Ronald Reagan's Ambassador to Moscow Endorses Obama

[courseofhistory]

Ronald Reagan's Ambassador to Moscow Endorses Obama

Ronald Reagan’s Ambassador to Moscow, Jack Matlock, just wrote: “It should be crystal clear that any vote for Romney and most of the Republicans now running for national office is … a vote against the future of America.” To see why a Reagan confidante would say that, read the whole post. Even if you support Romney, Matlock makes some important points that deserve greater attention, but get hidden in the fluff surrounding the election. His blog is well worth adding to your RSS subscriptions.

Jack Matlock's endorsement:

Observing the recent gridlock in Congress, thoughtful foreigners have begun to wonder about the intelligence, or even sanity, of the American voters who send the uncompromising ideologues to Congress. Their habit of “standing firm” on utterly discredited theories, refusing compromise, willfully ignoring what happened in the recent past, and—when push comes to shove—simply lying in order to make a president Americans elected “fail” would not seem to be a winning electoral platform to a rational electorate. Nevertheless, despite the appearance to foreigners, the American people, including those who support “Tea Party” candidates, are not stupid. We need to seek other reasons for what appears to be the willingness of many patriotic Americans to vote against what reasonable, well-informed people would consider the best interests of their country. This is an important topic, but not the one I have set for myself today. (I may write about it later.) Today I want to explain why I think it is important for the nation’s future to re-elect President Obama.

First, his policies have saved us from what could have been the worst disaster since the Great Depression. (So far as one can determine from Romney’s vague, general and often contradictory statements, his policies would repeat the mistakes of the Bush-Cheney Administration and risk turning a slow recovery into a second recession, or worse.)

Second, his foreign policies have repaired much (but not all) of the damage inflicted by the Bush-Cheney Administration. Romney has been talking out of both sides of his mouth on foreign policy, but some of his closest advisors would advocate a course that Bush-Cheney proved to be disastrous.

He also says Obama's policies have been consistent and that the things that haven't been accomplished required the cooperation of Congress. He cites repub's opposition to Obama's jobs leadership and deciding to not cooperate with Obama so he'd fail.

More at link.

 

[TruthSeeker56]

This Matlock fellow is obviously suffering from advance DEMENTIA.

A real shame. I'm sure at one time, he had a functioning brain.

 

[bripat9643]

So? He's probably a Democrat. he's obviously an idiot if he thinks Republicans are the ones who refuse to compromise. Furthermore, compromising with scumbags isn't what this country needs. That's what got us into the current fix in the first place.

Ronald Reagan's Ambassador to Moscow Endorses Obama

Ronald Reagan’s Ambassador to Moscow, Jack Matlock, just wrote: “It should be crystal clear that any vote for Romney and most of the Republicans now running for national office is … a vote against the future of America.” To see why a Reagan confidante would say that, read the whole post. Even if you support Romney, Matlock makes some important points that deserve greater attention, but get hidden in the fluff surrounding the election. His blog is well worth adding to your RSS subscriptions.

Jack Matlock's endorsement:

Observing the recent gridlock in Congress, thoughtful foreigners have begun to wonder about the intelligence, or even sanity, of the American voters who send the uncompromising ideologues to Congress. Their habit of “standing firm” on utterly discredited theories, refusing compromise, willfully ignoring what happened in the recent past, and—when push comes to shove—simply lying in order to make a president Americans elected “fail” would not seem to be a winning electoral platform to a rational electorate. Nevertheless, despite the appearance to foreigners, the American people, including those who support “Tea Party” candidates, are not stupid. We need to seek other reasons for what appears to be the willingness of many patriotic Americans to vote against what reasonable, well-informed people would consider the best interests of their country. This is an important topic, but not the one I have set for myself today. (I may write about it later.) Today I want to explain why I think it is important for the nation’s future to re-elect President Obama.

First, his policies have saved us from what could have been the worst disaster since the Great Depression. (So far as one can determine from Romney’s vague, general and often contradictory statements, his policies would repeat the mistakes of the Bush-Cheney Administration and risk turning a slow recovery into a second recession, or worse.)

Second, his foreign policies have repaired much (but not all) of the damage inflicted by the Bush-Cheney Administration. Romney has been talking out of both sides of his mouth on foreign policy, but some of his closest advisors would advocate a course that Bush-Cheney proved to be disastrous.

