Obama headed for transformative presidency

Where's the punchline???

President Obama wants a world without nuclear weapons. So did President Reagan. The similarities end there.

How we get to a nuke-free world matters. To mitigate the threat of nuclear war, treaty negotiators must understand what they are up against. That includes understanding how the other parties plan to use nukes, both as military assets and as foreign policy tools.

Reagan knew that. But it's not clear that Obama's negotiators appreciate Moscow's evident intent to keep using its potent nuclear threat to advance its foreign policy interests.

Like Reagan, Obama believes America must lead the way to nuclear disarmament. Unlike Reagan, he believes this requires an assertion of "moral" leadership, to be demonstrated simply by reducing our nuclear stockpile and refusing to modernize the U.S. arsenal. It's a false premise.

In the post-Cold War era, U.S. and Russian nuclear stockpiles have atrophied, yet the nuclear threat has increased. Today, there are many more nuclear-armed states, and some are far less stable -- and far more irresponsible -- than the U.S.S.R.

Reagan recognized that the ultimate goal of arms negotiations is to make the world safer, more stable and more free. To eliminate the need for large nuclear arsenals, he went about eliminating the dependence -- both ours and others' -- on massive nuclear attack as the guarantor of security.

Thus, the first items on Reagan's agenda were building up U.S. conventional forces and introducing missile defenses. That allowed his negotiators to approach arms control agreements from a position of strength.

Obama has it backward. He started with cutting back on defense -- especially in acquisition programs. Bye-bye, F-22.

He also cut missile defense, starting with systems to protect the homeland. But even that wasn't enough to make the Russians happy.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: www.washingtonexaminer.com...

In a nutshell.

Reagan understood his adversaries. Obama does not.

This is the most refreshing and interesting thread I've seen in a long time. I wish I could give it more recognition. It's an unusual viewpoint and I tend to agree with it.

I, for one, am glad that Obama isn't "far-left" as so many warned that he is. I created a thread in July of 2008 trying to tell people that he isn't as liberal as they think. In fact, his ranking among the "most liberal Senators", according to his voting record was... 43rd! Nearly in the center.

The Most Lberal Senator? Not even!

I hope your right. "Transformative" is exactly what this country needs!

Again, great thread!

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Great conclusion?? Obama didn't vote much throughout 2008.

projects.washingtonpost.com...

Here is a nice chart. Note Obama's turning point in early 2007. His absences skyrocket.

www.govtrack.us...

Well said my friend. Essentially, you took all of the cluttered thoughts in my (and many others) mind and laid it out in a coherent manner. I believe you are about as close to the mark as I have seen.

S&F and a big

After polluting my brain with the OP, I couldn't even read through the rest of the posts. The only thing I can say is that you are comparing Obama to Reagan!?!? WTF are YOU thinking??? Wow! I mean, just freaking WOW!!!

I think that you are forgetting that Reagan's presidency was a foreign policy presidency and Obama's is a domestic policy presidency - one built upon a unique blend of fascism, corporatism and socialism, the likes the world has never seen before!

You've created parrallels that simply don't exist or have very little relevence to your premise. Sorry, but I'm not at all on board with the analogy.

Originally posted by jibeho
Obama didn't vote much throughout 2008.

True. He was campaigning. It happens every election. The data I posted used the votes he actually voted on in his years in the Senate.

Originally posted by jibeho
Here is a nice chart. Note Obama's turning point in early 2007. His absences skyrocket.

He announced his candidacy in Feb. of 2007. What is your point? Never mind. It has nothing to do with the thread. You're just trying to change the subject.

reply to post by kozmo


Transformative you betcha! The OP glorifies the notion of wealth redistribution and the advancement of Obama's agenda. Enough said. *SNIP*

The Reagan comparisons had me on the floor.

Mod Edit: Please Review the Following Link: Courtesy Is Mandatory

[edit on Tue Apr 13 2010 by DontTreadOnMe]

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


You're right, McCain missed 100% in Q3 2008 but has only missed 11% since 1983 . Just wanted to make sure the data claims were accurate.

Ouch! that one hurt just a little.

Originally posted by jibeho
Here is a nice chart. Note Obama's turning point in early 2007. His absences skyrocket.

www.govtrack.us...

