You are hereBlogs / relantel's blog / A time for choosing - Reagan's classic 1964 speech
A time for choosing - Reagan's classic 1964 speech
[Stickied 2009-10-28 in honor of the 45th anniversary of the speech]
- relantel's blog
- 692 reads
- Quote
Random Reviews
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
I stickied this post this morning in honor of the 45th anniversary of Reagan's giving it. Still timely today...
-relantel
I had never seen this speech by Reagan -- it's amazing how relevant it remains, especially now that we face another huge expansion of government control. Reagan articulates just how deep the liberal sickness goes, and does it with humor.
Great link, Rel.
-Krogenar
He sure read them cue cards real good.
He sure read them cue cards real good.
http://baracksteleprompter.blogspot.com/
Reagan was a much better communicator than St. Barack.
For a laugh, listen to Obama try to get 'folksy' with supporters. It's laughable! He actually says "y'all" -- he's so hip and 'street', yo! LOL!
Could Obama sound like more of a complete idiot? He's trying so hard to sound like Joe Ordinary, and this is how he thinks real people (the rabble) talk? He should come on stage wearing a Packers jersey and scream, "Wooooooo!!!! GO PACKERS!!!" that would complete the illusion. There's never been a more stage-managed presidency than Obama's.
-Krogenar
Yeah, I mean let's say Reagan read cue cards. At least he was geniune unlike Barack who lives off of a teleprompter. He can't be a jive talker without it.
Yeah, I mean let's say Reagan read cue cards. At least he was geniune unlike Barack who lives off of a teleprompter. He can't be a jive talker without it.
What's so funny about Obama is that he really expects people to believe that he's this 'folksy' guy. He's not -- despite all this 'g'-dropping and 'y'all'-ing, he's as rarefied an elitist as you could hope to find. Remember when he went out of the White House to 'grab a burger' a few months ago? Wow! He's just like everyone else! It makes me think Obama saw a movie, saw 'ordinary folks' eating at a fast food place, and then decided it would be politically beneficial to mime the practice.
Obama: the beer-drinkin', burger-eating 'folksy' president.
Yeah, right -- he's drinking Stella Artois and his burger is topped with foie gras.
-Krogenar
Ronald Reagan was well known for constantly refusing to make any public statements that were not planned in advance witha speach handed to him. This is not something you can dispute, it's a well known part of his character.
Javen, you doing a little jab at Obama (who clearly does not have the same problem at all in any way - but certainly has his own flaws) does not change that.
What's so funny about Obama is that he really expects people to believe that he's this 'folksy' guy. He's not -- despite all this 'g'-dropping and 'y'all'-ing, he's as rarefied an elitist as you could hope to find. Remember when he went out of the White House to 'grab a burger' a few months ago?
You're delusional. There is no greater example of a President out right lying and pretending to be someone other than what he was (a total elitist that really didn't care about you at all) than your favorite Presidential heroes Krog.
This is the problem with you people, you refuse to see any fault in anyone that shares your ideology....why is that? Because you don't think for yourself you let other people think for you. That's a lot of the reason why it's almost an embarassment to be a Republican in this country today, because it's almost like you're all in a cult.
Just gonna give you one little bit of information: there is never going to be another Republican President until you as a party condemn George W. Bush and his policies. As long as you all continue to ride on the same bandwagon you guys are pretty much screwed in that regard. The amazing thing is that you either don't realize or you're too proud to admit it.
Ronald Reagan was well known for constantly refusing to make any public statements that were not planned in advance witha speach handed to him. This is not something you can dispute, it's a well known part of his character.
Bucky, you have absolutely nothing to say about Ronald Reagan, as you've claimed that he didn't win the 1980 presidential election in a massive landslide -- which proves you do not have a grasp of even the most basic political history. Here's the electoral map for the 1980 election:
Notice the overwhelming tide of red ink in the photo Bucky? Yeah, I could see how you could say that Carter was really very, very popular -- so long as you completely ignore the facts as represented by this map.
I enjoy crushing you with facts, Bucky, so here's the 1984 presidential election map, in which Reagan won yet again:
Excepting the mentally handicapped, most people can judge from these two maps that people really liked Reagan. Meanwhile, Obama's ratings are dropping through the floor, and while a small minority of people love St. Barack, he doesn't have the support that Reagan had.
The call Reagan 'The Great Communicator' -- I think history will call Obama 'The Great Prevaricator' -- because he's a skilled liar.
This is the problem with you people, you refuse to see any fault in anyone that shares your ideology....why is that?
Um, no ... Bush did a lot of things that were horrendously wrong. He tried to impose steel tariffs, he failed to be a fiscal conservative and he failed to hit back at his attackers. Bush was a big government Republican, and I fault him for those decisions. But even the worst Republican (like Bush) still got the most critical things right, like handling the war on terror.
