart extremism." (Rice made sure to add that the campaign believed the conditions in Anbar to be different than in the Pakistani frontier and that it was primarily the responsibility of the Pakistanis to root out terrorist safe havens in their sovereign territories.)

Both Clarke and Beers concede that this type of counterinsurgency necessitates keeping some unpleasant company. The Pakistani intelligence services, for instance, have an atrocious history of abetting Al Qaeda; tribal leaders who Obama would like to co-opt operate under prehistoric codes of justice. But the Obama program would attempt to cajole its partners into abandoning brutal tactics.

Clarke explains this as follows: "When you partner with people with unsavory records, it has to be consciously a temporary spate, partnering has to include fixing them, and they have to be genuinely willing to be fixed." In fact, this is the key difference between the Reagan doctrine and the Petraeus-Obama brand of counterinsurgency--where the Reagan doctrine placed its emphasis on blowing up bridges, Petraeus and Obama want to build them. Their program depends on winning the allegiances of local populations--a goal undermined, over the long run, by brutal tactics.

 

Susan Rice is tipped to be a senior figure in an Obama administration. Earlier this month, I sent her a handful of questions about counterterrorism policy. Her answers were filled with all the hedges and qualifications that you would expect in the middle of a campaign. She told me that Obama would eschew a "one size fits all approach" to fighting terrorism. "In some cases that may mean strong support for proxies (as in Anbar). In other places it may mean direct U.S. action. In others, it may mean relying more on an allied government or the international community." But there were several answers she provided that I found highly revealing. She described Obama's opinion of America's historic involvement with insurgency and counterinsurgency. She applauded the 1980s arming of the mujahedin resistance to the Soviets: "[S]upport for the Afghan resistance to Soviet aggression was the right decision in the 1980s." And she said that the Anbar Awakening was "responsible for much of the security progress we have seen in Iraq," though she insisted that Sunni militias must eventually be incorporated into state security forces. In light of some of the criticisms that have been lobbed in Obama's direction, those are pretty suggestive allusions.

Of course, the Obama counterterrorism policy is still a work in progress. As his recent zigzags illustrate, he still hasn't figured out his stance on some of the larger questions. But, in discussing his plans for Iraq, he has made one key admission: He will listen carefully to the advice of his generals. You can easily see how this will play out. Obama will enter office with a set of somewhat inchoate instincts about American power and the importance of outsourcing force. These instincts will mesh with the evolving thinking of his top commanders, who have also begun to realize the limitations of an overstretched army and the value of counter-insurgency. And that brings us back to the situation room on Obama's first day. If he and Petraeus can overcome whatever awkwardness lingers, they will discover a mind meld and an emerging doctrine-- a doctrine that looks a lot more like Ronald Reagan than Jimmy Carter.

Eli Lake is a senior reporter on national security issues for The New York Sun.

 

Subscribe to The New Republic for only $29.97 a year--75% off cover price!

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 128 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

128 comments

The U.S. government's program of aiding the Afghanistan Muj started in 1979, not in 1981. You could call it a Reagan-esque program, or - - with equal validity - - you could call it a Carter-esque (or Zbig-esque) program. * * * In a 1997 interview for CNN's Cold War Series, Brzezinski hinted about the Carter Administration's proactive Afghanistan policy before the Soviet invasion in 1979, that he had conceived. Interviewer: How did you interpret Soviet behavior in Afghanistan, such as the April revolution, the rise of... I mean, what did you think their long-term plans were, and what did you think should be done about it? Brzezinski: I told the President, about six months before the Soviets entered Afghanistan, that in my judgment I thought they would be going into Afghanistan. And I decided then, and I recommended to the President, that we shouldn't be passive. Interviewer: What happened? Brzezinski: We weren't passive. * * * The National Security Archive, Interview with Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski, for CNN's Coldwar Series, June 13, 1997 7 months after the interview for the CNN series, Brzezinski, in a interview for the French publication, Le Nouvel Observateur, was more forthright, and unapologetically claimed to be the mastermind of a feint which caused the Soviet Union to embark upon a military intervention to support their client government in Kabul, as well as training and arming extremists, which later became the Taliban government. Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today? Brzezinski: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire. Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic [integrisme], having given arms and advice to future terrorists? Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war? - - Le Nouvel Observateur, Interview with Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski, Paris, January 15-21, 1998.

- Bob

July 14, 2008 at 9:07am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Nah, nope, he's Jimmy Carter. Yep.

- WordsMatter

July 15, 2008 at 8:30am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama like Reagan? What planet are you on? Obama is just like Carter. He has a holier than ,thou attitude and he thinks he can persuade ANYONE, including extreme radicals Muslims and dictators, to just play nice. Obama was the candidate of change. At first, I thought he was refreshing now with his positions all over the place...who is he and what does he stand for? Hey Obama - Keep the Change!

- Joan

July 15, 2008 at 8:37am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

this article is a joke

- Richard

July 15, 2008 at 8:38am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

No, Obama is Jimmy Carter. He can never be Ronald Reagan. You forget, before running for the Presidency, Reagan spent many years writing and speaking about a core set of beliefs, conservative beliefs. It was a coherent whole. That is one of the reasons people felt they knew who he was. Obama doesn't have a core set of beliefs. Witness what has happened the last three weeks with his many violent policy "adjustments". I don't think that even he knows what he really thinks, except that he wants power. No, Obama is not a new politician. He is slimy old Chicago pol in new clothes. I predict that after his defeat it will be clear that the turning point was his decision to abandon his oft stated principles and bypass the restrictions of taking public money.

- Oregon Republican

July 15, 2008 at 9:17am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And that is why I will not vote for him anymore. "Residual forces" my @$#. His soothing basso voice does not excuse his Orwellian double think: withdraw all combat troops in two years but leave some residual forces that will engage in combat but not be combat troops. Not in my name.

- Mick

July 15, 2008 at 9:24am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

He also voted for the FISA bill like a "civil libertarian". That's like a socialist voting for a gold standard and then claiming the mantle of the proletariat.

- Mick

July 15, 2008 at 9:26am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Leave it to the Democrats to get it started and then the Republicians to get it fixed as usual. What these people need to do is to read Jihad 101 again and again until it sinks in. President Clinton tied the hands of the old CIA stating that we had to cut our ties to the nasty people of the world and gather intelligence via electronic methods. Be politically correct at all times and remember the world loves us. Actually we should have cut a deal with Saddam and his sons. Kick the Russians out, leave Israel alone, stay out of Kuwait and we will back you in the ME. Thinking outside the box is better than hedging bets.

- Gene

July 15, 2008 at 9:32am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama is most definitely Jimmy Carter. The Left has done everything in their power over the last 8 years to turn Iraq into Viet Nam, and Bush into Nixon. They haven't been as successful this time around, since Bush is still in office and the U.S. military is still in Iraq, but they've done their damage nevertheless. They have set their own stage for a repeat of history. If Obama wins, don't surprised if somebody like say...Newt Gingrich...is president in 2012.

- Joe

July 15, 2008 at 9:34am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I suppose this is the mainstream media's way of trying to make Obama appeal to Reagan-Democrats, but... it won't work. Obama is NO Ronald Reagan. Reagan had very solid core principles that guided him. Obama's only guiding principle is his ambition to get elected. Honestly, is there any historical figure that Obama HASN'T been compared to? So far I've heard Lincoln, Kennedy, Reagan and Jesus. For chrissakes! He's the most inexperienced candidate in 50 years, who's flip flopped on 15 issues already (and counting) and seems to have no core values. Obama is just Obama... and he's likely to lose.

