Is Obama a Nixon or a Carter?

**War&Politics** · April 19, 2010, 08:41 AM

Recently it has been in the news that Sarah Palin is criticizing Obama's foreign policy for being too liberal. According to Palin, Obama is making concessions to America's enemies and undermining America's hegemony. This includes Obama reaching out to enemies, and Obama's attempts at nuclear disarmament.

However, this got me thinking. Although Obama is undoubtedly liberal on issues such as economic policy or domestic politics I think Palin has it dead wrong in her assessment of Obama's foreign policy. If anything he comes across as more of a Nixon or Reagan than a Carter.

Consider Obama's surge in Afghanistan and his use of cross border drone strikes in Pakistan. Likewise nuclear disarmament is a policy previously followed by Reagan. Both Nixon and Reagan weren't afraid to reach out to their enemies like Obama is doing now: Nixon went to China, and Reagan cooperated with Gorbachev in many areas.

Palin seems to be criticizing Obama on policies that are in many ways closer to Republican foreign policy. So what do you think? In foreign policy is Obama is liberal or a realist?

Lets stick to foreign policy analysis and not "OMG Sarah Palin/Obama is awsome/teh suckxor!!!!" OK?

**motiv-8** · April 19, 2010, 09:28 AM

Neither. Obama is a George H. W. Bush

And frankly,

what Sarah Palin thinks. Criticism of Obama's foreign policy is valid, but not by someone who knows absolutely nothing, zero, not a single thing about foreign policy. Sorry, that just has to be said. Foreign policy analysis can never include Sarah Palin's empty thoughts, there's too many actually knowledgeable people that have weighed in.

**Henry of Grosmont** · April 19, 2010, 02:49 PM

Originally Posted by motiv-8

Neither. Obama is a George H. W. Bush

And frankly,

what Sarah Palin thinks. Criticism of Obama's foreign policy is valid, but not by someone who knows absolutely nothing, zero, not a single thing about foreign policy. Sorry, that just has to be said. Foreign policy analysis can never include Sarah Palin's empty thoughts, there's too many actually knowledgeable people that have weighed in.

This. +rep.

I do remember though that people were trying to compare Obama to JFK.
Messias non est... and why the hell should he be in the first place?

Originally Posted by Jingle_Bombs

I thought he was meant to be LBJ 2.0?

More of a Kwame Brown, I'd say. Well, that was harsh, I take this comparison back.

Originally Posted by Phier

Reagan never forgot he was dealing with an enemy, who he expected to cheat and work in their own best interests no matter what they told us.

I see Obama as more willing to accept a Chamberlainesk style agreement.

Honestly, I won't claim that Obama's thinking exact the opposite from Reagan.

**pchalk** · April 23, 2010, 10:32 AM

Originally Posted by motiv-8

Neither. Obama is a George H. W. Bush

And frankly,

what Sarah Palin thinks. Criticism of Obama's foreign policy is valid, but not by someone who knows absolutely nothing, zero, not a single thing about foreign policy. Sorry, that just has to be said. Foreign policy analysis can never include Sarah Palin's empty thoughts, there's too many actually knowledgeable people that have weighed in.

wait she thinks

.

**War&Politics** · April 19, 2010, 10:20 AM

Thanks, I highly recommend anybody interested in the topic check Motiv-8's link out.

**CiviC** · April 19, 2010, 11:46 AM

Obama is a Carter. Why? Because his presidency is as flavourelss and dull as the one of Carter. And I'm not a sympathiser of Republicans ...! But Democrats had some great presidents as Roosevelt or JFK or even Bill Clinton (he wasn't great but OK) and some dull presidents as Carter.

**Jabberwock** · April 19, 2010, 12:54 PM

Because his presidency is as flavourelss and dull as the one of Carter

I don't see how anyone, whether disagree or agree, can say Obama presidency so far is flavorless and dull. His reforms, stimulus, troop surges, nuclear treaty, and etc. are not flavorless what-so-ever. These things will affect America for the next 10 years and possibly more.

**G-Megas-Doux** · April 19, 2010, 01:01 PM

Here is a question. Who will be remembered most in 100 years time, Bush Sr, Clinton, Bush Jr or Obama, and for what reason?

**CiviC** · April 19, 2010, 11:59 PM

Originally Posted by G-Megas-Doux

Here is a question. Who will be remembered most in 100 years time, Bush Sr, Clinton, Bush Jr or Obama, and for what reason?