Because you don't think for yourself you let other people think for you. That's a lot of the reason why it's almost an embarassment to be a Republican in this country today, because it's almost like you're all in a cult.
Ah, we Republicans 'do what we're told' eh? So you did watch the video! Pretty funny watching Barack 'git down' with his folksy self, yo? Y'all know what I'm sayin' right? Y'all be kickin' it real, yo? Y'all thinkin' for yo selves, 'aight?
Obama's a clown without makeup. Watch the video -- he couldn't be more tone deaf. He's quite clearly an elitist trying desperately to mime how he believes 'normal' people speak.
Just gonna give you one little bit of information: there is never going to be another Republican President until you as a party condemn George W. Bush and his policies. As long as you all continue to ride on the same bandwagon you guys are pretty much screwed in that regard. The amazing thing is that you either don't realize or you're too proud to admit it.
The next president won't be Barack Obama, if things continue as they are. The Democrats are scrambling to secure control over healthcare because they know they're going to lose seats in the mid-term elections. They know if they can't get a public option bill passed now, they never will. They're running scared and stupid and it's a joy to see.
-Krogenar
As soon as liberal nuts get this out of their heads they can actually start the way back to their recovery.
Bucky
No one is disclaiming Bush did some things wrong. As for your statement about my jab at Mr. O, Bush had his flaws too, so you can get over it now.
Because we aren't in the years of Bush are we? We are in the year of Hollywood Obama. And Hollywood Obama says"We got this. All I have to do is shoot my own reality show where I pretend to be like the little people"
And Hollywood Obama doesn't have flaws...he is FLAWED.
Bush is regarded as one of the worst Presidents in modern times, not because of things he said, but because of things he did. He did mostly bad things in office.
Obama has made plenty of mistakes (not the least of which is trying to overturn the lawsuit against the Bush Admin for illegal wiretappings - and continuing Bush economic policy), but he's not in the same league, and in his 10 months of office he hasn't done a single thing that amounts to Bush's disasters.
It's not just about rejecting the man and his administrations policy, it's also about your ridiculous notion that Obama is even worse.
No I didn't watch it when I made that comment it's just pretty obvious to people like myself that you people don't think for yourselves, there seems to be somewhat of a hive mind when it comes to Republicans.
No you just don't understand what I'm saying. Barely a third of the population of this country voted in that election, I don't regard that as Reagan being ridiculously popular.
The 2008 election isn't something I would regard as a landslide either, although it is much more so than the 1980 election, due to the sheer amount of people voting and the celebrations throughout American cities following that day...not to mention celebrations around the world.
But overall I think the term "landslide", as far as Presidential Elections in our nation are concerned, does not display a true and accurate measure of a president's popularity.
it's just pretty obvious to people like myself that you people don't think for yourselves, there seems to be somewhat of a hive mind when it comes to Republicans.
... in the sense that a group of people, standing nearby another man that farts, move away because of the horrendous odor? The Obama administration stinks -- and it's not just Republicans who are starting to ponder 'what's that smell?' -- it's moderates. Obama is losing moderates, Bucky. Look at the polls, his popularity is falling like a rock.
There's no Republican 'hive mind' -- if there's any mind at all. Democats march in lockstep compared to Republicans because we view each other as competitors. Peggy Noonan noted the differences between Republicans and Democrats while attending Ted Kennedy's funeral. She notes:
No you just don't understand what I'm saying. Barely a third of the population of this country voted in that election, I don't regard that as Reagan being ridiculously popular.
That's a pointless distinction. Are you suggesting that the Americans who did not vote hated Reagan or loved his opponent .... but remained home? We can only make judgements based upon what we know, Bucky. Of those Americans dedicated enough to actually vote, they overwhelmingly voted for Reagan, both times. Reagan's policies created the term "Reagan Democrats", Bucky. Where are the "Obama Republicans"? There aren't any.
Despite all the hoopla and hype about how Obama was going to end partisanship in America, he's the most polarizing president to date. Obama should give up on trying to ruin healthcare, show some humility, admit he was wrong, and get America back on track by leaving the economy alone.
The 2008 election isn't something I would regard as a landslide either, although it is much more so than the 1980 election, due to the sheer amount of people voting and the celebrations throughout American cities following that day...not to mention celebrations around the world.
But overall I think the term "landslide", as far as Presidential Elections in our nation are concerned, does not display a true and accurate measure of a president's popularity.
The world didn't elect Obama president, Bucky - Americans did. I know the capitols of places like Iran, North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela celebrated Obama's election -- as well they should -- finally, an American president that even tyrants, strongmen and presidents-for-life can love. Bravo, Democrats, bravo!
