Letters to the Editor
-
Royalties may be due
Reagan fixed the "excesses of the 60s and 70s", "party of ideas", Clinton is divisive" These are all RNC spin points. What the fuk is up with that?
I understand why Obama might admire Reagan as an optimist who made people feel good no matter how badly things were going whether due to his screw ups (remember the teflon president moniker?) or due to other reasons. But by purposefully not mentioning that the republican party is not the "party of ideas" (remember? RNC spin point?), but rather the "party of shitty ideas"(remember? reality?) he’s simply pandering to scrape up a few of the “disillusioned republican” votes.
Furthermore as sorenreport points out, Bill Clinton by any measure (The economy. Wages. Taxes. Foreign policy. The environment. Women's health. Race relations. Supreme Court nominees. Food and safety regulations. World opinion. Popularity when leaving office.) shows himself well above presidents like Reagan, who on his best days was a nice figure head and on his worst days a disaster in foreign and domestic policy.
So for the sake of political expediency (yeah right Obama’s above that) it does not behoove Obama to equate the best management and best leadership in recent memory to a president with Clinton in their name. But he should know the reason every time the name Clinton is mentioned to Republicans, they drop a load in their pants is because he is the only democrat in recent years to have owned them no matter what kind of bullshit they pulled.
And finally does Obama pay royalties for these RNC spin points or does he get them for free?