| ▲ | 0xWTF 2 days ago | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
That has only been the case since 2008. Obama had no choice but manage the fallout of the Bush admin's record-setting-for-the-time fuck-ups. Reagan followed a fairly positively stated agenda. Clinton pursued a fairly positive agenda. George the 2nd followed a fairly positive, if misguided, agenda. And then it became a reactive shitshow. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | felixgallo 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Reagan did what exactly? Are you thinking of the secret deal he struck with Iran for them to not release the hostages, in exchange for him giving them weapons illicitly, or are you referring to the disastrous trickle-down Reaganomics system that hollowed out the middle class to enrich the wealthy, or his handling of the AIDS crisis, or his crushing of the air traffic controllers, or the war on drugs, or something else? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | mmooss 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wasn't it reactive from the start? From (mostly journalistic) history I've read, GBII started their administration by refusing to do all sorts of things because the adminstration associated them with Clinton, including listening to Richard Clarke's, a carryover advisor's, warnings about terrorist threats. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||