Reagan Stuff

Here's a newspaper endorsement Hillary Clinton got in New Hampshire and touted on her website (emphasis added):

But no president can do it alone. She must break recent tradition, cast cronyism aside and fill her cabinet with the best people, not only the best Democrats, but the best Republicans as well.. We’re confident she will do that. Her list of favorite presidents - Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Truman, George H.W. Bush and Reagan - demonstrates how she thinks. As expected, Bill Clinton was also included on the aforementioned list.

Maybe we can put this dumb controversy to rest? Reagan was, though not someone I would call a good president or one of my favorites, undeniably an effective president in the sense that he had a very ambitious agenda and got a lot of it enacted before handing things off to his designated successor, and it's perfectly reasonable for aspiring presidents to want to emulate him in some regards. I'm not, however, ever in favor of talking about the need for "new ideas" or whatever.

Comments

Nice catch. The Reagan controversy was among the most absurd of the last few weeks and, hopefully, this will hasten its demise.

Your last sentence has at least one too many "ever"s, however.

Posted by Chesser | January 19, 2008 12:07 PM

That was on Sullivan yesterday. Is that where you found it?

Posted by Quiddity | January 19, 2008 12:09 PM

Somewhere--Kos?--claimed that the author of the piece said that HRC never listed Reagan as a favorite. She had some other characterization of him.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | January 19, 2008 12:11 PM

They misquoted her. They now say she was just praising his ability to communicate, not his presidency as a whole.

Of course, that's pretty much what Obama was doing as well, so that criticism is pretty ridiculous.

And being against "new ideas" seems like a remarkably conservative position. We need to continue to search for new progressive ways of improving the country. The Republicans were able to dominate thanks to their think tanks churning out ideas and controlling the press. We need to counteract that if we're going to have any real change.

Posted by Tom | January 19, 2008 12:12 PM

I don 't know what it is, but something is amiss here, I can't imagine she would literally use the word "favorite" to describe the presidencies of Reagan and the man her husband defeated.

Frankly I don't care about the Reagan issue, but the "party of ideas" meme/nonsense Obama mentioned was a bit disturbing.

Posted by Andruw | January 19, 2008 12:16 PM

Okay, but if they start urging us to act to prevent Nicaragua's Daniel Ortega from marching up through Mexico and invading Brownsville, Texas, then I'm going to get all anti-Reagan riled up again.

Posted by El Cid | January 19, 2008 12:18 PM

Clintons: LYING HYPOCRITES!

But no president can do it alone. She must break recent tradition, cast cronyism aside and fill her cabinet with the best people, not only the best Democrats, but the best Republicans as well.. We’re confident she will do that. Her list of favorite presidents - Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Truman, George H.W. Bush and Reagan - demonstrates how she thinks.

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=4674

"Hillary and I will always remember President Ronald Reagan for the way he personified the indomitable optimism of the American people, and for keeping America at the forefront of the fight for freedom for people everywhere...

"We will always remember his tremendous capacity to inspire and comfort us in times of tragedy, ...and we can rest assured that, as joyous a place as Heaven is, his wit and sunny disposition are making it an even brighter place to be." President Bill Clinton and Sen. Hillary Clinton.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4092735

And, not like Obama haters will accept this, even though it's true and no many time it's repeated, OBAMA NEVER SAID HE LIKED REAGAN OR HIS IDEAS. He merely stated the obvious, that Reagan seized an opportunity for change, like we have right now, and ran with it, like he intends to do as well. The idea that Obama likes Reagan's policies is beyond ridiculous, and if you believe that, I want whatever it is you're smoking. Seriously people. Take a deep breath and a step back. Slowly.

Posted by John Y. | January 19, 2008 12:34 PM

Yeah, you're behind the curve on this one, Matt. Several days ago the editorial board that printed this said that they'd erred and issued a clarification. The broader point stands--sort of. I myself suspect Obama's gestures toward conciliation with the right of being more than simply rhetorical.