- rinosaurusrex.com

July 15, 2008 at 9:46am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

HORRAY FOR BOB!!!!!!!! CARTER' "ARC OF CRISIS' POLICY MAKES THE NEOCOMS LOOK LIKE BOY SCOUTS You are spot on but the Jimmy Carter human rights policy goes a little deeper. Carter purposely decided not to support the transition from the Sha of Iran to moderate forces as part of the "arc of Crisis" The idea was to destabilize the whole southern border of the Soviet Union into tribal factions. The Soviet Afghan War was a product of this policy in which the US purposely armed the Afghans to provoke Soviet intervention. The Arc of Crisis policy led to the deaths of millions of people and the creation of international Jihad.....(Al Queda)

- cramos

July 15, 2008 at 9:46am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama isn't Ronald Reagan, he's Obama! And he's the most left voting senator. He throws people under the bus for his own political gain and is only pretending to go center because he needs the votes. But I will base my vote on his history of voting in the senate and who he has associated himself with for many years, not these few months leading up to the general election, because he's only pretending.

- harry2

July 15, 2008 at 9:55am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I believe that the central problem with this article is in its attempt to glorify the Reagan doctrine. I'm not going to say that fighting a war using proxies is always a bad thing, but I believe it is imperative that people assess the total impact of each of these operations. While the Afghan policy was a brilliant success against the Soviet Union, it managed to create a substantial portion of our terrorist problem today. If we want to see the atmosphere that the Taliban emerged in, and the lawlessness of the Pakistani tribal areas, we do not have to look farther than the US/Saudi/Pakistani involvement. With regard to Nicaragua, was initially run by our unsavory friends in the Argentine junta, but eventually directly by us. Let us not forget that the contras were funded almost entirely by drug money, and had a human rights record that could easily be compared to that of the Sandanistas. Nicaragua is also a mess today, thanks to that. Lastly I would put Plan Colombia in a different category than the last two operations. Yes, the Colombian army worked with the right-wing paramilitaries who committed many human rights violations, but there are two key differences. 1) The FARC had no moral standing of its own by the time Plan Colombia was implemented--- it had long ago lost any of its revolutionary purity and was an organization full of drug runners and kidnappers. 2) Whereas Nicaragua and Afghanistan sought to undermine already established governments, our aid to Colombia was specifically designed to enhance government authority--- which it did even while working with the rebels. In the end however, I think the general assesment of Obama not being Carter is correct.

- jon

July 15, 2008 at 10:09am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Gimme a fudgin' break. Obama could be worse than Carter. At least Carter was not handed a situation in which we were at war in Iraq and Afghanistan. His damage was limited to doing dick against Iranian "students. " Obama can potentially lose us two wars. There is no warm-up period for the guy who has not even been a senator for 2 years. (factor in his campaign time and he's been senator for 0 months) This is as close to picking a guy off the street to be president as possible.

- JWL2672

July 15, 2008 at 10:10am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And another thing - what the hell is it with obama and his thousand-yard stare? Seems like every single freaking picture I see of the guy is him squinting and looking far off "into the horizon. " The liberal media bias has been amazing. In a NY Times paper last month, there was a McCain picture with him all disheveled and next to it was an Obama picture with him all saintly. Those lefties would photoshop a halo on his head if they thought they could get away with it. The Weekly Standard covered this a while back with an article titled "The Iconography of Saint Obama. "

- JWL2672

July 15, 2008 at 10:15am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If you wait long enough, someone will say anything no matter how ridiculous.

- paul a'barge

July 15, 2008 at 10:29am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

crap

- walliat boomba

July 15, 2008 at 10:31am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ronald Reagan was not a friend of mine (but I was a friend of his) and Barack Hussein Obama is not a Ronald Reagan.

- Donald W. Bales

July 15, 2008 at 10:36am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The thrust of the article is ridiculous. We are not voting for Richard Clark or Rand Beers. That they penned his campaign promises and promotional materials is irrelevant if he becomes the Commander In Chief. Like Carter, Obama is promoting a return to a leftist ideological purity in which facts and the reality of the world (and the reality of the ideology of our enemies) is not as important as hope, and feeling good about our decisions with respect to their ideological purity. What is at issue here is nothing less than whether Obama can distinguish the difference between a friend and an enemy. Can he distinguish the difference between words, on which we know he places a high value, and actions. Does he care more about the reality we live in, or being true to his liberal orthodoxy (look at his voting record as opposed to his campaign rhetoric). Regan campaigned allot more than Obama, and his message was never ambiguous, or confused. He was painfully clear about how he would govern, and what the goals of his administration would be. He used direct language to pledge our support of allies, and wasted no words in calling out our enemies (much to the chagrin of writers like Lake). The comparison to Regan is ridiculous, and the one to Carter completely apt in light of Obama’s own campaign rhetoric. The bottom line is that, like Carter, we do not know what we are getting at all with Obama. He is against it till it works, and then was for it all the time. A couple of position papers by advisors, which will hold no weight once elected, are not the basis for believing the fantastic premise of the article, period.

- Lionidas

July 15, 2008 at 10:37am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You are right in some ways. Obama is the liberal version of Ronald Reagan. Both Great communicators. But the big difference in them is that Reagan did not move to the center in the general election. He went out and sold his (conservative)ideas to the general public (which were even a little extreme for some republicans at the time) and won the election with a pretty solid mandate.Therefore,if Obama wins he will not only have difficult time governing, but will also be a one term president.

- Rick Adams

July 15, 2008 at 10:38am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This article is the most silliet I have ever read. They pay people to write such rubbish? I agree with Walliat Boomba : CRAP

- james hoseneck

July 15, 2008 at 10:39am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Nice try but, Obama is DEFINITELY Carter.

- Dimslie

July 15, 2008 at 10:44am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

bunch of Neo cons

- Maine

July 15, 2008 at 10:45am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The person who wrote this article shows a complete lack of History. To compare Barak Hussain Obama to Ronald Reagan is a joke.

- Shanon Smithfield

July 15, 2008 at 10:49am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I knew an article like this was coming sooner or later. The foreign policy part of the election is going to revolve around this point - is Obama more like Carter, the smart but ineffective leader, or Reagan who, whatever his other faults might be, was clearly successful in dealing with the main foreign policy challenge of his time? Obama wants you to think he's another Reagan; the Republicans will claim he's more like Carter. What's the truth of the matter? Well, philosophically, Obama's a lot more like Carter than Reagan; his statements on Iran reflect that. But he's also aware of the problem of being perceived as being like Carter. Thus, his trying to appear tough like Reagan, rather than weak like Carter. Of course, there's that old line, "Real tough guys don't have to tell you they're tough." McCain never has to. Obama seems a little, well ... needy in that area.

- Dixville Notch

July 15, 2008 at 10:53am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

When Obama's plan for the Middle East was simply "Run!!", it was shameless but it was clear how it could appeal to the more craven among us. Now that he's trying to cast himself as Napolean, it's become comical. No one to the right of Dennis Kucinich can take him seriously as military strategist. AND, he wants to make a speech at the Brandenburg Gate????? Is he going to have Kingfish Wright there to do the first act?

- Dimslie

July 15, 2008 at 10:54am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Probably the most ridiculous notion I have seen in my adult life -- the absurdly ambitious & completely conviction-free Senator Obama compared to the greatest statesman of his generation. Obama stands for one idea -- that desire for power justifies every other action in one's life. Reagan stood for the transcendent principle that the people have the seeds for greatness lying within, if you only encourage them to reach for that & hem in Government while they try. Q: What do Karl Marx & George Washington have in common? A: Nothing.

