Sadly I think he actually believes it. If it were the latter then I wouldn’t be *that* worried about him – that generally means he is willing to learn and change. A poll driven president is pretty much a do nothing president and that is OK with me (I think Hillary and McCain are both of that type – though each have some core believes that are not poll driven).

As is I think he truly expects, just because it is him, that things will go his way. I think he has *always* run on that (see Michelle Obama’s speech about moving goalposts and how he overcame them by being himself) and knows nothing else. It is so clear to him – he will ask the Iranian leaders to talk, he will meet with them, and the shining light of Obama will fall onto them and they will return home and create a paradise. I don’t think he has any real plans past that – talking to them and letting Obamagic work it’s charm.

I’ve like the statement I read some time ago – Obama is a train wreck coming, the question is when will it happen? If elected I think he will fall to pieces when things just don’t suddenly happen because Obama willed them to work that way. However I expect that to happen before the election if for nothing more than once the 527’s get going. He has no plan outside of his Obamagic working it’s charm and were it not for the media loving him it would have failed already.

Ding ding. I don’t know that he even buys this BS. But it plays with the base… who, outside of the SF bay area, probably don’t buy it either.. it’s just an offshoot of a Bush bash (war doesn’t work, talk!).. ahem, unless a democrat is in office and/or used war…

They didn’t really like him at all. How do you explain that?

If Reagan was so weak, how come he pwn3d your beloved USSR?

I’m sorry the Soviet Union and its founding philosophy ended up on the dungheap of history, but please get over it. We have new challenges now.

Don’t you get tired of repeating the same tired lies over and over again? At least try to come up with some new lies once in a while.

History shows Reagan sold the mullahs weapons in exchange for their influence in releasing hostages. If that isn’t appeasement, what is?

Then there was the Beirut bombing, after which Reagan unilaterally surrendered, withdrawing American troops from the region.

Together, these are the two clearest cases of appeasement in our lifetime and they both relate to Iran, as it happens.

If the mullahs are liking Obama, they must of have loved Reagan.

It is horrible that Barack is impetuous enough and arrogant enough to cite history without first investigating what he is citing.

It is completely horrible that Barack doesn’t have counselors who would stop him from making recklessly ignorant historical comparisons. If Barack simply had good people around him: much else could be forgiven. Instead, the necessary impression is of historically ignorant ideologues surrounding historically ignorant Barack. And some of that ignorance is about newly minted history.