Well, that kinda makes sense, no? He was running for, what is it, the presidency. It's not like he quit his job, midterm, after the election, right?

Best,
Skunknuts

Originally posted by jibeho

President Obama wants a world without nuclear weapons. So did President Reagan. The similarities end there.

How we get to a nuke-free world matters. To mitigate the threat of nuclear war, treaty negotiators must understand what they are up against. That includes understanding how the other parties plan to use nukes, both as military assets and as foreign policy tools.

Reagan knew that. But it's not clear that Obama's negotiators appreciate Moscow's evident intent to keep using its potent nuclear threat to advance its foreign policy interests.

Like Reagan, Obama believes America must lead the way to nuclear disarmament. Unlike Reagan, he believes this requires an assertion of "moral" leadership, to be demonstrated simply by reducing our nuclear stockpile and refusing to modernize the U.S. arsenal. It's a false premise.

In the post-Cold War era, U.S. and Russian nuclear stockpiles have atrophied, yet the nuclear threat has increased. Today, there are many more nuclear-armed states, and some are far less stable -- and far more irresponsible -- than the U.S.S.R.

Reagan recognized that the ultimate goal of arms negotiations is to make the world safer, more stable and more free. To eliminate the need for large nuclear arsenals, he went about eliminating the dependence -- both ours and others' -- on massive nuclear attack as the guarantor of security.

Thus, the first items on Reagan's agenda were building up U.S. conventional forces and introducing missile defenses. That allowed his negotiators to approach arms control agreements from a position of strength.

Obama has it backward. He started with cutting back on defense -- especially in acquisition programs. Bye-bye, F-22.

He also cut missile defense, starting with systems to protect the homeland. But even that wasn't enough to make the Russians happy.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: www.washingtonexaminer.com...

In a nutshell.

Reagan understood his adversaries. Obama does not.

This is ridiculous. How's that 'missile defense' working out? Five presidents and 100s upon 100s of billions of dollars later, and it is still just pie in the sky. A chicken-hawk's wet dream.

Furthermore, how many of these new nuclear states have ICBMs? Obama's approach might not be as sexy, but it is pragmatic and makes sense. Other than being a welfare program for the military industrial complex, it was an utter failure. Ronnie's ray gun, lol.

As for the f-22, what are you, a defense contractor lobbyist?

For strictly on the merits, there is only a raggedy case to keep buying more F-22s. The F-22 was developed in the 1980s as one of several aircraft—the B-2 bomber and F-117 attack plane were others—to incorporate "stealth" technology: flat, rounded surfaces and special materials that together made the plane all but invisible to radar.

One lesson learned from the wars of the last two decades is that U.S. combat planes are very hard to shoot down, whether they have stealth technology or not. This is due in part to the radar gear in even the older planes, in part to the tactical skills of the pilots, and in part to the mediocrity of our enemies. But what if our planes keep getting older and our enemies get better?

Even the F-22's advocates concede that there'd be no need for this aircraft if all our future foes were the likes of Afghanistan or Iraq. It's easy to control the skies—so that helicopters can strafe, planes can drop smart bombs, and our troops can roam the terrain without fear of attacks from the air—when the enemy has a lousy or nonexistent air force.

www.slate.com...

What does this mean?

Like Reagan, Obama believes America must lead the way to nuclear disarmament. Unlike Reagan, he believes this requires an assertion of "moral" leadership, to be demonstrated simply by reducing our nuclear stockpile and refusing to modernize the U.S. arsenal. It's a false premise.

Seriously, didn't Reagan use terms like 'evil empire' to describe the Russians? Is that not the ultimate expression of 'moral' leadership? The US spends over a trillion dollars a year on defense, some of that isn't being spent on modernization? Give me a break.

If you want to look at mismanagement of the armed forces, how about focusing on Rumsfeld's misguided approach that severely weakened our ability to handle the current mission. Obama has done much to rectify this situation in Afghanistan (despite anger from the left). Obama has showed time and time again that he does what he feels is right for this country, despite political pressure.

I mean really, show some sense of at least wanting some fiscal responsibility. Do we really need more defense spending? I know I am comparing Obama with Reagan, but I don't want him to triple the deficit like the latter.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8d8469f24306.jpg[/atsimg]

Best,
Skunknuts

[edit on 4/13/2010 by skunknuts]