As for the youth vote turning out for Obama, that's true, but all they managed to do was take the demographic with the least political knowledge and made them a force to be reckoned with. Wow. So a high turnout of 20-something morons is a success? I have a feeling they won't be coming out for Obama in 2012. Not with raging inflation, a sagging economy and a 15%+ unemployment.
AS for Obama's 2008 win being 'more of a landslide' than Reagan's back in 1984, that just doesn't jibe with the facts as historians accept them. Wikipedia lists America's landslide presidential wins are being:
Where's Obama in this list, Bucky? I'm sure they would have added his win if they could. But they didn't. Have fun cradling your alternative history of the United States at night, Bucky. It's a fairy tale.
And... cue childish ranting about the Electoral College..... now.
Also, Reagan was a better speaker than Obama, in my personal opinion. He was able to speak candidly and with some humility and humor. Obama's not really a funny guy. He's cool -- or cold, depending on your view. I haven't heard even a single witticism from him yet. Frankly, I think Americans are bored with him.
-Krogenar
Because you're too busy worshiping your heroes and pretending that I'm a big supporter of Obama. That is the only fairy tale being discussed here.
What part of "The 2008 election isn't something I would regard as a landslide either" did you not understand? The rest of it can be summed up pretty damn easy, more people voted to elect Barack Obama President than they did Ronald Reagan, in either election. In fact if you combine both election results it's only about 30% more votes total for Reagan. To put it another way: more than 35% more people voted for Barack Obama in 2008 than they did Ronald Reagan in 1980, and over 25% more people voted for Barack Obama in 2008 than for Ronald Reagan in 1984.
I really don't care at all about the electoral college, it's a system that needs to go, and not the only part of our voting system that needs massive reform.
The bottom line is when you're talking about landslide elections you speak about them as if to try and say that it proves how popular a President is, but that is really not always the case. I'm not saying Reagan wasn't popular, but he did not bring people out to vote in record numbers as Barack Obama did. I really don't think you can deny the popularity factor in this case and that at least as far as the election goes, it far suceeded any other presidential election in recent history.
Where's the 1980 Presidential Election? We were never talking about 84' to begin with.
Because you're too busy worshiping your heroes and pretending that I'm a big supporter of Obama. That is the only fairy tale being discussed here.
Well, I guess if you say then it must be true. Seems like a leftist character trait, somehow. I think you're possibly even further to the left than Obama, who may at least realize he's got to let enough of the free market survive in order to allow his socialist agenda something to suck dry.
What part of "The 2008 election isn't something I would regard as a landslide either" did you not understand? The rest of it can be summed up pretty damn easy, more people voted to elect Barack Obama President than they did Ronald Reagan, in either election. In fact if you combine both election results it's only about 30% more votes total for Reagan. To put it another way: more than 35% more people voted for Barack Obama in 2008 than they did Ronald Reagan in 1980, and over 25% more people voted for Barack Obama in 2008 than for Ronald Reagan in 1984.
Your grasp of math and statistics is surprisingly bad. Let's ignore the 1984 massive landslide for the moment, and focus on the 1980 election. Reagan won 43,903,230 popular votes, or 50.3% of the total votes cast. He gathered 489 electoral votes compared to Carter's paltry 49.
You've stated in the past that you don't like the Electoral College -- that's fine, I can see the necessity and wisdom of it -- you can't. But either way, those are the rules of the game. The purpose of the Electoral College is to elect the candidate that has more than just the most support, it seeks to elect the candidate with the broadest support, nationwide. Were it not for the EC most candidates would campaign in California, New York, Florida and Texas, and ignore most of the other states.
Also, comparing the raw number of votes cast in two elections nearly three decades apart doesn't represent the demographic changes since 1980. That's why in statistics you should compare percentages, not single numbers. Obama won 52.9% of the popular vote, compared to Reagan's 50.7% in 1980 -- but Reagan secured 489 EV's to Obama's 365 EV.
In terms of the depth of support, Reagan beats Obama by a large margin.
And I still don't detect any 'Obama Republicans'.
I really don't care at all about the electoral college, it's a system that needs to go, and not the only part of our voting system that needs massive reform.
Still stinging from the 2000 election, huh? Well, get over it. This is another liberal trait -- cry about the rules after losing. Republicans don't fight the rules, they fight their opponents.
The bottom line is when you're talking about landslide elections you speak about them as if to try and say that it proves how popular a President is, but that is really not always the case. I'm not saying Reagan wasn't popular, but he did not bring people out to vote in record numbers as Barack Obama did.
What evidence do you have to support that conclusion? I think that more young people (young, stupid, politically unsophisticated people) voted in the last election, and they voted overwhelmingly for Obama, and that this was unprecedented. As for 1980's election, I think it was Carter who got a lot of people to vote -- for Reagan.