Bill Clinton.

**Hounf of Culan** · April 24, 2010, 09:56 PM

Originally Posted by G-Megas-Doux

Here is a question. Who will be remembered most in 100 years time, Bush Sr, Clinton, Bush Jr or Obama, and for what reason?

I'm gonna go with Krauthammer on this one, Bush Jr. will be remembered for keeping America safe. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art..._for_bush.html

To the OP's question I would say Obama is more like Carter, no one is going to care about him.

**War&Politics** · April 25, 2010, 05:31 AM

Originally Posted by Hounf of Culan

I'm gonna go with Krauthammer on this one, Bush Jr. will be remembered for keeping America safe. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art..._for_bush.html

To the OP's question I would say Obama is more like Carter, no one is going to care about him.

Maybe Bush will be vindicated in the U.S., but I don't think he will ever have any respect outside of the borders of the U.S. American Presidents are often viewed as world leaders, and even a non-American such as myself will sometimes think of an American president as "the leader" of that specific period of history. In that way a president such as Reagan has won the respect an admiration of most of the world. While opinion on Bush may be improving in the U.S. I can not overestimate how detested he is outside of the U.S. (excluding Israel of course) He will never be vindicated there!

**jman47** · April 26, 2010, 04:07 AM

Obama makes me think more of LBJ.

Massive spending on social programs that will be underfunded, innefective, and eventually repealed by the republicans when the power shifts the other way. Also inherited a quagmire of a conflict that he will not be able to end, and will ruin his pathetic attempts at foriegn policy. said conflict will be ended hounorably by a republican president, then the countries fought in for years on end will collapse back to what we wanted them not to be.

History is repeating itself again.

**Pickle_mole** · April 19, 2010, 01:07 PM

Bush Jr. for sure, too early to tell for what reasons Obama will, at the very least because hes black.

**Jingles** · April 19, 2010, 01:12 PM

I thought he was meant to be LBJ 2.0?

**Ishoss** · April 19, 2010, 01:25 PM

Here is a question. Who will be remembered most in 100 years time, Bush Sr, Clinton, Bush Jr or Obama, and for what reason?

Obama will be remembered most of those, no matter what he does. He can have the most bland and flavourless presidency ever, but he will still be remembered as the first black man.

**The Dude** · April 19, 2010, 01:32 PM

Sarah Palin criticises Obama on his nuclear policy, while at the same time praising Reagan.

Obama and Reagan are actually one and the same on nuclear policy. Skip to 5:15 for the good stuff.

Conclusion: don't take Sarah Palin seriously until she has at least some clue.

**chilon** · April 19, 2010, 02:00 PM

Obama is Obama, he is neither a "nixon" or a "carter"

Originally Posted by War&Politics

Recently it has been in the news that Sarah Palin is criticizing Obama's foreign policy for being too liberal. According to Palin, Obama is making concessions to America's enemies and undermining America's hegemony. This includes Obama reaching out to enemies, and Obama's attempts at nuclear disarmament.

Palin would be criticizing Obama no matter Obama does or does not do. She is the epitome of vacuous political mudslinging with little basis in reality.

I am amazed anyone cares what an airhead who couldn't finish her term as Governor has to say about anything. She should have just finished her term as Gov and actually accomplished something instead of becoming a talking bobble head.

**Phier** · April 19, 2010, 02:43 PM

Reagan never forgot he was dealing with an enemy, who he expected to cheat and work in their own best interests no matter what they told us.

I see Obama as more willing to accept a Chamberlainesk style agreement.

**The Dude** · April 19, 2010, 04:32 PM

Originally Posted by Phier

Reagan never forgot he was dealing with an enemy, who he expected to cheat and work in their own best interests no matter what they told us.

I see Obama as more willing to accept a Chamberlainesk style agreement.

And what tremendous enemy is Obama dealing with that warrants the US owning -more- than 1500 nuclear weapons, each of which at least a hundred times the strength of the Hiroshima bomb?

Because I have no idea.

I don't even know what on earth you would need that many nukes for. And I don't see why Republicans make a big deal out of it. If you ask me it's a pretty inconsequential initiative because it doesn't really matter whether America has the nuclear power to only blow up the world 6 times instead of 9.

I mean I see Sean Hannity going like "Obama is saying that he will not retaliate against countries that threaten us" (who cares about the truth when you can just strawman everything to death too), as if the amount of nuclear weapons somehow define a country's defensive doctrine.