Obama Looks to Reagan Legacy as Way to Move Agenda in Congress

[AlphaCentauri]

Source: Bloomberg

As Barack Obama prepares to confront a strengthened Republican opposition to his tax, spending and immigration priorities when Congress convenes this week, his advisers are comparing him to another president who faced similar circumstances: Ronald Reagan.

Like Reagan and Bill Clinton, Obama must spend the next two years of his presidency navigating a new balance of power after midterm election losses. Before leaving for a year-end vacation, Obama sought advice from Reagan chief of staff Ken Duberstein and David Gergen, an image adviser to both Reagan and Clinton, said an Obama aide. On his Hawaii trip, Obama brought along journalist Lou Cannon’s Reagan biography, “The Role of a Lifetime,” a selection his press secretary announced over Twitter.

Obama “has the bully pulpit and he’s demonstrated in the clutch that he knows how to use it,” said Patrick Griffin, who was Clinton’s legislative affairs director from 1994 to 1996. “He is going to be a formidable player in defining who did the right thing for the American people, whether the result is legislation or stalemate.”



Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-03/obama-looks-to...

[DJ13]

1. He needs to stop revering our party's biggest enemy

[cstanleytech]

10. I dont see it as him revering Reagan but rather he is trying

his best to do his job and that means he needs to find a way to work with the republicans because regardless if you or others (including myself) like it or not they are not going to go away as much we might wish they would.

[sabrina 1]

12. And there are no inspiring Democrats he could read about

to see how they got things done? What exactly has Reagan done for this country that hasn't been a disaster? Does he realize that the current state of the economy was caused in large part because of 'reaganomics' a word that should strike fear into any true Democrat who cares about the American people?

This is disastrous news. And Gergen?? He looks up to Gergen? No wonder our country is in the mess it's in and it's only going to get worse. Clearly this president has never met a Democrat he respects. I just wish we had known this BEFORE the election, but then they knew if we did, he would never have been elected.

[nyy1998]

20. He's not following through on Reagan's policies, but rather his means of getting bills through

Congress, how do you work with an opposition party that hates you? Reagan, regardless of whether his bills were good or not(and I agree that they were not), was able to get a lot through a generally Democrat-led Congress.

If the Reagan model could prove effective in allowing Obama to get some of his bills to pass, then why not use it? It's the same model, but different types of bills coming out. Hopefully bills that help us move forward on the economy, environment, education, etc but we'll see.

[sabrina 1]

23. The 'Reagan model' was a disaster.

There are Democrats who got bills through Congresses that hated them. Why is it so hard to find one for this president?

Did he ever hear of LBJ eg? Reagan's 'accomplishments' in Congress don't even come close to what LBJ managed to get through.

Please stop apologizing for this President. He's made it clear that he admires Repubicans, wants their approval, and really doesn't care much about the people he fooled into believing he was something he is not. It's fine, that's politics, we'll get over it.

But we now have to decide what to do about this country's future. Anyone who is reading Reagan, scares me. So, Congress is where we have to apply pressure. Republicans managed to get a lot done that they wanted, in the minority. I think Democrats can take a lesson from them on how to block legislation they do not want.

Or so we were told.

[Axrendale]

47. I hate to break it to you, but...

If Obama is really casting around for historical examples that he can look to for legislative inspiration, the choices are not nearly so thick on the ground as you would seem to believe.

Lyndon Johnson did indeed manage to get a vast assortment of legislation passed through Congress and signed into law, in this regard out-doing every other President except his mentor, Franklin Roosevelt, but context has to be considered. A President cannot create legislative mjaorities out of thin air - they must be built from the tools at hand. LBJ had a Senate majority of 68 Democrats and an equally overwhelming advantage in numbers in the House from 1965 to 1966, when he passed the bulk of the Great Society (large parts of which, it is worth noting, were far less effective than they might have been because the legislation was rushed, and therefore poorly written). From 1935 to 1936, when FDR passed the most influential parts of the New Deal, he had 69 Democrats in the Senate and several progressive Independents to boot, and an even greater majority in the House.

Reagan in his eight years as President never once had the advantage of dealing with a House that was controlled by his own party, and GOP control of the Senate could be tenuous. Despite this he still managed to get considerable chunks of his agenda passed, a formidable achievement even if the agenda in question was a negative one, and it would be foolish to disregard out of hand the political lessons that can be drawn from the success of his methods.