- Mo' Hadma Ghumgy

July 15, 2008 at 10:55am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

When did Obama claim "Government is not a solution it is the problem." Until he claims Big Government is a problem and stop trying to grow it by 1 to 2 trillion dollars with all his big government Programs He is no Ronald Reagan. This was one fo the foundations of The Reagan administration.

- David Anfinrud

July 15, 2008 at 10:56am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mohammed?

- Dimslie

July 15, 2008 at 10:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I have it on good authority that Obama actually IS Jimmy Carter in blackface or brownface, if you will.

- Dimslie

July 15, 2008 at 11:02am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What nonsense! As a friend of mine says, what is it about reporters that makes them think they are experts in anything?

If you want to know the way that Obama most resembles Jimmy Carter (the idea that he resembles Reagan is just plain nuts) then look at the one foreign policy area of Carter's that Eli Lake failed to mention: Korea. Jimmy Carter came into office with a "plan" to pull American forces out of South Korea altogether. This plan was not vetted with either the State Department nor the Defense Department. Carter did not care whether his plan destabilized the whole of Southeast Asia or not. He did not care whether North Korea would attack us as we withdrew. He did not care whether we lost face throughout the world. All he cared about was getting out on a timetable of his creation. The only thing that stopped Carter was that the general in charge of forces in Korea resigned in protest and the Congress decided that it didn't want to re-fight the Korean War because some yokel got himself elected President.

Substitute Obama and Iraq for the above scenario and you can have an exact replay. Except that the current Democrats in Congress may not have the cajones to stand up to Obams's foolishness.

- SpencerG

July 15, 2008 at 11:07am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You know, comparing one of Obama's nonexistent policies to Jimmy Carter is bad enough, but then drawing the conclusion that Obama is nothing like Carter, sits right on the border of the mentally disabled and crazy. But to go one step further by saying that Obama is like Reagan is so insulting it is disgusting. Obama does not even have a foreign policy, let alone one that has been tested. The middle east, central America, south America, Africa, and Asia all hate us, however, they care less about it when they are being slaughtered by someone else. Like how the Saudis, Afghans, Pakistanis, Egyptians, and Iranians were all absolutely terrified of the Soviet Union, and the Afghans were even being slaughtered by them. Then, they hated us less because we saved their butts. Now that the soviets are gone, they despise us. Reagan had the right idea, nobody really attacked us because they were terrified of what Reagan could do. It will not be the same with Obama.

- Charles

July 15, 2008 at 11:11am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Funny how 20 years ago the left thought Reagan was the anti christ. Now he's Obama's role model? More MSM garbage.

- whit

July 15, 2008 at 11:17am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I would imagine it may be difficult to coordinate these new missions as he prioritizes the removal of 150,000+ troops from Iraq in less than 16 months. I also imagine that without the operational forces in Iraq, it could well be difficult to launch these wide-ranging missions. Also, it's pretty telling when an article about Obama's foreign policy doesn't touch the single most pressing foreign policy issue: Iran. Somehow, I feel that's entirely fitting, considering Obama doesn't have any more clue than you do about how he's going to deal with the problem. Reagan believed in peace through strength, and he won the Cold War. Obama believes in Obama, by any means, and he will most certainly lose the war, if not something far more drastic.

- Commander Jhonson

July 15, 2008 at 11:28am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oregon Republican writes: "You forget, before running for the Presidency, Reagan spent many years writing and speaking about a core set of beliefs, conservative beliefs." Yup and then he spent 8 years in the White House making a mockery of them - runaway defecit spending, growing the Federal government and empowering religious theocrats. The Reagan hagiography here is absurd. There's no point in comparing Obama to Reagan. Even Ronald Reagan was not Ronald Reagan.

- citizenghost

July 15, 2008 at 11:33am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama is Ronald Reagan? Right. And I'm the Queen of the Nile. I've seen spurious analogies before, but this one takes the cake.

- theduke89

July 15, 2008 at 11:33am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Probably the most ridiculous notion I have seen in my adult life -- the absurdly ambitious & completely conviction-free Senator Obama compared to the greatest statesman of his generation. Obama stands for one idea -- that desire for power justifies every other action in one's life. Reagan stood for the transcendent principle that the people have the seeds for greatness lying within, if you only encourage them to reach for that & hem in Government while they try. Q: What do Karl Marx & George Washington have in common? A: Nothing.

- Mo' Hadma Ghumgy

July 15, 2008 at 11:41am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Gosh, I love Republicans. You can give them example after example, point after point, FACT AFTER FACT, and still they spout the Fox News mantra of the day. Barak Obama is not at all like Jimmy Carter. Nor, in fact, is he much like Reagan. The foreign policy outlined in this article can be summed up in one word that clearly defines Obama: PRACTICAL. People complain about his campaign, that he's going to do or say whatever it takes to win. I disagree, since I think there are SOME core beliefs that he will not let go. But assuming that it's true, apply that theory to the rest of his administration: he's going to do whatever it takes to win. Haven't we had enough of a President who stubbornly sticks to his ideology even in the face of continued failure? Don't you think one good quality in a President is the ability to figure out what will work and the audacity to implement it, even if it means a change of position that might not sit well with your supporters? Obama will not continue to hold to the liberal hard line the way Bush has held on to his neocon ideals. Obama is the type of leader who face the situation squarely, find a solution that works, and implement it. And if it turns out he's wrong, I think he's the type of man who would accept that and change course. People deride candidates as flip-floppers. I say, if you realize you were wrong and decide to change course, that's not a weakness, that's a strength.

- Chredon

July 15, 2008 at 11:44am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

There is danger coming and no one on the left seems to see it. I hope all of them have plenty of money, have crash helmits and can learn to speak Farsi, because we're all in for a rude awakening. And as for Ronald Regan, he's not spinning in his grave, he's just going to be a gentleman and wait for his chance to confront BHO. In 10 years or 50, the outright lies being told by this man will come back to haunt him. I only hope that RR is in charge of incoming when BHO arrives.

- R

July 15, 2008 at 11:44am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama will be a tough pragmatist because he has accepted free advice from a couple of ambitious foreign policy careerists who have offered some tough solutions in the past? Get in touch with reality. Obama will follow a in Carter's footsteps because a large and influential wing of his party will demand that he do so and to date, he has no record of bucking party interest groups on important issues.

- lance e

July 15, 2008 at 11:50am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Absolutely ridiculous!

- Chav

July 15, 2008 at 11:58am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Barry Hussein as an incipient Reagan. I haven't laughed so hard in ages. Reagan was Reagan because he had confictions. Barry has none, but only because he never got caught peddling drugs during his misspent youth.

- Titus Oates

July 15, 2008 at 12:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Dude, let's get something straight, Obama could not even hold Regan's jock, OK? Carter, yes; in fact, those Carter and Obama have this in common; Regan is the antidote to both. It's not about policy as much as it's about moral courage and defending America. The whole left could use a clue that way.

- robmac

July 15, 2008 at 12:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You've wrong from the beginning. Mr. Obama will never become President of The United States. End of discussion.

- Karl B.Nowak.

July 15, 2008 at 12:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am equally hopeful that Obama would be practical on foreign policy. But note that the writer is compelled to refer to the history of policy actions by Beers and Clark to make the point. Obama is quite evasive in his comments on foreign policy. Contrast this with Reagan who as noted in Post 5 above spent years reading and writing essays simply to discipline and formulate his domestic and foreign policy positions. If you wanted to know his views you could quote him. Contrast this with Obama who is intellectually uncurious and seemingly lazy. Apparently he'll figure it out when he gets there. Trust that he'll have good advisers (how will he know one though?) and the good judgment to distinguish what is and isn't a good policy. Obama is his own man but is he man enough for this job?

