Top Menu

Follow Taylor on Twitter

Obama is No 1970s Anti-Military Love-in Kind of Guy

Whew. Thank my tie-dye shirt for that.

News flash: Barack Obama isn’t invested in the 1960s. No kidding. He’s not
invested in reality either. Obama actually believes Reagan transformed American politics for the better.
In addition, he believes Reagan’s politics weren’t polarizing or highly partisan. Clueless doesn’t begin to cover it.

What Ronald Reagan did to Democrats, with a lot of help from a very bad war,
was push our face into the mud so that our spine was broken through an image
that chased some of us out to the other side and which some Democrats are still getting over and Rush Limbaugh and every other
talk radio host continue to trumpet.

Now Barack Obama is quoting that very language too:


“This is not just an anti-military, you know, 70s love-in kind of approach.”
– Barack Obama

This is the exact type of language Reagan used to vilify the Democratic party
coming out of the 70s. You know, Democrats like John Kerry, who endorsed this
guy. How do I know? Because those are the exact same words many Reagan Democrats
stupidly used in putting the Carter years behind us. National security Democrats
who voted for Reagan missed the flip side. We sucked this rah-rah, Reagan will make us stronger than them all propaganda through a straw until we woke up one cold, very lonely 1982 day choking
on reality and that we’d also bought an anti-union, anti civil rights, bigoted, homophobic,
pathologically partisan actor cast in the role of president.

The 1970s peace movement helped stop the Vietnam war. It’s what drew John Kerry
to the Senate to give one of the most electrifying speeches from a military
veteran in U.S. history.

But Obama’s got the myth making part of Reagan down. The propaganda too, and he’s certainly buying into his own transformative
powers, no doubt after drinking in the aura of all of his crowds.

Americans swoon over razzle dazzle. But eventually that wears off and we want to know what are you going to do for us?

Obama misses that component completely, as much as he misses Reagan’s real roots.

Sure, people
are hungry for change. But more than anything they’re hungry for competence because we’re in real trouble today that doesn’t respond to just words. Obama has the inspiration,
but he completely lacks the perspiration element required to manifest intention into reality. No doubt, like Reagan (even Bush), one of his lackies will do that for him.

The cult of personality of Reagan, now Obama, has another thing in common.
The arrogance to seduce the masses into believing something that isn’t so. Obama
is convinced that Reagan was transformational, but misses on what grounds that transformation occurred.

That Obama made his case by attacking the “anti-military” Democratic rabble
who Reagan also blamed for bringing this country to its knees in the 70s, because of the peaceniks’
love-in kind of approach, which was the in thing after the carnage of the Vietnam
war, without realizing what he’s doing proves Mr. Obama’s cluelessness.

Reagan was the antithesis of “an anti-military, you know, 70s love-in kind of approach.” Now we find out that Obama is too. Who’s going to tell John Kerry?


“I think it’s fair to say that the Republicans were the party of ideas…” – Barack Obama (video)
Comments are closed.
.... a writer is someone who takes the universal whore of language
and turns her into a virgin again.  ~ erica jong