Instead of insisting that we "stop apologizing" for the President, I would suggest that you attempt to understand him a little better. Obama has made it very clear on numerous occaisons that he regards many of the policies that Reagan advanced as being flawed and negative ones (at the same time it is worth noting that Reagan was capable of embracing positive causes such as immigration reform and arms control). He does however acknowledge Reagan as having been a talented and decisive politician who left a lasting impact on the American political scene. This simply shows that Obama is capable of holding a clear and level-headed view of political history. I agree that Ronald Reagan was a terrible leader (for the most part), but at the same time it would be intellectually dishonest to deny his importance as a figure of recent political history, or his political effectiveness.

Obama has already demonstrated (especially during the 2008 campaign) that he understands the significance of Ronald Reagan as a political image, and how that image can be manipulated for advantage. The successful politician is one who refuses to shy from whatever tools are needed to get as much of the job done as possible, as successfully as possible, ideological purity be darned. And Obama, whatever some might say about him, has shown that he is an immensely shrewd and gifted politician. I for one have never viewed his carefully timed "praise" of Reagan in 2008 as being anything more than a rather cynical ploy that succeeded brilliantly in destabilizing the Clinton campaign at a crucial point, and helped him clinch the nomination.

I remain confident that Obama has a thoroughly progressive vision for the direction that this country should be moving in which excels that of any of other figure currently serving in public office. He is the most intelligent, capable man to occupy the Presidency in decades, and I for one don't give a damn which Presidents he needs to read about and talk about, who he has to piss off or butter up, or how cynical he needs to be in order to get as much of his agenda passed as possible. As long as the reading, talking, pissing, buttering, and cynicism is the reading, talking, pissing, buttering, and cynicism that will gain the best possible political results (tell me honestly - if Obama wants to cast himself as a champion of bipartisanship, whose cloak is it better to wrap himself in in public - Lyndon Johnson's or Ronald Reagan's?), then as far as I am concerned, mindless ideological purity can go and jump in the river.

It was Ronald Reagan who once said that "I'd rather make a deal to get half of what I want than jump off the cliff waving the flag". That attitude annoyed a lot of conservative Republicans, but it netted his party a political predominance that lasted almost three decades.

[CBHagman]

62. Valuable context!

People too post here without acknowledging either history or the practical workings of the legislative process.

[newspeak]

63. I thought under FDR the repugs took the house after two years

I'll still go with FDR, smile in their faces and hold a knife behind your back. Gee, so that means the Reagan could have done even more damage to the country if he had gotten all of his agenda. Now that's a scary thought.

[Hawkowl]

70. The Nazi's were masters at organization

Did Obama publicize that he's reading a book about Nazi ingenuity? I think the point is, he is courting Republicans and conservative independents by publicizing he's trying to model himself after Reagan.

He could've read about Reagan and kept it to himself. Instead he trumpets it for the whole world to hear. Kowtowing to Rethuglicans and simply pissing off the left wing of his party again. That is THE salient point of his governing strategy. It also appears to be his election strategy in 2012--a completely different strategy than 2008.

Obama doesn't need to work on his messaging. He sends exactly the message he wants. What he needs to work on is his content, and his core belief system.

[apocalypsehow]

76. Of all the stretches to bring the Nazis into a discussion I've seen on the internets over the years,

this reply takes the grand prize.

"Did Obama publicize that he's reading a book about Nazi ingenuity?" Good grief - did you really read what you typed before you hit "post message"?

[sabrina 1]

71. You are ignoring the fact that LBJ had a large contingency of

Dixiecrats to deal with who often were harder to get on board with, eg, such legislation as the Civil Rights Act, than some Republicans. So to say it was easy because of the numbers of Democrats, is simply wrong.

There is also FDR, but this president doesn't seem to know much about one of the most successful Democratic Presidents who left a more important legacy for the PEOPLE than any other single president in nearly a century. This president has so far managed to denigrate FDR, which is bad enough, but he used false information to do so.

There is simply nothing about Reagan that was good for this country, and his horrible human rights legacy is still being dealt with in South and Central America. No self-respecting democrat would want in any way to align themselves with that administration. Everything this country is going through economically right now, can be traced back to Reaganomics. Oh, yes, he was good for the wealthy, which is why the myth of Reagan continues to be promoted. But history is telling a different story and as time passes his 'legacy' will be more fully understood.