He also says Obama's policies have been consistent and that the things that haven't been accomplished required the cooperation of Congress. He cites repub's opposition to Obama's jobs leadership and deciding to not cooperate with Obama so he'd fail.

More at link.

 

[Bigfoot]

Don't you think Reagen had reasons for appointing this guy to Moscow during the cold war? The guy had a specific job to do which could of or could not of had anything to do with his politics. Romney could appoint one of the Clintons to do a specific job if he felt that they would do the job that he wanted.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Ronald Reagan’s Ambassador to Moscow, Jack Matlock, just wrote: “It should be crystal clear that any vote for Romney and most of the Republicans now running for national office is … a vote against the future of America.”

It's just the opposite.
When Russia, and Cuba and Argentina and Brazil start telling us which choice of President is in their best interest, we had better start asking why. It should be telling us that a vote for Obama is not in the best interest of our nation.

Flexibility to do what, that American's wouldn't approve of, which couldn't be put in motion until the concern for re-election was over?

 

[boedicca]

Who?

lolz

 

[Mad Scientist]

Don't you think Reagen had reasons for appointing this guy to Moscow during the cold war? The guy had a specific job to do which could of or could not of had anything to do with his politics. Romney could appoint one of the Clintons to do a specific job if he felt that they would do the job that he wanted.

Or Obama retaining the Bush Secretary of Defense for a year, which he did.

 

[MarcATL]

Ronald Reagan's Ambassador to Moscow Endorses Obama

Ronald Reagan’s Ambassador to Moscow, Jack Matlock, just wrote: “It should be crystal clear that any vote for Romney and most of the Republicans now running for national office is … a vote against the future of America.” To see why a Reagan confidante would say that, read the whole post. Even if you support Romney, Matlock makes some important points that deserve greater attention, but get hidden in the fluff surrounding the election. His blog is well worth adding to your RSS subscriptions.

Jack Matlock's endorsement:

Observing the recent gridlock in Congress, thoughtful foreigners have begun to wonder about the intelligence, or even sanity, of the American voters who send the uncompromising ideologues to Congress. Their habit of “standing firm” on utterly discredited theories, refusing compromise, willfully ignoring what happened in the recent past, and—when push comes to shove—simply lying in order to make a president Americans elected “fail” would not seem to be a winning electoral platform to a rational electorate. Nevertheless, despite the appearance to foreigners, the American people, including those who support “Tea Party” candidates, are not stupid. We need to seek other reasons for what appears to be the willingness of many patriotic Americans to vote against what reasonable, well-informed people would consider the best interests of their country. This is an important topic, but not the one I have set for myself today. (I may write about it later.) Today I want to explain why I think it is important for the nation’s future to re-elect President Obama.

First, his policies have saved us from what could have been the worst disaster since the Great Depression. (So far as one can determine from Romney’s vague, general and often contradictory statements, his policies would repeat the mistakes of the Bush-Cheney Administration and risk turning a slow recovery into a second recession, or worse.)

Second, his foreign policies have repaired much (but not all) of the damage inflicted by the Bush-Cheney Administration. Romney has been talking out of both sides of his mouth on foreign policy, but some of his closest advisors would advocate a course that Bush-Cheney proved to be disastrous.

He also says Obama's policies have been consistent and that the things that haven't been accomplished required the cooperation of Congress. He cites repub's opposition to Obama's jobs leadership and deciding to not cooperate with Obama so he'd fail.

More at link.

He must be racist, a Democrat, insane, a traitor, a Muslim, a socialist...or something.

At least according to John Sununu and his ilk's reasoning.

 

[Bigfoot]

Hell, I would hire Marc if I needed a quick shoe shine.

 

[Connery]

His endorsement was well reasoned and a breath of fresh air to read, rather than the nonsense that has been throw around this election. For example, Sununu or Sarah Palin's garbage.

I would still like to know what Romney's foreign policy is I still have not decided who I will vote for.

 

[California Girl]

He also endorsed Kerry back in the day.

Shock!