- klfoster

July 15, 2008 at 12:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The purpose of this story, like many Liberal tales, is to toss implausible, hard-to-believe, and utterly nonsensical “facts” onto the Internet. On the 'Net, one finds myriad stories that are transparent fiction, posted by unlettered ideologues out to prove their

- Karl Daggerfield

July 15, 2008 at 12:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You libs have really lost it. Ronald Reagan? In the words of Melvin Udall, "Go sell crazy somewhere else, we're all stocked up here..."

- Steinburg McFadden

July 15, 2008 at 12:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wow! I guess McCain just won the election becasue the left hates Ronald Reagan. Welcome back Nader!

- Mike Mudoch

July 15, 2008 at 12:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think you're confusing your Presidents. Don’t you mean Jimmy Carter? A history class may be in order (or perhaps a lobotomy).

- John Stevens

July 15, 2008 at 12:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mr. Lake.... You sir are an idiot.

- sully

July 15, 2008 at 12:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm not seeing the point this article is making from my observation of things. So he lied to the left so they would vote for him and then went to the positions he really held? I'm trying to figure out where the Obama of the early primaries has gone. He has lurched so far right of his voting record and subsequent promises that I'm having trouble seeing what he really stands for. To compare Obama more to Reagan, who won by largely playing it tough and standing by unpopular policy, Obama looks like a wet noodle. Carter, though was not a wet noodle but indecisive and was naive of how the world worked, especially how our enemies worked. He thought that "discussion" with our enemies would get things done. It failed miserably. No stick with the carrot. The guy clearly stated that the surge would not work. If his policy had been abided by Iraq would be 3 battling quasi states with Al Qaeda running loose. His relationship to a Carter presidency is the closest I can see. He appears to be abandoning his earlier positions to place himself as a centrist, but there is no way to know if that is where he will end up or not.

- Paul Charles

July 15, 2008 at 12:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The purpose of this story, like many Liberal tales, is to toss implausible, hard-to-believe, and utterly nonsensical “facts” onto the Internet. On the 'Net, one finds myriad stories that are transparent fiction, posted by unlettered ideologues out to prove their "point." For example, one can “learn” on the Web such hilarious nonsense as, "Hitler was a Christian," etc. Eli Lake was a Philosophy student at Trinity college in CT. Lake claims, "The challenge is to avoid the spin of what any particular side wants you to write about something and to try to write about it objectively." Despite this avowed interest in unbiased reporting, bloggers have long complained about Lake's Liberal slant and ideological fetters in his writing. Apparently, Lake never read MacIntyre's philosophical treatise on Ethics called After Virtue, which puts a high emphasis on reading Philosophy in a historical setting. Had he done so, he might have developed a taste for historically accurate prose.

- Karl Daggerfield

July 15, 2008 at 12:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yes, Obama is like Reagan. That is, if you limit your comparison to things like, they both wear (wore) shoes. But the entire premise of the article is absurd: basing the comparison on who they are willing to ally with, a point of minutiae compared to their starkly different opinions concerning overall government philosophy, the appropriate role of government, and foreign policy, to name but a few. But the attempt to simultaneously render impotent the right's habit of invoking Reagan's name, and the comparison of Obama to Carter, follows the left's playbook of style over substance perfectly.

- Sweetness

July 15, 2008 at 12:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is not a great article, but it is far better than the vast bulk of the comments that have followed it. Eli Lake was trying to make a narrow comparison about how Carter and Reagan differed strategically in their approach to American defense and aggression. Carter placed the promotion of human rights above cold war geopolitics. Reagan ignored human rights in order to intensify the cold war. Neither were great statesman. Both were a product of their age, a view of the world in which two ideologies, capitalism and socialism were engaged in a death struggle, and people in developing countries were pawns. The U.S. and the Soviet Union transformed liberation struggles that focused on local issues, i.e., sovereignty, land reform, and the fight again colonialism, into global cold war battle fields. One sides totalitarian regime is the other's force for socialism. Neither side has any appreciation of a middle ground. Reagan engaged thug client states because he wanted to win the cold war, but he also ignored developing countries that had were tried any economic development strategies that didn't promote direct U.S. interests. Obama faces a very different task. The cold war is over. Terrorist organizations have been able to align themselves with warlords, criminal government enterprises, international drug cartels, despots, and fake messiahs. Groups like Al Quaeda don't have the same motivations as the Soviet Union. They have a highly reactionary view of the world, with no larger strategic plan for reaching their goals. So they focus on the governments that have intruded most on their way of life, and strike in highly dramatic and visible ways as they try to win more converts. Obama will be pragmatic and will engage with warlords and thugs, because terrorist organizations are small, flexible, dispersed, and compared to Soviet Union, weak. They do not have the capacity to blow up the world several times over. In the end, Lake is correct in saying that Obama will not get up on his high horse and refuse to deal with any group that has violated civil rights. But, in the end, getting rid of terrorist organizations will also require a much broader set of sophisticated weapons, including diplomacy, economic development, and a recognition of the issues underlying regional conflicts.

- Carter

July 15, 2008 at 12:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Is this a joke?

- K James

July 15, 2008 at 12:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Judging from the comments, it seems that this article was linked to a lot of right-wing websites...

- pgbsan

July 15, 2008 at 12:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I knew Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama is no Ronald Reagan.

- Jersey Paul

July 15, 2008 at 12:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So tell me: How does the Obama Doctrine differ from the McCain Doctrine? I couldn't figure that out by reading this shameless flacking. God! I'm so happy that my subscription to TNR has lapsed and I'm no longer paying for this crap. Is the counterterrorism doctrine used in the surge coordinated and executed by Petraeus? Was he the commander in charge of writing it, beginning in 2005? Was he promoted by Bush to lead the surge based on his record in Iraq and his counterterrorism doctrine? Was he again promoted by Bush to lead the military in the whole ME region? Is Bush responsible for all of this? Then, tell me, Mr Foreign Policy expert, How if the Obama Doctrine "converges" with Petraeus's strategy, then how does this "diverge" from the Bush Doctrine, which Obama calls the worst strategic blunder in our history? Doublethink is an amazing thing to contemplate, isn't it, Mr Senior Reporter?

- Roque Nuevo

July 15, 2008 at 1:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Absolutely the dumbest article ever written. Obama has changed his stance repeatedly on Iraq. Obama wants higher taxes Obama would kow - tow to terrorists Obam wants no new oil exploration. Obama believes our appeasement will stop terrorism He is the the antithesis of Reagan --- in actuality a clone of the hostage-abandoning Peanut Farmer.

- Neal

July 15, 2008 at 1:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It is nonsensical and journalistically irresponsible to compare Obama - who has not achieved anything of significance (besides his self-promotion) - with remarkably accomplished and historically proven major political figures like Reagan and Lincoln. Those comparisons sound hollow and are laughable. In truth, Obama is the second coming of Jimmy Carter. This time around, however, he will not be elected.

- Eusebius Lancaster

July 15, 2008 at 1:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

After reading this article one could argue that the Twilight Zone really does exists.

- FF

July 15, 2008 at 1:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

These comments are terrible. Most of you "Reagan Fluffers" should go get scanned to see if there's any brain activity and if not, pull the plug and spare us.

- i like tuesday

July 15, 2008 at 1:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Nail on the head. Obama--excepting the true believers--is underrated; while Reagan changed the political landscape, he is overrated. Both are more pragmatic than advertised, and both understand politics and policy. Thanks for dismissing the ill-suited Carter comparison. Nail on the head.

