Why do Democratic 'strategists' talk about Reagan like he was a good president?

[BirminghamExaminer]

On 1600 Pa avenue with Shuster a minute ago, the Democratic strategist referred to Obama as being Reaganesque today and meant that as a compliment.

can someone explain to me why even Democratic strategists and pundits act like they've forgotten what a horrible president Reagan was? Have they just capitulated the point to the GOP because it's easier or what?

[leftstreet]

Because they covered his Iran/Contra ass. Complicit. n/t

[NRaleighLiberal]

1. Talking head on PBS just said the same thing. Just amazing, the deitification of Raygun.

[DJ13]

2. Digging on Reagan is like tearing into Grimm's Fairy Tales

His image has been built up so long by the "liberal" MSM that dissing him would become the message instead of the point you're trying to make in the 2 minutes of TV time alloted to you.

[BirminghamExaminer]

3. Okay, that actually makes sense. But it's incredibly frustrating.

[pinto]

4. I think they mean in terms of connecting with people on big themes.

Reagan obviously had *way different* themes than does Obama, but both show a knack for connecting them to the electorate.

Reagan came off as folksy, return to the 'good old days' and that big city on the hill stuff. He made a simple belief in the "goodness" of America a singular theme. Yet he was clueless as to detail and failed as such in deed.

Obama is more real world, factual and intellectual, yet can still communicate a big, broad theme to everyday Americans. Obama has made a simple belief in the notion that we *can* create change a singular theme. And he has backed that up with real world details and communicated them in the context of a bigger theme.

[Still Sensible]

5. They talk about him that way because, like him or not--

and I detested his politics/policies, he was incredibly successful. It is fair to say the place we are today is in large part to the revolution in fiscal policy that Reagan started. That is no less true than saying that FDR was incredibly successful and that his political success led to a half a century of democratic dominance.

[EFerrari]

9. He successfully killed a bunch of brown people in SE Asia, Central America and N Africa,

he killed a bunch of gay people and he invented modern homelessness.

[BirminghamExaminer]

12. Warning: Rant

I can actually remember the shift in corporate/employee thinking that took place oh, around 1980 or so (hmmm who was president then?) where suddenly corporations quit giving retirement pensions to their employees and overnight everyone was supposed to start saving for their own retirements with 401Ks.

Soon after that, employees were supposed to pay part of their health insurance premiums and the insurance coverage began to shrink. Soon after that, big corporations started laying off employees and opting to hire contract workers who were considered part time and didn't have to be paid any benefits.

Meanwhile, the CEO fat cats got fatter and meaner. Meaner in the archaic sense.

And here we are today where it's okay to give $750 billion to Wall Street bankers who used the money to buy jets and vacations and give bonuses to the people who ripped off the poor schmucks who thought they were buying into the American dream. But it's not okay to help out the auto industry because that would be tantamount to helping the actual workers and for some reason that would be awful. When did our nation's masses get bamboozled into believing that the workers are the problem and the wealthy should be given more money in the form of taxes, etc, while the rest of us battle to put food on the table.

I guess you can tell I'm a bit angry. And that's the irony. We should be angry about this but half the comments I get from people about these issues (on my articles/editorials) are the stupid schmucks who vote for Republicans and have fallen for their line about big government when they are the ones who suffer most from the Republicans' legislation and deregulation and tax cuts. Until the mid 1970s the top 1% of wealth owners in the country took in about 9% of all income. Now they take in 20%. All you have to do is look back at the Depression, or just before it, in 1928 when the top 1% of wealth owners were taking in over 20% to see where we're headed if we don't quit giving tax cuts to the wealthy.

[EFerrari]

16. I forgot that. Reagan killed labor. The butchering @sshole. n/t

[Still Sensible]

18. And I don't disagree with you at all

His ideologies and policies were absolutely atrocious. His obvious skill as a politician was rather impressive.

[EFerrari]

6. Who was that?

[spanone]

7. history has turned reagan into the john wayne of politics..devoid of reality

[pinto]

11. Yeah, the myth is bigger than the reality. It was so even during his tenure.

[AlCzervik]

15. or as my Nana says "The Reagen they're talking about didn't really exist Dear"

[mdmc]

8. Raygun was the worst President of my lifetime

including Nixon...

[AlCzervik]

10. transformative i think is what they mean, in Reagen's case that doesn't mean he was good at all.

[librechik]

13. Too tired to refute the mountain of lies, so they just say, yeah Reagan was a saint

they're too tired for a lot of things that they should be doing.

[fascisthunter]

14. because they are idiots told what to say

it's purpose is to rope-a-dope a repuke into listening to them, when all it does is look deliberate and insincere.

What ever the reason, they are idiots... on an idiot talks about Reagan being a good President.

[anonymous171]

17. Reagan was good at saying one thing and doing the opposite.

He even got the working class to support free trade. That takes political skill.