Newsweek’s love for Barack Obama knows no bounds. After Obama’s speech in Berlin, Newsweek published a headline that suggests an editor who’s spent six days drunk on a merry-go-round: "Obama’s Reagan Moment." That deserves the Lloyd Bentsen retort: "I knew Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan was a friend of mine. Barack Obama is no Ronald Reagan."
The Newsweek piece sneered that while Obama and John Kennedy spoke to more than a hundred thousand people, Reagan spoke to a much smaller audience, "only about 20,000," and they were outnumbered by leftist protesters the night before. They recalled, "Even some of Reagan’s aides were embarrassed by the ‘tear down this wall’ line thinking it was too provocative or grandiose." Newsweek would concede only that "Reagan understood stagecraft," and communism’s fall "made his words prescient."
In other words, the Gipper was a showboat who got lucky.
This is nothing more than Newsweek’s continuing campaign to rewrite history. Back in 1987, Newsweek was not prescient. They came to bury Reagan’s speech as a desperate gesture of a crumbling lame-duck presidency ruined by Iran-contra. Their story on his trip began: "Ronald Reagan wasn't the only lame duck at the economic summit in Venice last week, and he wasn't the only allied leader to nod off when the proceedings turned soporific."
Newsweek chronicled Reagan’s woes, then declared how only Mikhail Gorbachev could restore luster to the old man: "It is the ultimate paradox of Reagan's lifelong opposition to all things communist that a U.S.-Soviet arms agreement and a third summit with Gorbachev officer the best, and perhaps last, hope for reinvigorating his presidency." They saw Reagan with a foolish career of "opposition to all things communist" turning to Gorbachev as his savior, and painted Gorbachev as more persuasive and attractive to Europe. The magazine geniuses at the time seemed to adore Gorby as if he were....Barack Obama.
At least Newsweek in 1987 (but not in 2008) chronicled what Reagan told the pro-Soviet protesters there at the end of his speech: "I wonder if they have ever asked themselves that if they should have the kind of government they apparently seek, no one would ever be able to do what they're doing again."
But Reagan’s rhetorical daring in his time marks why Obama’s Berlin remarks sounded so phony. He declared: "People of the world – look at Berlin, where a wall came down, a continent came together, and history proved that there is no challenge too great for a world that stands as one….If we could win a battle of ideas against the communists, we can stand with the vast majority of Muslims who reject the extremism that leads to hate instead of hope."
No adoring anchorman dared to ask: Who, precisely, Senator Obama, is the "we" who won a battle of ideas against communism? Who was the "we" who dared to insist that liberty was the superior ideal, that "Freedom is the victor," and to demand that the walls of Soviet tyranny should fall? It was not America as a whole. It was certainly not Europe as a whole. To publicly declare such a bold wish for an end to the Soviet empire, to denounce the Berlin Wall as a "scar" across Berlin, and a "gash of barbed wire, concrete, dog runs, and guard towers" was seen by the international left, and the Democrats, and the press corps here at home as undiplomatic saber-rattling. It was, to quote the Hillary Clintons of the world, "cowboy diplomacy."
Barack Obama is an arrogant pretender to a throne he has not earned. He wanted to stand at the Brandenburg Gate like Reagan, grasping desperately for a chance to look presidential. But he hasn’t in any way demonstrated Reagan’s resolve against America’s enemies. Instead, this power-hungry newbie has stood in about seven different places in the last four years on the primary controversy of our time.
In 2002, he opposed the Iraq war from his pews of his America-deserved-9/11 church. In 2004, he stood staunchly and very temporarily by John Kerry’s vote for war. In 2006, he calculated that the best way to win the Democratic nomination was to play kissy-kissy with Code Pink and channel MoveOn.org’s demand that the president acknowledge all was lost in Iraq. Now, having defeated all those Democratic suckers who voted for war, he’s developing yet another position, that the success of the surge means that he didn’t have to be right about the surge or anything else, that the country is now ready for a rapid withdrawal of forces.
Ronald Reagan was willing to endure an entire career being mocked by the press and the political intelligentsia for standing firmly in one bunker of a war of ideas. Barack Obama has demonstrated only one cause, one idea he consistently believes in. Its name is Barack Obama.




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Like father, like daughter?
July 29, 2008 - 12:30 ET by Tim GrahamFun fact: the byline on this Newsweek article is Louisa Thomas. Google, please? She is the daughter of Newsweek editor-at-large Evan Thomas, a 2004 graduate of Harvard. In other words, when Reagan was making his speech at the Brandenburg gate, young Louisa was kindergarten age. It might explain how she might confuse the two charismatic leaders -- but not everyone else at the magazine.
Perhaps they're all hoping that aggressive Newsweek bias might add 15 polling points to Obama's lead over McCain. Remember what Evan Thomas said at this juncture four years ago?