By giving any credence to one of the worst presidents in living memory, and yes, he had company being a Republican, Nixon (who in many ways was better on social issues) and the Bushes, he is right there among the worst of the worst, on human rights, on foreign policy, on economic issues, on social issues.

You may try to minimize the damage done, which began with the treasonous undermining of a Democratic president and the commission of crimes which he only got away with because once again, a Democratic president decided to let elected criminals off the hook, but the harm done to this country by Reagan both at home and abroad, should preclude any Democrat from holding him up as an example of anything but how NOT to run a democracy.

This president's fascination with Republicans and their mythical hero, Reagan, is extremely disturbing to those of us who thought we electing Democrats who would fight for the ideals of FDR, not Reagan.

[newspeak]

61. Any bill that favors big business and fat cats over the

american people will get passed whether it's a democratic congress or repuke congress. They have no problems passing bills for the faux entitled, it's anything helping the plebes that they have a problem with.

Also, I will never, NEVER forget Iran-contra, BCCI scandal. Some of the same players wound up in Little Boot's administration because of no reprisal. The Reagan administration (Poppy Bush) went against the will of the people (congress) in an illegal act. And who stated they were out of the loop? Could it be that person was the loop? They allowed drugs on our streets for transferring arms. And yet, we have a portion of our populace that actually think someone like Oliver North is some kind of hero? For what? Betraying the people? It was exposed by a journalist, and yet where are the american people? Two brave journalists are dead attempting to warn us what was happening within our government. One for further investigating the BCCI scandal. A Pakistani based bank that may have had deep connections with money laundering, laundering for terrorism? The "rule of law" is broken, and the scandal was a major hit.

I do not see these cretins as Americans-I see them as a group furthering their own selfish agendas at the expense of the American people. And until the majority of the American people wake up and realize that some people are not concerned about our welfare, or America's welfare; but are more concerned about their own selfish needs or furthering the needs of corporate interest and greed, this country will continue to be on the auction block to the highest bidder.

[alp227]

81. on one hand i'm disappointed that obama's acting like this

but not cooperating with Republicans=asking to be de-elected in 2012. Sigh. EFFF POLITICS!

[jasigirl33]

94. Reagan and the GOP loved workers' unions...in Poland.

Remember how their international policy was pushing allowing unions in Poland? I guess they love workers in other countries, just not the US. That's why they give them so many of our jobs, maybe?

[Recursion]

22. Yes, refusing to learn from our enemies is a *great* idea

Allow me to invite you to read about Marius and Sulla.

[EFerrari]

35. Obama is a little long in the tooth to be resorting to cautionary tales.

[Axrendale]

48. An excellent suggestion.

We could do with more classical references in our politics today. I commend you sir.

[LisaM]

91. I know.

Ronald Reagan's name makes me literally sick. I wish Obama would (excuse my language) STFU about him. I don't care if he got his message across. It was a bad message and he was a crafty liar. He is a poor model.

[mr_liberal]

2. This is encouraging

if he listening to Duberstein and especially Gergen. I wish he would hire Gergen.

[Hardrada]

4. I think Gergen should be in a re-education camp along with all the

other neocons and neoliberals and palaeo-assholes. Never to be let out.

[democrat2thecore]

86. You are a totalitarian

That's not my opinion - you defined yourself as such with that post. Good Americans can disagree. Just because they don't agree with YOU - doesn't mean they need "re-education camps." God, this place is damn scary sometimes.

[Hardrada]

92. O my Goodness! I must have forgotten the sarcasm "thingy!"

How thoughtless!

[liberation]

7. I see you were going for the ironic angle when you chose your nickname for this site.

LOL

[laconicsax]

3. Did I miss something?

Obama “has the bully pulpit and he’s demonstrated in the clutch that he knows how to use it,” said Patrick Griffin...

When did this happen?

[Hardrada]

5. Good point.

[liberation]

8. In one of the many alternative realities...

... where he and his supporters seem to be playing n-dimensional chess.

[sabrina 1]

13. I was wondering the same thing. I remember wondering why he

didn't use the bully pulpit, especially all during the summer when the tea-bagger organization was being paid to kill real health care reform. He was nowhere to be seen during that entire summer. I remember being told that he was 'right to stay out of the fray' when people suggested he use his bully pulpit.