- Midwest

July 15, 2008 at 1:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama is practical, deliberate and tough as nails. He is a Strategic leader. That’s why he beat Billary in the primaries. His team broke it down to the basic X’s and O’s. Like Lincoln, he is a good speaker, writes well and appears to be bookish. However, like Lincoln under estimating his toughness is to his opponent’s peril. If you look at the state-by-state numbers, he is already wiping McCain of the electoral map. This guy is not Carter. He is America’s Trajan. (The Roman Empires most successful leader – a calm administrator who had nerves of steel) McCain will never know what hit him. Obama completley out classes him is strategic thinking.

- George Gallagher

July 15, 2008 at 1:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Not only is the Obama campaign following the woo-woo advice of that new-age manifesto "The Secret" and acting "as if" (i.e., that freaky feaux presidential seal and now the embarassing trip to Berlin, Germany where the wannabe Obama will act as a head of state)but apparantly the New Republic, desperate at what the polls are showing, is indulging in the same deranged thinking. There will be no Obama presidency. John McCain will be the 44th President of the United States of America.

- maureen rehg

July 15, 2008 at 1:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think I'll write an op-ed article called "Obama isn't like Carter - More like Marvin the Martian". I'm thinking mine will be more thought provoking - and truthful.

- Neal

July 15, 2008 at 1:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

REsponses here clearly illustrate that TNR readers are not as well-educated, informed or clever as they think they are. Nevermind that the author assumes it is a good thing to have 'client states' even when those client states are violent and oppressive - Carter DID encourage any number of aggressive, unilateral, actions. He started to policy of arming afghani rebels. On the domestic/economic front, despite constant myth, it was Carter, not Reagan who initiated currencly tightening to fight inflation. TNR readers, despite all evidence, stick stubbornly to the believe in right wing innuendo despite the fact that aquick google will disprove the lies they tell themselves. I hope that Obama is like neither Carter nor Reagan. Any way one looks at it, the US arming of the fetal al Qaeda directly lead to 9/11.

- Drew

July 15, 2008 at 1:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"As his recent zigzags illustrate, he still hasn't figured out his stance on some of the larger questions." This concession is quite revealing and, not surprisingly, Mr. Lake chose to place it in the last paragraph. What he's outlined here is not a comprehensive approach a President Obama would embrace, but rather has highlighted the overall incoherence of Obama's approach to Iraq and counterterrorism. Reagan, it's worth remembering, had laid out his foreign policy blueprint beginning roughly 5 years before he won the presidency; Obama, on the other hand, has consistently tried to obfuscate his views depending on which constituency he is addressing. So, the different approaches of the two men could not be more stark. I also loved the glib reference to Obama's "first day day in office." It should give Mr. Lake pause that Obama's lead at this stage in the race is essentially the same as Kerry's four years ago - in a year when a generic Democrat should be leading a generic Republican by 15 or 20 points in the polls. If I were an Obama supporter, I wouldn't be gloating.

- Adam

July 15, 2008 at 1:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama is a carbon copy of Carter. He will dismantle the military and the intelligence services to pay for his Progressive plans and he will put the USA at risk. He is singularly unqualified to be president. Carter has been an embarrassment both as president and since running around the world embracing leftists and bad mouthing USA. One has brought shame the other waiting to do so. To compare him to Reagan- GET REAL!!

- charles a higgins

July 15, 2008 at 1:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Absolutely the dumbest article I've ever read. Obama would make the hostage abandoning Peanut Farmer seem like Teddy Roosevelt.

- Appman

July 15, 2008 at 1:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I bet that today's "progressives" would vote for the actual Jimmy Carter. 43% of the population can't or won't think and therefore vote dem every time.

- Gary

July 15, 2008 at 2:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Obama isn't Jimmy Carter--he's Ronald Reagan." I had to read this article twice to make sure I wasn't reading from Scrappleface or the Onion. Eli's got a great sense of humor.

- Denny K

July 15, 2008 at 2:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Quite a stretch. Ronald Reagan had been thinking about conservatism, speaking and writing about it for over two decades when he became president. He also had an actual record as governor of the largest state in the nation. Have you read the Reagan Diaries? Obama has a ways to go if he wants to amass a Reaganesque body of work and accomplishments.

- foutsc

July 15, 2008 at 2:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Please explain why Bob Gates, now Secretary of Defense, wrote in his own memoirs that one of the principal contributors of the fall of the Soviet Union was Carter's human rights policy.

- TBAnderson

July 15, 2008 at 2:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I knew Ronald Reagan. Barack Hussein Obama is NO Ronald Reagan!

- Wally

July 15, 2008 at 2:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama is to Reagan like a McDonald's Chicken McNugget is to a Texas Longhorn Steer. This article is so full of misconceptions and missteps that one wonders exactly what the Obama camp had to come across with to get it printed. But you know, in a sick and demented way, I almost want Obama to win in November just to teach the country a lesson. It will take about 24 months of Obama's term for the honeymoon with the voters to sour and the love-struck media to start to see the true Obama. Of course, by then the democratic congress will have annoited him "King Obama" and passed every pie-in-the-sky spending bill asked for; our energy policy will be tied to expensive and untried energy sources while the oil producing nations tighten their stranglehold on our economy; our foreign policy will be based on appeasement; our military will be bottled up and set on a shelf, Iraq will have fallen into the depths of civil war, while those that have sworn to kill us slink closer and closer. Only then will we see that Obama really was Jimmy Carter reincarnated, and by then it will be too late. But it'll take that kind of pain to teach us a valuable lesson - that accepting "change" for the sake of "change", is nothing more than ensuring that we repeat the same mistakes we made before.

- PTParks

July 15, 2008 at 2:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sen. Obama is no Reagan -- and he's no Carter, either. Please recall that Jimmy Carter served one term as Georgia's governor, and Ronald Reagan was California's chief executive for two terms. Obama has absolutely no executive experience in any capacity, let alone elective office. As misguided and foolish as his foreign policy was, Carter was sincere in believing that it would work. Naive? Absolutely. But in remaining steadfast to his beliefs, Carter was sticking to his principles. Obama sticks to principle only so long as it helps him get elected. If it won't, it's under the bus with it. Reagan stood up and apologized to the American people whenever it was obvious to all that he was wrong. When was the last time Obama apologized for anything at all? That last trait isn't going to serve him well in office after he's elected.

- Don_M

July 15, 2008 at 3:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Not one of the people who have derided the author for saying Obama is not like Carter have been able to cite where he is wrong. Just because Carter is a Democrat and Obama is a Democrat, and you don't like Democrats, make them similar. As for the comments of SpencerG that what about reporters that makes them think they are experts. What about SpencerG and others on this comment board posing as experts? But one thing that reports have in their corner is they actually cover this stuff, as opposed to you guys who get all your information from right wing sources. As for Reagan, I agree with the guy who said even Reagan was not Reagan. Completely true. There has become this myth of Reagan where he could do no wrong. Champion of small government and government the enemy? Yeah, in his rhetoric, not in actual practice. The federal government grew at a faster clip than it had under Carter. Anti-abortion- in rhetoric. In actuality, he signed the nation's most liberal abortion laws while governor of California. Tough and unflinching? Yeah, well except when he pulled the marines out of Lebanon about the bombing. Great tax cutter? Except when he raised them. Defeater of the Soviet Union. Yeah, by continuing the same policies of every president since Truman. In reality, Reagan wasn't a conservative. He was a moderate. You can't argue with facts. He certainly wasn't a bad president. He was effective. But let's dispence with this stuff about Reagan being some kind of Greek god. He wasn't

- Chris C

July 15, 2008 at 3:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You gotta love the Left. My sides are splitting reading this.