I really don't think you can deny the popularity factor in this case and that at least as far as the election goes, it far suceeded any other presidential election in recent history.
I think Obama is (was) very popular among stupid young people, yes -- that's undeniable. Among people who are young and don't know jack squat about politics, yes, Obama's more popular. I don't think Obama's 2008 win was as powerful as Reagan's 1980 win -- the electoral votes show that Reagan had broader support in 1980 than Obama had in 2008.
And besides, Obama's support is plunging..
Looks like the Dems are going to lose seats in Congress, Obama will be able to get even less done, and he'll be a one term president. Then, when a Republican is in office, we can start to undo some of the damage caused by Obama's ruinous presidency.
-Krogenar
I'm well aware of how many popular votes and electoral votes Reagan received in both his elections, I didn't say anything about it. What I said was completely true and accurate, 69,456,897 people voted for Barack Obama in 2008, 98,358,702 people voted for Reagan in the 1980 and 1984 elections combined, that's under 30% more votes overall for two elections. What does this mean? It means that the 2008 election had far more voter turn out than any election in modern history. It means that Obama was more successful in gathering votes than Reagan was.
Bullox, the Electoral College was a system that was put in place as a compromise between delegates that were in favor of a democratically elected President and delegates who wanted a President that was selected by the legislatures.
Do you even know your history? Do you know how many elections have been disputed because of the Electoral College? Do you even realize that the Electoral College is antithetical to democracy? Let me break it down for you: a vote in Wyoming, for instance, counts 4 times more than a vote in California. The Electoral College gives a disproportionate weight to the votes of small states, it's subject to mischief in close elections.
There's not a person in this country, truly interested in democracy and all it's values, who believes in the Electoral College as direct elections are far more consistent with the principles of democracy.
The Electoral College encourages candidates to pander to the interests of voters in battleground states, if we had direct election, candidates would have to campaign and advertise equally across the nation.
As far as Rasmussen is concerned, the polls do not reflect accurate information, they're always outside of statistical range of most other polls. Rasmussen is undoubtably skewed to the right and their method of polling leaves a large percentage of the population out of the mix, most of which are young Democrats. As far as I'm concerned the fact that you use Rasmussen polls to back up your ideas, completely discredits you. Gallup is much more accurate.
I'm well aware of how many popular votes and electoral votes Reagan received in both his elections, I didn't say anything about it. What I said was completely true and accurate, 69,456,897 people voted for Barack Obama in 2008, 98,358,702 people voted for Reagan in the 1980 and 1984 elections combined, that's under 30% more votes overall for two elections. What does this mean? It means that the 2008 election had far more voter turn out than any election in modern history. It means that Obama was more successful in gathering votes than Reagan was.
Numbers are meaningless without putting them in perspective. You must compare percentages of total votes cast -- that's the only way to account for population changes between 1980 and 2008. In 1980 the voting age population was 164,597,000. By 2008 the voting population was 231,229,580!
Seeing as there were nearly 70 million additional eligible voters in 2008, it hardly seems rational to make a comparison of how many people voted for Obama or Reagan. It would be meaningful to compare the percentages of the total votes cast and the electoral votes they both received to determine who had more support and the nature of that support. The total votes doesn't really tell you much, statistically. The total votes garnered as a percentage tells you about a candidate's general popularity, and the electoral votes says something about the breadth of that popularity. But brute numbers from disparate years tells you the least.
-Krogenar
The fact that more people voted for Barack Obama than Ronald Reagan, and his combined election results from 1980 and 1984 resulting in under 30% more votes total, is completely negated by the fact that there were more people who could vote, even though the number of people who actually voted is less than the voting age population as it were in 1980?
DOES NOT COMPUTE.
In light of that, I think it would be just a bit innacurate to not point out that the higher population of people old enough to vote meant there were a lot more people who were not voting.
But here's a stat you can't dismiss: a higher percentage of the voting age population (nbetween 4-5%) turned out in 2008 than they did in 1980 or 1984. If we're going to argue that a higher percentage of the overall population voting for a president means that president is more popular, Obama wins.
Although, I think when it comes down to it the bottom line is that these statistics alone aren't enough to prove popularity.
Although, I think when it comes down to it the bottom line is that these statistics alone aren't enough to prove popularity.
Reagan was so popular that even Republicans, Independents and even Democrats (called 'Reagan Democrats') supported his presidency. Where are the 'Obama Republicans' or their analogue? There aren't, or there aren't enough Republicans who support (or supported) Obama to warrant any notice.
That, to me, shows that Reagan had far more bi-partisan support than Obama enjoys.
-Krogenar
...
Post new comment