[kath]

24. Yeah, really! I read that and was all like "What. The. Fuck.???"

WTF is Patrick Griffin smokin'???

[Hell Hath No Fury]

55. I had to laugh when I saw that line --

I immediately thought of that line about not "...blowing smoke up my skirt..."

Christ I hate being treated like I am stupid.

[demosincebirth]

6. I guess he hasn't read too much about Reagan...the incompetent president and Union buster

[cstanleytech]

11. Actually he was decent enough, not as good as some others of course but not

as bad as Bush jr or Nixon.

[demosincebirth]

14. Any Union buster and anti-unionist are all in the same class....Scum!

[EFerrari]

17. He wasn't decent to all the people who died of AIDs while he ignored it

or to the homeless he created by gutting federal affordable housing programs or to the millions of people his dirty wars displaced in Central America, or going back, to his fellow union members that he turned over to McCarthy to get credit with the wing nuts.

He wasn't decent in any way. He was an old felon.

[kath]

25. HUH?!??? He did an INCREDIBLE amount of damage to this country, in so many ways.

Chimpyshit was even worse, but still....

[EFerrari]

26. Raygun's admin was a seedbed for Junior's misadministration. n/t

[Lasher]

29. Junior was Saint Ronnie on steroids.

Reaganomics was totally discredited, but now Obama is reviving it. What a nightmare.

[kath]

32. It really is a nightmare -

when I remember how happy I was on election night 2008.... OY.

[Lord Magus]

83. No, he's not.

He's looking to replicate Reagan's political success in the face of a midterm blasting. Not his policies.

[Lasher]

88. Watch what he does, not what he says.

One of the key goals of Reaganomics was to reduce income and capital gains marginal tax rates. Can you think of anything Obama has done lately to promote this?

[jasigirl33]

95. But Ronnie loved unions.........in Poland. Remember? nt

[Javaman]

52. He was a union busting scumbag and on top of that he promoted the failed trickle down BS.

He was a failure.

Anyone one of his "positive achievements" could have been done by any other person in his position.

[rfranklin]

54. Actually, he did very well for his patrons...

the same people that Bush Jr. described as his base, "the haves and the have mores."

[Javaman]

59. True, the wealthy made out like bandits.

oh wait, they are bandits.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

57. If you really think that about Ronnie Raygun --

then you really need to pick up a few books and do some serious reading. The damage done by Ronnie was immense, both here and abroad.

[defendandprotect]

19. .. the attacks on teachers is an indirect assault on their union ... one of the biggest ....

Think DU is paying too little attention to Obama/Duncan attacks on public

education for privatization for benefit of elites/corporates --

they've long wanted a more direct approach to public schools producing robots

for their use -- non-thinking zombies.

[nyy1998]

21. Oh please, most educational wonks think that the unions have stood in the way

of actually progress. He's not paying them any less or getting rid of benefits or anything like that. He's just getting rid of the incompetent or ineffective teachers. I'm sorry, while I generally like unions, I have to go against the teacher's unions on Race to the Top.

[EFerrari]

28. Progress, my granny. They're privatizing our school system

and killing off one of the last viable unions in this country.

Race to the Bottom is going to take years to fix, if we can ever do it.

[nyy1998]

67. Privatizing how? By letting charter schools come into existence.

Look I had a good public school education, but my view on education policy is that if charter schools can provide a good education cheaply(or heavily subsidized by the govt), then why not pursue it? Race to the Top is getting some much needed reforms done.

[EFerrari]

69. The charter school industry fixes their numbers

with the full support of our government. Race to the Bottom isn't reforming anything. You might want to check Hannah Bell's and madfloridian's journals because they have been following this pretty closely.

[nyy1998]

77. I've using the New Republic, they've been covering this issue pretty closely themselves and

I like what I see.

[defendandprotect]

73. It has the potential to work as well as privatizing our police force, or fire department ... !!

[corpseratemedia]

40. Democrats support strong teacher's unions.

[nyy1998]

65. No, they supports Unions in general, but there's plenty of Dems, that's willing to go against a

Union if they stop progress from happening.

[defendandprotect]

74. "Plenty" of Democrats are effected by right wing propaganda ....