Not.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Romney will stand with Israel, for real.
He will insist that Muslim countries get control of their radical Muslims before they receive any aid from us. It is their job to control their fringe, not ours.
Since he will be passing a budget, foreign financial support may be subject to need instead of demand, if it means borrowing from China in order that they receive it.
I like it.

 

[percysunshine]

Ronald Reagan's Ambassador to Moscow Endorses Obama

It was a reset button event....

 

[Liability]

The poor deluded fellow declares (no evidence, of course, he just makes a totally empty pronouncement) "his [Pres. Obama's] foreign policies have repaired much (but not all) of the damage inflicted by the Bush-Cheney Administration."

He also endorsed fuckin John Lurch Kerry for President.

Since he says such obviously fraudulent nonsense, and has become a liberal hack, his musings require no further consideration.

 

[Inthemiddle]

So? He's probably a Democrat. he's obviously an idiot if he thinks Republicans are the ones who refuse to compromise. Furthermore, compromising with scumbags isn't what this country needs. That's what got us into the current fix in the first place.

I'd call you a horse's ass, except they don't have this much utter shit coming out of their mouth.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Ronald Reagan's Ambassador to Moscow Endorses Obama

Ronald Reagan’s Ambassador to Moscow, Jack Matlock, just wrote: “It should be crystal clear that any vote for Romney and most of the Republicans now running for national office is … a vote against the future of America.” To see why a Reagan confidante would say that, read the whole post. Even if you support Romney, Matlock makes some important points that deserve greater attention, but get hidden in the fluff surrounding the election. His blog is well worth adding to your RSS subscriptions.

Jack Matlock's endorsement:

Observing the recent gridlock in Congress, thoughtful foreigners have begun to wonder about the intelligence, or even sanity, of the American voters who send the uncompromising ideologues to Congress. Their habit of “standing firm” on utterly discredited theories, refusing compromise, willfully ignoring what happened in the recent past, and—when push comes to shove—simply lying in order to make a president Americans elected “fail” would not seem to be a winning electoral platform to a rational electorate. Nevertheless, despite the appearance to foreigners, the American people, including those who support “Tea Party” candidates, are not stupid. We need to seek other reasons for what appears to be the willingness of many patriotic Americans to vote against what reasonable, well-informed people would consider the best interests of their country. This is an important topic, but not the one I have set for myself today. (I may write about it later.) Today I want to explain why I think it is important for the nation’s future to re-elect President Obama.

First, his policies have saved us from what could have been the worst disaster since the Great Depression. (So far as one can determine from Romney’s vague, general and often contradictory statements, his policies would repeat the mistakes of the Bush-Cheney Administration and risk turning a slow recovery into a second recession, or worse.)

Second, his foreign policies have repaired much (but not all) of the damage inflicted by the Bush-Cheney Administration. Romney has been talking out of both sides of his mouth on foreign policy, but some of his closest advisors would advocate a course that Bush-Cheney proved to be disastrous.

He also says Obama's policies have been consistent and that the things that haven't been accomplished required the cooperation of Congress. He cites repub's opposition to Obama's jobs leadership and deciding to not cooperate with Obama so he'd fail.

More at link.

Jack Matlock?.....wasnt he the guy from "Big Trouble In Little China?"......

 

[bripat9643]

He must be racist, a Democrat, insane, a traitor, a Muslim, a socialist...or something.

At least according to John Sununu and his ilk's reasoning.

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that the guy is a Republican?

 

[bripat9643]

His endorsement was well reasoned and a breath of fresh air to read, rather than the nonsense that has been throw around this election. For example, Sununu or Sarah Palin's garbage.

I would still like to know what Romney's foreign policy is I still have not decided who I will vote for.

In other words, he supported all the usual liberal bromides that you love so much. What did he say that would be surprising coming straight from the office of Harry Reid or Nazi Pelosi?

 

[Rocko]

I guess that means Obama has the conservative vote wrapped up- LMAO.

 

[bripat9643]

So? He's probably a Democrat. he's obviously an idiot if he thinks Republicans are the ones who refuse to compromise. Furthermore, compromising with scumbags isn't what this country needs. That's what got us into the current fix in the first place.

I'd call you a horse's ass, except they don't have this much utter shit coming out of their mouth.

In other words, you can't refute a single thing I said.

BZZZZZZZZZZZZT!!!

No points.

Thanks for playing!