Kind of sounds like Chris
July 29, 2008 - 13:29 ET by motherbeltChris Matthews is Exbibit A of Thomas' theory (and blatant about it):
"I hope one thing. When people go to vote, they look at the guy's
background, they look at the age of the two candidates, [...] what's really
good for my kids, who don't have any color awareness. Kids don't think
about that, race. Think like your kids for once. Think the way they
think. It would be great if the older people in the country, the
70-year-olds, the 80-year-olds who are suspicious of change, to say,
‘You know, why don't I think the way my kids are thinking and think
about the future?’ [...] That's what I hope we do.
Obama's theme song
Doubling down
July 29, 2008 - 14:33 ET by KC MulvilleThe media have gone hog wild for Obama, and yet among likely voters, McCain's ahead. Sure, it could change, but what does it tell you?
They have only one chance, even if it's their last one. Look for them to go even more crazy over Obama, not less. (And, shhhh ... don't let them realize this ... they could have all the influence they want if they stopped trying to influence the news and just reported it straight up.)
This is probably affected by European preferences, but
July 29, 2008 - 14:51 ET by sarcasmoThe odds where people are putting down actual money they might lose don't look nearly as good/close for McCain...The one to three bookies would be paying on an Obama win is the potential money a correct gambler would make before exhorbitant "sin" taxes, too.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Of course, I'm sure they'd
July 30, 2008 - 20:00 ET by SchnikeysOf course, I'm sure they'd find some sort of balance between impartiality and liberal bias and stay within it, purely to ensure that no conservative viewpoints had any voice on their level.
------------------------------------------------------------
"It could be the answer to our age-old, philosophical question, 'Why are we here?' PLASTIC!"
"Tear Down This Wall." The story..
July 29, 2008 - 13:05 ET by Gary HallEmbarrassed? "Even some of Reagan’s aides were embarrassed by the ‘tear down this wall’ line." Weak, one might surmise - especially the folks at State - embarrassed is the wrong word.
Here's a good read on the history behind the successful and famous line - by Peter Robinson.
"Tear Down This Wall"
I wonder whose estimate the 20,000 is for Reagan's crowd? 215,000 for Obama's event in Berlin?
The media counts the way they want to count. When the crowd is supporting the opposition to the leftist candidate - if the darn picture even gets printed in the US - it boggles the mind how few people the press see. Here's "tens of thousands" of folks in Venezuela (they don't like Chavez - they don't count).
The leftist media does all
July 29, 2008 - 13:33 ET by kgThe leftist media does all estimates of crowd size. It's funny that our media estimated over 200,000 for Obama in Germany and German papers estimated it at 20,000. The left media is great at adding zeros for democrats and Iraqi deaths..
"Forget change, I want improvement!"
To create their crowd estimate...
July 29, 2008 - 14:00 ET by Hero Squad...I think what they do is count the first 10 people in the crowd, then multiply it by the number of people they hope are in attendance.
*****
"People only insist that a debate stop when they are afraid of what might be learned if it continues." - George Will
kg.. the crowd
July 29, 2008 - 14:45 ET by Gary Hallkg. really. Did you look at the link I noted for the crowd in Venzeuela?
It's been difficult to get useful pictures of the crowd in Berlin, but my guess for the folks in the "round - a - bout" area (the partial semi circle, Grober Stern, around the Berlin Victory Column) just in front of Obama is somewhere between 12,000 and 17,000. The crowd did not even fill up the avialable space to the left and right of the staging area.
It's difficult to tell how far down the blvd (Strabe des) to the East the crowd extended. Looks like the roadway is about 85 feet wide. It's roughly just over a mile from where Obama stood to the Brandenberg Gate at the other end, but the pictures I saw indicated only scattered clumps of folks - looks like Big TV screens were placed a ways down the road. Need a shot from the Goodyear blimp. If the crowd was packed tight (and it was not) for 1/2 mile (and I don't think it extended that far back), then the crowd might have been another 70,000 people. I suspect the total is more like 40-50,000 + 20,000 = 80-90,000 max.
(;~> gary
Geez, Gary
July 29, 2008 - 18:38 ET by BlondeDo you always have to muddle up the propaganda with FACTS?
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Blonde
July 29, 2008 - 19:32 ET by Gary HallOK.. OK. I'll try to be less accurate. Oh, I'll use Olbiedog as my mentor. (;~> gary
The media's trick is to not
July 30, 2008 - 20:15 ET by SchnikeysThe media's trick is to not care. As long as they simply happen (wink wink) to not include news that looks good for a Repub candidate, then they can claim no bias.
But the gig's up in this election- there was another NB post which noted how Obama's overseas trip got ten times more coverage than McCain's.
And the media try to defend themselves by saying he's "new", "interesting" and "fresh", likely because he's the first black candidate nominated for the presidency by a political party. But a network can only cover that for so long without having outsiders question the reason for all this coverage.
------------------------------------------------------------
"It could be the answer to our age-old, philosophical question, 'Why are we here?' PLASTIC!"
Leftists in America will
July 29, 2008 - 13:23 ET by motherbeltLeftists in America will continue to credit Gorbachev for the collapse of the Berlin Wall and Communism, no matter what.