Posted by Ottoe | January 19, 2008 12:34 PM

1/18/2008 8:55:40 PM

In an effort to divert attention from Senator Obama’s comments about President Reagan and his assertion that the GOP has been the "party of ideas," the Obama campaign circulated an item this evening from the Salmon Press in New Hampshire that asserts that Senator Clinton listed the former President as one of her favorite presidents. In fact, Senator Clinton only complimented President Reagan’s communications skills – an attribute of his that has been widely praised by Americans of all ideological stripes – and did not list him as one of her favorite presidents. She also noted that she respected George H.W. Bush.

David Cutler, the co-owner of Salmon Press Newspapers, released the following statement:

The question posed was originally what portraits would you hang in the White House if you were President and as the dialogue progressed, who are the presidents you admire most?

She [Sen. Clinton] listed several presidents that she admired and mentioned she liked Reagan’s communication skills. She did not say Reagan was her favorite President. She didn’t say anything close to that.

Posted by wobbly | January 19, 2008 12:38 PM

I had put this up at Kos last night and caused a minor shitstorm over there over it. Even if you accept that she really was misquoted, you still have to conclude that she said exactly the same (true) things about Reagan last month that she's slamming Obama for today.

Posted by G C | January 19, 2008 12:57 PM

Krugman

One thing that struck me about Obamas apparent assertion that Reaganism represented a justified reaction against the excesses of liberalism.* Obama said that Reagan offered

a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing

So heres my question: did Reaganism bring a return to a sense of entrepreneurship? Not that I remember. I think Obama is confusing the 80s with the 90s, the Reagan expansion with the Clinton expansion.

The point is that the quintessential business figures of the 80s werent creative entrepreneurs. They were big-corporation executives (Lee Iacocca) and takeover artists (Michael Milken, Ivan Boesky). The gazillionaires who started in garages came later.

A less subjective measure of entrepreneurship and dynamism is productivity growth. And that didnt take off in the Reagan years. Heres multifactor productivity (a measure that tries to capture technological progress), from the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

INSERT Graph

The message of this chart and one that comes through in just about every other comparison is that the long stagnation of productivity that began in the 70s continued through the Reagan years and into the 90s. In fact, in the early 90s people were very depressed about Americas economy; remember the line, The Cold War is over. Japan won?

The takeoff, both in productivity and in optimism, came only around 1995. Im not giving Clinton credit for that takeoff; the truth is that we dont know why it happened. But it definitely didnt happen on Reagans watch.

I understand why conservatives want to backdate the good things that happened in the 90s, and pretend they happened in the Reagan years. But why is Obama playing along?

*In my next life I want to have legions of devoted followers who will fiercely declare that I didnt really mean what I seem to have said, and that anyone who thinks I did must be a paid shill.

Posted by Dan the Man | January 19, 2008 12:58 PM

I had put this up at Kos last night and caused a minor shitstorm over there over it. Even if you accept that she really was misquoted, you still have to conclude that she said exactly the same (true) things about Reagan last month that she's slamming Obama for today.

Posted by G C | January 19, 2008 12:58 PM

Anyone remember the 1984 election?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/43/ElectoralCollege1984-Large.png/400px-ElectoralCollege1984-Large.png

Now imagine the red states are blue. That's what Obama would like to do.

'Nuf ced

Posted by Jake | January 19, 2008 12:58 PM

Via Sullivan, this was also what was said by Bill Clinton when Reagan passed:

"Hillary and I will always remember President Ronald Reagan for the way he personified the indomitable optimism of the American people, and for keeping America at the forefront of the fight for freedom for people everywhere…"

I trust that's not a misquote?

Posted by Jake | January 19, 2008 1:03 PM

Wow, Jake, Clinton said something nice---and generic--at someone's funeral.

Quite a gotcha! there, you're the next Russert!

Posted by Andruw | January 19, 2008 1:31 PM

I don't understand this stuff about Clinton being misquoted. Isn't that a press release posted on her own website? Whatever she said originally, she certainly adopted the gloss on her words by posting it on her website. This is a little like Charles Barkeley's claim to have been misquoted in his own autobiography.