Testing is not teaching -- replacing teaching in our schools with testing

is simply another way to confuse the public/parents -- with test scores as

the "proof" for a right wing anti-public education agenda.

[newspeak]

82. Little Boot's "no child left behind" BS

has done more damage than any teachers' union. You do know that both, Milkin and *'s S&L darling brother got into the educational business? They both can no longer work in the banking industry, so they found another lucrative outlet.

[defendandprotect]

72. Obama agenda is to support charter schools ... and Obama/Duncan are carrying out that agenda....

What Obama is doing is following the same pattern of attacking public education

by privatizing it which Bush followed --

Interesting that you can see "teachers" as the enemy and not privatization --

[nyy1998]

78. You misread my posts, I didn't say the teachers are, just union leadership

I understand that they have a job of protecting their members from getting fired. And in some cases, especially with plenty of states cutting teachers, they need to do that job really well. I'm not in favor of cutting teachers or destroying teacher unions, just the incompetent teachers.

What the states are doing is just cutting everyone to balance their budget, whether they're good or not. I think California fired the 2008 Teacher of the Year or something like that. The Unions need to prevent that. But not prevent lousy teachers from getting fired.

[defendandprotect]

79. If you're in favor of charter schools, you are in favor of attacking teachers and unions ....

because that's the way it's being done and probably the only way to do it.

That and right wing propaganda to confuse parents/citizens --

Corruption does begin at the the top -- look to corruption in our own political parties

-- and government -- before we begin attacking teachers and unions.

[nyy1998]

85. Your argument makes no sense nt

[PSPS]

9. I guess he's angling for what we'll refer to in the future as "Obama Democrats."

[Octafish]

15. Whatever happened to Democrats looking up to Democrats? Like Franklin D. Roosevelt?

Heck, I'd settle for Lyndon Johnson before Ronald Reagan.

[EFerrari]

18. This year is the centennial of Raygun's birth.

Maybe Obama wants to cash in on the Raygun-a-palooza we're going to endure this year.

[Octafish]

80. We need a Gipperpalooza, DU Style.

You had mentioned telling the truth about Pruneface would make Big Fun.

It's sickening to be a Democrat when the puke cause of so many of our current problems is some kind of hero.

[Thor_MN]

16. He's going tostart taking more naps? Need more aides to tell him where he is?

[somone]

27. How fucking inspirational

[corpseratemedia]

41. #3 cartoon sums it up perfectly

and also our country's problems with ill-informed voters

[whathehell]

50. Excellent toon.....and yes, it does some up our problems with the low-info voters. nt/

[Golden Raisin]

30. I don't ever want to see the

name "Reagan" associated in any way with a Democratic President or Administration, particularly as an exemplar or guidepost, unless it is to be pointed to with revulsion and disdain for the seeds of destruction Reagan laid for this country. The very same seeds harvested to fruition by Bush and Cheney. And if President Obama has, "demonstrated in the clutch that he knows how to use it (the bully pulpit)" it's been entirely lost on me. He continually lets Republican and Teabagger outrages pass in silence or with a minimal, "Tsk-tsk" before he starts trying to be all bipartisan and collegial with the Republicans, who continually, habitually and automatically obstruct and fight him on everything, and who's goal is to limit him to a 1-term Presidency. He should kick them in the balls --- that's all they understand.

[kath]

33. + a brazillion.

Great post - I agree with every single word you said, but couldn't have expressed it nearly as well.

Still going "WTF????"over that "bully pulpit" bit from the article in the OP. WTF WTF WTF

[avaistheone1]

34. +1000

Reagan screwed this country badly. We don't need Obama governing as Reagan did.

[Safetykitten]

31. Is there anything else to concede or give up? I think we covered everything

that could of or would of made the average Americans life better. So what the hell, he's Reaganesque now.

[Larkspur]

36. Reagan was a B-rated actor and at best a B-rated President

so Obama wants to be second fiddle to at best a mediocre President? Talk about aiming low.

[PoliticAverse]

37. Reagan legacy?

[xchrom]

38. quelle shock! nt

[GaltFreeDiet]

39. It's really sad when good kids fall in with a bad crowd.

nt

[Hubert Flottz]

42. Maybe he plans to run as an Indy next time?

Obama LIEberman 2012?