- JimboWHO

July 15, 2008 at 3:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I just know Obama is going to be out there building houses for poor people when this is all over. Ha Ha Ha

- John Galt

July 15, 2008 at 3:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This comment says it all about Obama "As he has put it, the United States must develop the "partnerships we need to take out the terrorists." Obama hasn't fully fleshed out what he means, but his advisers have some ideas." Uhummm...now's not the time to be voting for a guy with 1.5 years of experience while he "fleshes-out" his foriegn policy. Every terrorist state on earth must be salivating an Obama presidency. Just watch their bank accounts. They are probably saving up right now for a large expenditure from 2009 to 20012.

- Dude

July 15, 2008 at 3:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Pakistan? The problem IS Pakistan.

- Lauri

July 15, 2008 at 3:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Posted by Chris C, "Not one of the people who have derided the author for saying Obama is not like Carter have been able to cite where he is wrong." Read ANY of the comments in here, Chris? Obama has accomplished NOTHING in his political life, other than being an IL state senator a few years & then being a US senator for a little over 100 days before deciding to run. Where are Obama's achievements? Not only does he lack a body of work to evaluate, versus Reagan, we DON'T EVEN KNOW what he believes, since he has switched so many positions so quickly. So how can there even be a "Comparison"? If the Democrats elected a paper-mache' pinata as their candidate, there would still be a fevered & "principled" defense. It would be called a "Latin Breakthrough," a stunning advancement in non-White candidates, a non-carbon using pioneer & other choice rubbish. But Chris, since Barack Obama has literally done NADA, how can he possibly be compared to a man with a lifetime of achievements & now reckoned one of the four or five greatest presidents? It's hilariously sad this even has to be explained to the Vast Leftwing Zombie Militia.

- Karl Daggerfield

July 15, 2008 at 3:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So, if I put a stamp on a pile of trash and mail it to TNR, will you print that, too? This ridiculous article has two major flaws: 1) Zero evidence that Obama would support right-wing death squads, a la Reagan, and 2) Zero acknowledgment of the horrible consequences of the enemy-of-my-enemy strategy. This author is stuck in the Cold War--he actually thinks we're fighting FARC because they threaten to turn Colombia into a Marxist-Leninist state. Wake up, Rip Van Winkle, the USSR is gone.

- Owen

July 15, 2008 at 3:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"In reality, Reagan wasn't a conservative. He was a moderate." Uh...are you serious? This stuff gets crazier by the minute.

- Joe

July 15, 2008 at 3:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Rick Adams sed, "You are right in some ways. Obama is the liberal version of Ronald Reagan. Both Great communicators." Uhhh, sorry Rick. Well-meaning post, but Obama is NO Reagan when it comes to communication, just as Bill Clinton was not, either -- despite all the hype. Reagan sold his theory of Government to a skeptical nation & persuaded them to move towards him, through facts, illustration, charm and confidence. Without the House or Senate he talked directly to the people, turning the media on their head. History has proven his positions to be wise. THAT is statesmanship. Contra, Obama is a simple Demagogue, warming the hearts of his simplistic audience, who seem oblivious to his lack of details, or inability to present a coherent agenda. ANYBODY can be a demagogue, because you have no duty to truth or facts. You simply dress up the latest popular fad as "your truth." Could he have a smattering of sense to absurdly pander like this: "WE are the ones we have been waiting for!"?!!!! Obama is a very dangerous man because of how truly unprincipled he has already shown himself to be, while continually shifting his positions, all the while smirking. His mask of confidence is a sham & he is desperate for the election to be held before everyone realizes he stands for nothing other than mindless socialism & the failed policies of last century. Obama, do the world a favor & drop out -- you are truly light-years out of your league.

- Karl Daggerfield

July 15, 2008 at 3:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ChrisC (#78) Actually, in #31 I laid out an instance where Obama is almost exactly like Carter. Second, my credentials are twenty-five years in national security. Third, Reagan was no moderate and the fact that you think so speaks volumes about your mindset. Your "facts" are more like jokes. Non-defense spending increased a mere 1 percent per year under Reagan and that was only because of a spendthrift Congress. Truman's policies of Containment were dead as a doornail when Reagan got to the White House (which is why so many nations fell out of the Free World orbit in the 1970's). Reagan was anti-abortion in Rhetoric... and judicial appointments and presidential directives. Tax Cutter of All Times- not only was the top tax bracket 70% when Reagan got to the White House but tax brackets weren't indexed for inflation (which was out of control) and even now rates aren't that high... but if Obama has his way they will be. Greek gods weren't as good as Reagan!

- SpencerG

July 15, 2008 at 4:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The kindest thing to say for Reagan was that he was not aware of the policies of his administration. His was a scripted presidency and not by his hand. The worship of this president is entirely generated propaganda since he was very unpopular during his terms. Who was the first Governor that signed legislation legalizing abortion? Who compared the Contras as the moral equalivents of the Founding Fathers? Reagan was a pitchman on TV. Reagan is a brand now and at the root of the political opportunists who use that brand to get elected, or lobby and swim in the stream of rich libertarians money. Ollie North, Gingrich, Ralph Reed, Abramoff, Norquist, Delay, ect. all hustlers. Carter and Obama have morals on their side which is a strength the cons must attack. That's why you are hearing this blather negatively comparing the two. Unfortunately, Bush II economic laize faire policies will hand Obama a stricken economy as Carter had and an energy crisis created by the same lack of policy. In debate with Reagan, Reagan made Carter look like a pinhead with his chummy, beefy, know-nothing anti-expert empty platitudes. "If you don't have an expert on the problem then, actually, you have twice the problem." -L. Anderson. The past thirty years of organized assaults on dialog and reason and expertise are tactics the right uses to suppress democracy and suppress debate. Cheney, Bush, Condi Rice, Rumsfeld, Feith, Wolfowitz all despise democracy and desire a massively intrusive Federal government and monopolies over the public commons by their corporate sponsors that share this mindset. The people are their enemy and they treat us with contempt by the voice of their deeds: endless war on terror, outspending the rest of the World on defense, worst medical care at the highest cost of the G-7 industrialized countries, civil rights trampled, denouncing the rule of law (which we fought WWII for) undermining progressive reforms of the last century (Social security ect.) virtually eliminating progressive taxation, enormous incontrovertable threats to the environment they have enabled and abetted that will threaten our future and standard of living in the near term; again ignored and suppressed for the past 30 years. And all of them will have skated out of office without consequences to bright futures. Could you imagine the Watergate hearings these days? "Impeachment is off the table" - Pelosi, forsooth.

- Bravn

July 15, 2008 at 4:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Posted by Bravn, who sed "The kindest thing to say for Reagan was that he was not aware of the policies of his administration. His was a scripted presidency and not by his hand." Bravn, the kindest thing to say for you is that I hope you were raised in a distant land & have an excuse for your epic illiteracy on Reagan. It was a Liberal smear-campaign that said Reagan was not in charge. No serious historian takes that as fact anymore, especially since his speeches were published & it turned out he wrote his own. Reagan had a degree in economics & also was the spokesman for GE during years when he put together his economic convictions. Of course, you are unaware that Reagan governed from his presidential platform. Was that also cobbled together by others whilst he slept? Reagan, even if he made no decisions during his presidency would have therefore chosen the best & let them do their jobs. The results speak for themselves. Obama, contra, has shown a strange & unsettling habit of choosing as his friends & advisers the very worst Americans alive -- bizarre racists who blindly rant about the deprivations that Whitey forced onto them while living in $10 million mansions. Marxists zealots who bombed our state buildings & remain unrepentant. Corrupt thieves who threw 'Bama sweet deals. And retired generals who try to tear to shreds bona fide war heroes. So what will Obama's crew govern like, Bravn? lmao

- Karl Daggerfield

July 15, 2008 at 4:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama is a cross between Jimmy Carter and Jeremiah Wright.