Barack Obama has demonstrated only one cause, one idea he consistently believes in. Its name is Barack Obama. -Brent Bozell
That's the money quote, IMO.
It is Obama who "understands stagecraft." It is he who seeks to pose in historic places, against impressive backdrops. It is he who refused to go where his cameras were not allowed.
And on that score, did anyone ask him why he did that?
I have a different take on that. His critics think it was because he wanted to "show off" for the cameras with the injured troops. I'm wondering if he was concerned about the reception he might get from the troops if cameras weren't there to record it.
Obama's theme song
They say Reagan was protested by leftists the night before
July 29, 2008 - 14:43 ET by jefflebowskiWell, Obama was cheered by the same left wing idiots! Better to be jeered by leftists than cheered by leftists. That is the difference!
Jeff Lebowski
www.angrywhitedude.c...
if I were Obama - knowing
July 29, 2008 - 15:05 ET by TruthMongerif I were Obama - knowing that power and influence is really all that I'm seeking - and that the presidency is only 8 years long at most - with a bunch of boring civic and foreign policy stuff to boot...
...whereas a huge Vegas venue built especially for me would go on for decades, and I could where Elvis suits and cool sunglassess, go on world tours every so often, make tons more money, snort all the coke off of all of the boobs i ever wanted to, have tons more control over the lives of people, and not put the free world in jeapordy doing it...
but that's just me
What would be really
July 29, 2008 - 15:24 ET by marvlWhat would be really interesting would be to read the historical assessments of Obama and his supporters in about 25 years. I suspect historians will groan and chuckle over the whole affair, about like a theater arts professor reacting to the movie "Plan 9 from Outer Space."
The whole thing is really quite astounding... as if an inexperienced, empty-headed bozo who leans so far to the left that he walks in careening circles would make a good American president. What are prople thinking? The best I can imagine is that Obama's handlers are the most capable snake oil salemen in human history.
Lincoln and Reagan
July 29, 2008 - 16:32 ET by ThisnThatI guess Reagan joins another President whom people thought blundered an important speech at a critical moment in history -- Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. Here's how the Chicago Times reacted the next day: "The cheek of every American must tingle with shame as he reads the silly flat and dishwattery [sic] remarks of the man who has to be pointed out as the President of the United States. … Is Mr. Lincoln less refined than a savage? … It was a perversion of history so flagrant that the most extended charity cannot view it as otherwise than willful."
Nothing more needs to be said about the MSM of the 1860's -- or today. Substance and character will trump politics and empty suits every time.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
ThisnThat
July 29, 2008 - 16:47 ET by JerI guess Reagan joins another President whom people thought blundered an important speech at a critical moment in history -- Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.
That's only partially true. Indeed, Lincoln's speech was mostly panned by the Democratic press, but it was near-uniformly praised in glorious fashion in Republican journals.
Jer
Jer, You make the
July 29, 2008 - 18:02 ET by ThisnThatJer,
You make the comparision better than I did. Just as Reagan's speech is now being blasted by liberals, whereas conservatives have always praised it.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
Barack's no Reagan Thank
July 29, 2008 - 19:26 ET by Biff McCainBarack's no Reagan
Thank God.
For the record, USSR went bankrupt, and we are about to because of tax cut and spend Bush adm.
I know how to win wars!
Biffy... Yep, we agree on
July 29, 2008 - 19:38 ET by bigtimerBiffy...
Yep, we agree on something for once...Obama is no Reagan...
...that's why he is going to get trounced by as much as Reagan won.
...Hahahahaaaaa...
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
The Miseducation of Biff McCain, corrected
July 30, 2008 - 01:04 ET by UnsaneBiff - Go study the Laffer Curve sometime. Also note that with the tax cuts, revenues have gone through the roof (though that doesn't prevent bad spending habits).
Also, I know you think that if we unilaterally disarmed to show the Soviets just how super-nice we were, that they would have instantly seen the error of their ways and then the rose gardens would spontaneously grow throughout the world as we all learned to stop worrying and love the Reds. Fact is though that they were an economic dead man walking for much of the 1970s, and that did not stop them from subsidizing nasty Leftist dictatorships such as Cuba and otherwise promoting and advancing Communism throughout the globe from Afghanistan to sub-Saharan Africa and from Latin America to Western Europe (via the aiding of terrorists such as the Red Army Faction and the Red Brigades, for example).
So, spare me. Reagan shoved that corpse off a cliff by showing the Soviets that they screwed around at their own great personal risk.
Whoever casts a vote for Barack Obama is nothing more than a common thief. Whoever fails to vote against him is nothing more than a moral coward.
most
July 29, 2008 - 22:46 ET by WesenComparing Barry to Ronnie is like comparing sign to the animal that dropped it. Barry's a Marxist.
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=302137342405551
Barack Hussein is no Reagan
July 30, 2008 - 00:00 ET by cocodrieBarack Hussein is no Reagan but didn't he co-star with Reagan in the 1951 hit Bedtime For Bonzo?