[madrchsod]

43. obama does`t have a clue about reagan and the 80`s......

it`s getting to the point where he might as well join the republican party.

[Odin2005]

44. Reagan? FUCK THAT NOISE!

[kgnu_fan]

45. no excuse...

[RoccoR5955]

46. Great, he's gonna use one of the WORST to be a role model

More secret wars, more deals with enemies, more trickle down economics, not to mention union busting.
Obama will go down as one of the great RepubliCONs.
It's no wonder. He's become a puppet, as was Raygun. A puppet for the Corporatists.

[ladjf]

49. Mr. President, rather than reading the Reagan biography, I suggest

that you read the news. Reagan was a disaster for Americans.

[Jefferson23]

51. Oh how wonderful, David Gergen!!

[Javaman]

53. Oh well...

the remaining Democratic Party platform is about be flushed down the toilet.

Not that we really have a Democratic Party in the traditional sense anyway. We haven't had one since Carter.

Well, hope you all enjoy your fascism, because we are now about to plunge headlong into it.

In his want to be reelected, it appears as if Mr. Obama is about to trade more cows for seeds.

Oh well. At least the victory gin is cheap. Well, it's really grain alcohol but does that matter?

[TacticalPeek]

56. Typical.

[Joanne98]

58. AACK!

[timtom]

60. Nice choice of role models

Of course. Learn from the best.

[alarimer]

64. We have Reagan II, when we needed FDR II

Reagan was a lying piece of shit. A war criminal (but then so is Obama, now, with his embrace of the drones), a corrupt, immoral idiot.

[Lord Magus]

84. Drones are illegal now?

LMAO, I guess bombing with piloted planes is different somehow.

Quick quiz: how many civilians were killed in the bombing raids that FDR ordered?

[fascisthunter]

66. If This is the Case, he is Soft in the Noggin

[SpartanDem]

68. Do the people getting upset about this

have ounce of reading comprehension? I highly doubt it, it said nothing about policies, but about strategy in a divided Congress

[democrat2thecore]

87. You're right, of course, but these responses just astound me

And I'm on the left! Check my posts! I have been VERY critical of Obama for all of his compromises, mainly because he did it while alienating his base. Guess what president was successful at dealing with a divided Congress, didn't lose his base and still was a master at compromise, but getting most of what he wanted? Ronald Reagan. This is history, folks, not a litmus test on Reagan's actual policies. It's revisionist history to discount the fact he was a transformative president - love him or hate him. It's crucial to understand that. I worry about the many young people here at DU who simply don't understand the '30s through the '80s.

[Art_from_Ark]

89. I'm old enough to remember LBJ

and I know that Reagan was a disaster. Master of compromise, my ass. Basically for his first 6 years, he had a Republican Senate and just enough "boll weevils" aka Dixiecrats in the House to give him just about everything he wanted. He appealed to the basest instincts in people, the anti-Kennedy as it were. He always seemed to be denigrating the downtrodden, liberals, people who were different. He just made up a bunch of shit in his head and passed it off as fact, and a compliant media just went along with him.

[BuelahWitch]

75. 2011 is the Year of the Reagasm

The old dead bastard has a centennial birthday in February. So very sad that there is so much hoopla over a man who played such a large part in the massacre of our country. Obama will join in the Reagasm too. He doesn't want to be a party pooper.
I'm so fucking glad I don't have TV anymore. The news media will be going nuts over Zombie Reagan.

[mvd]

90. Since Reagan made this country so much more conservative,

if Obama could follow that the other way, it would be a good strategy. But the problem is that you don't have that degree of cooperation now. Compromises are likely to take away from what we've achieved, and not add to it. We can't fall into that trap. Obama needs us more than ever, though, when he's trying to keep things like the health law in tact. We already see how dangerous the Repukes would be if in charge completely. My grade for Obama is B- again after it was C/C+ after the tax compromise. DADT repeal alone increased his grade.

[defendandprotect]

93. We're in a near-depression, Obama should look to FDR, not Reagan who led us into a Recession...

a severe recession --

[PurityOfEssence]

96. FUCK. RONALD. REAGAN.

He was a thug, an asshole, a tool and he tripled the national debt while hurting the poor, the weak and the mentally I'll. Who the fuck does our President think he's currying favor with by continually invoking the name of this creep