Posted by Led | January 19, 2008 1:31 PM

Was there *any* public figure who couldn't find something positive to say about Reagan when he died? Sheesh. There's a difference between a eulogy and a campaign speech.

Posted by Swift Loris | January 19, 2008 1:34 PM

John Adams (as president)? WTF?

Posted by jonnybutter | January 19, 2008 1:35 PM

"John Adams (as president)? WTF?"

Alien & Sedition Act II. You heard it here first.

The Obama shitstorm wouldn't have happened if the Reagan-love quote didn't fit the anti-Obama narrative, which is based on a lot more than one quote.

Posted by bob mcmanus | January 19, 2008 1:44 PM

Talk about using a non-issue as a defining issue!
Instead of a Dem Candidate saying, I didn't like Reagan, how about one saying, I want to do away with Reagan associated policies. De-regulation as a mantra for every problem, for one. A pitifully low tax rate on the wealthiest, for another - increase it twenty percent and it would still be lower than it was in 1979. And aggressively cutting down the defense budget for another. All Reagan standard policies. All unlikely ever to be proposed by a Democrat running for the presidency. The point, of course, is to say Reagan is a doo doo head while adhering to Bill Clinton's mantra/lie, the era of big government is over. Translated, that means, the era of big government doing anything except facilitating the flow of cash into the coffers of the wealthy, the Petro-gun consortium of energy and defense companies, and making the average person's everyday life more environmentally hazardous, more painful as the person's health budget shrinks, and less likely to lead to upward social mobility are over.

Posted by roger | January 19, 2008 2:27 PM

Now imagine the red states are blue. That's what Obama would like to do.

Not nuff said.

When you invoke comparisons to Reagan, no matter how stripped of policy they might be, you invite Peggy Noonan and other Reagan hagiographers to pass judgement on your campaign.

Which isn't exactly helpful. Noonan has already declared none of the GOP hopefuls worthy to kiss Reagan's ring, but it's a mistake to think that Reaganite adulation would be anything other than concrete footwear on a Democratic nominee.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | January 19, 2008 2:33 PM

but it's a mistake to think that Reaganite adulation would be anything other than concrete footwear on a Democratic nominee.

FDR adulation wasn't a problem for Reagan.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | January 19, 2008 2:35 PM

Maybe we can put this dumb controversy to rest?

Yeah, Reagan won, we lost. It's like the Albigensian Crusade. It was wrong, sure, but there are no more Albigensians. Same for liberals.

Posted by John Emerson | January 19, 2008 2:45 PM

Obama first compared himself to Martin Luther King.

Then he compared himself to Ronald Reagan.

Today he compares himself to Magic Johnson.

Who will this meglomaniac compare himself to next?

Posted by ken | January 19, 2008 3:23 PM

Fine--except, no! Reagan was one thing: "successful demagogue." He said he was going to cut taxes and shrink the government. He cut taxes, blew the budget, grew the government, raised taxes, never reformed any of the social programs he professed to hate. Then, lo and behold! With a Democratic majority in Congress, he reformed Social Security--not the most progressive tax in the world, but say what. Then he grokked Gorby at Reyjavik and put the neocon/nuclear theologians' hair on fire. Good work, ya big phony!

Then, however, he prosecuted a vile regional dirty war in Central America and, with Iran-Contra, pioneered the perversion of constitutional government in the modern era.

Yuck.

Posted by elle loco | January 19, 2008 3:59 PM

Anyone remember the 1984 election? Now imagine the red states are blue. That's what Obama would like to do.

And if Obama or anyone else thinks he has any shot whatsoever at doing that, they're delusional.

Posted by Jason C. | January 19, 2008 4:54 PM

Who Clinton liked back in the 1700's and 1800's is irrelevant. Who she liked in the last century is.

And she liked George H. W. Bush, who green lighted Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, and who was a shill for the Carlyle Group.

'Nuff said.

War in Iran for Israel. War in Pakistan just to be stupid. Corruption.

That's Hillary Clinton.

When you vote for her and get the above, I'll be here to tell you I told you so.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 19, 2008 8:05 PM