- Asylum Aleikum

July 15, 2008 at 5:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

About the only similarity between Obama and Reagan is that they both have two A's in their last names. Other than that, Obama is unfit to untie Reagan's cowboy boots. Reagan had defined a coherent foreign policy as early as 1964 during the Goldwater campaign, which brought him to the White House after Carter's blunders had left 50 diplomats hostage in Iran for over a year, not to mention double-digit inflation, unemployment, and gasoline rationing. Pray tell, what was Barry O doing 16 years ago? Listening to Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers and dreaming about his daddy with the four wives? In his own words, Barack Obama would turn tail in Iraq, make nice with Ahmadinejad, and invade Pakistan, a nuclear-armed unstable country whose former Prime Minister was assassinated last December. What does he plan to do when the Pakistanis cut the supply lines to our troops in Afghanistan? Hope they change their minds? Say pretty please? Obama is fond of citing Kennedy's meeting with Krushchev, which Kennedy himself admitted was a mistake. Reagan walked out of a meeting with Gorbachev in Iceland in 1986, until Gorbachev made concessions and begged him to come back. Obama is no Reagan, and his incessant waffling shows him to be no JFK either. Nobody really knows what he would do as President, so we'd better not give him the chance.

- Steve Z

July 15, 2008 at 6:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I can't believe you would insult the legacy of Ronald Reagan by comparing Barack Obama to him. I remember Ronald Reagan. Obama is NO Ronald Reagan. Reagan had accomplishments. Reagan had strong judge of character. Reagan didn't change positions with the wind to gain politically. How you could EVER even THINK of comparing the two boggles my mind. My advice: Lay off the hard drugs.

- Mike in Boston

July 15, 2008 at 6:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Please, do NOT insult Ronald Reagan's Legacy by comparing Babama Babama to him.

- Luis M. Puig

July 15, 2008 at 6:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Please, do NOT insult Ronald Reagan's Legacy by comparing Babama Babama to him.

- Luis M. Puig

July 15, 2008 at 6:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Don't necessarily agree with him, but I respect Lake's intellectual honesty. Not enough of that in the world, in my opinion.

- April

July 15, 2008 at 7:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hardly. When Ronald Reagan faced down the Soviets-- whether over intermediate missiles in Europe, or generally refusing to back down in the face of their threats, the Democrats were all wringing their hands and calling Reagan a dangerous warmonger. Obama is a Democrat like all others we've had since 1968. He'll back down as well. Without ever admitting he did. Just as he is changing his position on Iraq without conceding that he has.

-

July 15, 2008 at 7:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

One might as well compare Obama to Liberace, as to Reagan. He has nothing in common with Reagan. He has naively idealistic appeaser tendencies in common with Carter. Or, he could be a polite but dishonest version of Hugo Chavez. But I'm going to say Obama is more like Neville Chamberlain than he is like anyone else. "Final Answer"

- Brady G.

July 15, 2008 at 9:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As you read these posts, you realize NO ONE knows or trusts Obama. Reason enough to not vote for him. I guess on this day, the author of this piece imagined this about Obama. Tomorrow will be another view. Obama is a fake. That is why you cannot put your finger on who he is or what he stands for. He lies, that is the one thing consistent about him. He lies, over and over and confuses the hell out of those trying so hard to believe.

- eh?

July 15, 2008 at 9:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Barack Obama is Barack Obama. Trying to understand Obama through our misconceptions about Carter and Reagan is absolutely nuts. What we know about Obama is that he thinks the Iraq war was a strategic blunder and a distraction from the real war against terrorism. We also know that McCain thinks the Iraq war was a great idea and that we should set up a missle defense system in Czechoslovakia.

- Craig

July 15, 2008 at 9:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama is Carter without the business background and governing experience Let's call him Carter-lite Simbasnick

- Simbasnick

July 15, 2008 at 10:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Eli...stop drinking the Obama kool-aid...this guy changes his position every day. It's funny how John Kerry got crucified for his flip flops yet Obama who has made John Kerry look like Abe Lincoln gets away with it without a mention from the mainstream media. Just ridiculous!!! Obama is definetly for change/change of his position.

- Rob Davis

July 15, 2008 at 10:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Good lord, where did all these flaming nutbars come from?

- Tycho

July 15, 2008 at 11:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wow. Being willing to deal with nasty people=Ronald Reagan? Reagan took on the cold war to win, dealing with nasties was a consequence. Dealing with nasties now is a mistake. Carter would have some undescribably complex plan to deepen ties and working relationships. Reagan would figh the war on terror to win.

- Ronald LaMorte

July 15, 2008 at 11:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Barack Hussein...blah blah blah...Jimmy Carter...blah blah blah...Marxist, socialist, elitist, Black Panther, Muslim, extremist, jihadi...blah blah blah...Michelle hates America...blah blah blah...Ronald Reagan is God...blah blah blah. Do right wing nutjobs have a list of talking points to parrot emailed to them every day? And at what point do they commence the process of officially renaming our country The Ronald States of Reagan? It seems their November strategy currently consists of demonizing Obama while trying to entice some of our more foolish citizens with the promise of cheaper gasoline. Oh well, I'm sure once again they will succeed in convincing tens of millions of Americans to vote against their own best interests, leaving the 5% who actually benefit from GOP policies to rejoice.

- Scott

July 15, 2008 at 11:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

President Reagan was a great President who stood strong for the most excellent principles! To even compare Obama to him is a desecration to Reagans name!

- Constance Fischetti

July 16, 2008 at 12:06am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I would have tought that the Delenda memo would have taken its name from Cato's consistent refrain at the end of each speech to the Roman Senate, which was "Carthago delenda est" (Carthage must be destroyed), whatever the question. Eventually, at the end of the Third Punic war, his wish was granted. Not one stone was left standing, thefew survivors were all sold into slavery. Not a bad model for Al Quieda.

- rolf von pfefer

July 16, 2008 at 12:07am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Whoah, TNR has been invaded by people who think Cal Thomas is witty! The Ron Paul spambots were more insightful. You right-wingers need to get off your collective asses and get to work for John McCain if you want the election so bad. Obama is leading in MONTANA, for Chrissakes. Missouri, Virginia, the Dakotas and North Carolina are all in play. John McCain holds most of you in contempt, but he's all you've got. Internet prayers to Ronald Reagan will not help you.

- hewstino

July 16, 2008 at 12:10am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Gosh,I wasn't aware that TNR commenters were,by and large, not at all progressive, pretty darn conservative,( dare I say reactionary) and think that Reagan is some kind of God.(Did all the disaffected Reagan Republicans migrate to this site?) Obama could barely buy a kind comment in the whole thing. And Jimmy Carter gets no respect at all. Not sure about the folks who read and comment here. Must be true what I have read about TNR. If this is what passes for the moderate center of American politics, I don't want any part of it.

- dww44

July 16, 2008 at 12:48am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I needed a good laugh today...which I got in spades after reading this propaganda. Reagan went after socialists and communists and supported those who did the same...just like he did in Central America against the DEMS wishes. Todays DEMS and Mr. OBAMA are SOCIALISTS...which I'm sure has JFK rolling over in his grave. Believe me, CLARK was a back-stabber...because he didn't get promoted in the Bush administration and Beers brags to much...he had little to do with THE "COLUMBIAN PRESIDENT", WHO THE DEMS HATE, destroying FARC and doing it LIKE REAGAN WOULD...CARTER and OBAMA would be still hugging and talking to FARC and CHAVEZ...WHY ELSE WOULD OBAMA BE MENTIONED IN LETTERS THE COLUMBIAN MILITARY CONFISCATED AFTER A FARC LOST A BATTLE. OBAMA IS ALSO LIKE CARTER IN THAT HIS ENERGY POLICIES ARE COMPLETE MATCHES...PROFIT TAXES AND NO NEW SUPPLY...EVEN FOR THE FUTURE...AND WE ALL SEE WHERE THEY GOT US IN THE 70'S. OBAMA, LIKE CARTER, WILL BE A DISASTER FOR THE MILITARY...I know, I was there, 1976-1980...USAF.

