He’s not Reagan

In my opinion, the only thing better than watching debates is following the post-debate analysis and watching our beloved members of the media debate one another.

This time, one headline caught my eye: Obama’s “Reagan Debate.” The column, featured on Forbes.com and written by Michael Cohen, compared Barack Obama’s debate showing with Ronald Reagan’s remarkable debate performance in 1980.

Now, I understand the majority of America’s media outlets have liberal goggles permanently glued to their faces.

But this? Did those goggles suddenly get the “impaired driver treatment” to demonstrate drunkenness? Maybe they were borrowed from Ted Kennedy. Who knows.

The piece details the similar situations both Reagan and Obama faced in their candidacy. Both politicians, it said, came into the election as the candidate promoting “change.” Each represented the opposite of the past president, and each had a little luck with their timing.

These arguments are true.

Despite the extreme ideology differences, the campaign strategies of Reagan and Obama bear striking likenesses. But the buck stops there.

The late president Ronald Reagan (probably known as “Ronnie” to Obama, who apparently has earned first-name basis with his elders after his long, achievement-filled, four-year Senate tenure) was one of the best presidents our nation has seen.

Affectionately known as “The Great Communicator,” Reagan’s oratory skills topped those of even Obama. But I’m guessing Reagan’s turning in his grave almost as much as Obama is turning around questions.

The elections of 1980 and 2008 bear one striking difference: one candidate was qualified; one is not.

Prior to running for president, Reagan was governor of California for eight years. Before that, he was president of the Screen Actors Guild, a spokesman for General Electric Co., a Second Lieutenant in the Army and the student body president in college and high school (compared to Obama, this is experience).

He fought communism, fought for our country and fought for the state of California.

At the time, Reagan was often dubbed “inexperienced.”

How ironic. This seems odd to me, because I don’t think Reagan could opt to vote “present” in any of his positions.

A majority of Reagan’s time was spent running things – making executive decisions.

Prior to announcing his run for the executive office, Obama served as a junior United States Senator, a State Legislator, a community organizer and – watch out – editor of the Harvard Law Review.

I’m sorry, but if slashing sentences and cutting unnecessary commas is your closest thing to executive experience, you should reconsider the Oval Office.

Obama was also a “Senior Lecturer” at the University of Chicago Law School. Does this make my teaching assistants qualified to be vice president? Probably.

The Forbes.com column had it somewhat right. The situations each of these candidates faced prior to the election were similar.

However, Obama doesn’t have an ounce of true leadership experience necessary to share a headline with Reagan.

Besides, it’s just disturbing that a man who literally took a bullet for our country is being compared with a man who doesn’t even know how to call the shots.