- c.lasslett

July 16, 2008 at 1:15am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Anyone who believes that Obama is "changing his position" on any number of issues has not observed politics very long. He is not changing anything other than what he says. If he were a man of integrity, he would not "modify, adjust, refine,etc. ad nauseum" any of his positions. Changing positions since the democratic primaries means he will change positions once he becomes president. People, especially the youth, need to wake up and realize this is not a personality contest.

- virtuequest

July 16, 2008 at 7:10am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ronald Reagan just rolled over in his grave. Obama is more Marx than Carter.

- Mickey

July 16, 2008 at 7:36am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama has not flipped on Iraq. If you've followed his campaign, went to his website and read about Iraq you will know he still believes in the same strategy that he always has. It's really sad that you all hold Barack so accountable for Iraq but God forbid we impeach this president or even try to get Congress to move forward with impeachment hearings on the criminals who took us into this occupation that has caused part of our economic problems. Obama will govern like Obama. Let's not compare presidents because no previous president has governed like any previous president. If only Bush governed like his father we'd be a different country today but his head is empty. I will cast my ballot for Obama because I think he has the intelligence to govern and he will pick a cabinet who has previously published a doctrine on how they'll rule the world (The Bush Doctrine). If only McCain hadn't flipped flop on the kind of person he was four years ago, he'd be a great candidate and we'd have a race on our hands. It will be a landslide for Obama.

- Jey

July 16, 2008 at 8:15am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hear, Hear. Obamaphobia: The irrational fear of hope.-The Daily Show.

- Bravn

July 16, 2008 at 12:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hear, hear. Talk about experience and qualifications for office; Obama taught constitutional law at UC! Better than a failed oilman, or a OCD former Sec of Defense and a Veep consumed by the notion of a unitary executive deploying his own government. Really, Cheney's office has claimed, in public, that it is neither fish nor fowl; serving as a vote on the senate and having no other deties as mentioned by the Constitution it is its own Executive branch and therefore not accountable. Add David Addington to my list of staff for the treason trials, post Bush (God bless)so they can't be pardoned. Certainly I am illiterate on Reagan propaganda, why waste my time?

- Bravn

July 16, 2008 at 1:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sniff Sniff. Ahhhh, smell the fear. We are sitting on the edge of having possibly one of our greatest leaders yet - and the right is terrified of it, the screaching has NEVER been louder - interesting. They are terrified of our nation actually succeeding on the world scene for a glorious change. My first Presidential vote as an adult was cast for Ronald Reagan. Not because he was left, right or whatever but because he was a LEADER. Obama will LEAD.

- Marilyn in Phoenix

July 16, 2008 at 1:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Good grief. You'd think criticizing Ronald Reagan is tantamount to criticizing Jesus Christ. Talk about political correctness. These comment boards and blogs have become completely hysterical. Look, I respect your opinions. That's what they are. Opinions. Just because I don't think Reagan is the greatest person since Christ, doesn't mean you have to insult. SpencerG- you did lay out why you think Obama is similar to Carter. That got hidden by all the other ridiculous posts of people who probably didn't even read the article and said things like "Obama can't even hold Reagan's jock strap." Pretty juvenile I would say. But the argument is still simplistic. You can easily substitute Reagan in there with Lebanon. He pulled us out & didn't engage the terrorists who perpetrated it. My opinion is Reagan would never have invaded Iraq. Cerainly not to impose democracy. He was more of a realist. And to Mr. Karl Daggerfield, I have read all of the comments and very few have given any reason why the author's arguments are wrong. They are mostly simple talking points. Simply put, I think his argument is more thoughtful and intelligent than the vast majority of opinions on here. That is just my opinion. And I am sticking to my guns about the so called conservatism of Reagan. It is mostly rhetorical. You might call him, like Bush, a "big government conservative." And you simply can't argue with that. And people, relax, he was not Jesus Christ. He was a person like the rest of us. Stop your man-worship.

- Chris C

July 16, 2008 at 4:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Bravn sez, "Hear, hear. Talk about experience and qualifications for office; Obama taught constitutional law at UC!...Certainly I am illiterate on Reagan propaganda, why waste my time?" Yeah, some of the most out-of-touch people in history have helped destroy society from their ivory towers. Such will also be true of arrogant Obama should he somehow accidentally stumble into office. And that you are ignorant of Reagan is apparent; but that you are proud of the fact confirms the worst caricature of the heart-on-the-sleeve, aggrieved & unlettered Liberal activist. Nice raison d'etre, li'l fella.

- Karl Daggerfield

July 16, 2008 at 5:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Bravn what a complete a--hole you are. Please go to Venezuela or some fag socialist country and take all communist douchebags with you. People like you are the entire problem with MY country.

- aj

July 16, 2008 at 11:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

There must be a website or a radio program (Michael?) that auto alerts when Roald Reagan (some say Regan?) is mentioned in a posting title to generate firing up a barrage of whatever this stuff is.

- jemerk

July 17, 2008 at 1:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

114 comments! The equivalent with TNR-reading human beings to beating on the cages of monkeys! :)

- p.

July 17, 2008 at 5:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

lol, I've heard Obama compared to just about everyone BUT the father of modern conservatism. Forget it. If there's one thing white, midwestern, middle-class swing voters hate, it's Affirmative Action, and the Obama phenomena is the biggest case of Affirmative Action since, well... does it get any bigger than the presidency?

- Amwidkle

July 18, 2008 at 4:32am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This article is fluffy speculation grounded in very poor historical analysis. The Sandanistas took over Nicaragua and what happened? Not much. Big yawn. Same with Viet Nam--the communists won and now they're a big trading partner with us. Why are people so afraid of big, bad communism? Fascism is just as bad, and far more prevalent in the world. Our best foreign policy move is to simply ignore jackass regimes of either stripe. After all, had we never supported the evil Shah, whatever subsequent Iranian regime arose would not have hated us nearly as much as the Ayatollah did. Foreign policy is not that mysterious if you can manage to refrain from throwing rocks at hornets' nests. I find it especially hypocritical that when it comes to foreign policy, all these Christian politicians seem to have never heard of the Golden Rule.

- jayrayspicer

July 18, 2008 at 9:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Another Joan agrees with you. Thanks.

- Joan A.

July 18, 2008 at 11:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Name one thing the shape-shifter won't throw under the bus.

- Leigh

July 18, 2008 at 11:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The War on Terror is a fraud to make oil and weapons contractors rich. We always create our own enemies, and it looks like Obama aims to continue this policy. Cynthia McKinney 08

- Jonathan

July 20, 2008 at 10:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What I find very amusing about the comments to this article is that the people who disagree with the author simply say "Obviously Obama is Carter" or "this article is silly" or "Obama is not Reagan", and then drop the matter. NONE of the comments DISCUSS why they think the author is wrong. In other words, typical GOP-partisan apologists: Say your opinion as if it is fact and ridicule anybody who thinks differently and refuse to back up your argument with evidence or reasoning! Well, at least you're all consistent

- DaDave

July 30, 2008 at 1:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

- Who

August 18, 2008 at 3:58am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Reagan was a sleepy actor.

- j.

August 18, 2008 at 10:09am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close