Is Obama the Best Republican President Since Lincoln?

President Barack Obama comforts a resident in a neighborhood hit with flooding from Hurricane Irene in Wayne, N.J., Sept. 4, 2011. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

There was a 90 percent top marginal tax rate under President Dwight Eisenhower. Ronald Reagan raised taxes nearly every year he was in office and still managed to quadruple the national debt. Teddy Roosevelt was an anti-business trust-buster who snatched Yosemite away from private profits. Gerald Ford ended a long pointless war in Vietnam even though pontificators like Pat Buchanan claim we could have won…eventually. George W. Bush bailed out the banks and the auto industry. I won’t even utter the names Herbert Hoover or Richard Nixon (Republicans sure won’t).

Historians agree the best Republican President was also the first: Abraham Lincoln. Who’s second runner up? Which President has represented Republican values best? Easy. President Barack Obama.

First off – his signature legislative accomplishment was to implement a Republican/Heritage Foundation idea from 1989. Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans reads,

“[N]either the federal government nor any state requires all households to protect themselves from the potentially catastrophic costs of a serious accident or illness. Under the Heritage plan, there would be such a requirement…A mandate on households certainly would force those with adequate means to obtain insurance protection.”

The Heritage Foundation has since recanted and even filed friend-of-the-court briefs against the mandate. This is only after an alleged Democrat was for it. There’s been a pattern of this partisanship before policy since Obama was sworn in.

But if you ignore the misplaced (and often misspelled) vehemence against the first African-American president as a communist/socialist/Marxist/bad “ist” du jour and instead just look at the policy – we have a stellar Republican in the Oval Office.

Obama renewed the Bush Tax Cuts. Republicans love those tax cuts even more than they love being against something once Obama has signed it. In fact the President hasn’t raised taxes at all – just like Republicans say they won’t (see: “Read my lips – no new taxes.”). The only tax he’s raised is on smokers. Obama increased the tax on cigarettes even though he’s an admitted (reformed) smoker. But even that is ideal in a Republican hypocrite kind of way (see: too many anti-gay Republicans in gay sex scandals to list).

And on top of the Bush Tax Cuts – Obama cut even more taxes for 95 percent of Americans.

Plus, he’s cut the size of government! Yes. Regardless of all those email forwards your kooky great-aunt sends you from her decades-old AOL account – the public work force has been reduced under an Obama presidency – therefore “shrinking the size of government.” The reason we had no net jobs in August is because the public sector (i.e., the government) lost jobs due to cuts. The private sector gained the exact amount resulting in a push.

President Obama has managed to quell all anti-war protests and even start a new conflict. That is surely to be the envy of any Republican president who’s ever served.

Guantanamo Bay? Still open. Osama bin Laden? Shot in the head.

Talk about getting 98 percent of what they wanted. If the GOP didn’t have to change their goal post so Obama could never score in their view – Republicans could be dumping Gatorade on Rush Limbaugh by now.

How about the GOP-despised EPA? You know, that “job-killing” governmental regulatory agency GOP candidates Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry and Ron Paul all promise will go dark when they become president? That agency’s pinko plot for cleaner air estimated to stop tens of thousands of premature deaths? Gone. And guess who said this about it: “I have continued to underscore the importance of reducing regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty, particularly as our economy continues to recover.” Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH)? Maybe Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA)? Some tea party speaker at some quarter-full rally somewhere? Who said it? The socialist Nazi radical – current occupant of the White House – Barack Hussein Obama! He’s a wonderful Republican.

The right-wing says Obama is left of Lenin – in reality he’s barely left of Goldwater.

tina dupuyWhat does this mean? It means we currently have eight GOP candidates running against what’s essentially a GOP incumbent. It means we have eight mediocre Republican candidates running against the best Republican president since Lincoln. The safe bet is that a Republican will win the next election.

To be clear, I’m not a Republican – but I have undeniably voted for one.

In the ‘80s there were Reagan Democrats. I’ll solve this whole thing by just calling myself an Obama Democrat.

Tina Dupuy
Taking Eternal Vigilance Too Far


  1. says

    Thanks, President Obama, for giving legitimacy to (and joining) the Right’s Talking Points.

    Yes, regulations are the problem. And, we need the government to just get out of the way of business/Free Markets. Hasn’t that worked well, especially since 2001? Weren’t we better off with the level of regulations that existed in 1895? “Yes We Can! Yes We Can! Yes We Can!” Next up: a mandate to buy houses so that the homeless problem is solved. “Change We Can Believe In!”

    Reposted from Corporate Rule: Obama Withdraws EPA’s Stricter Smog Standards

  2. Don Duitz says

    So, by your reasoning Obama is a shoe in for 2012. Dem’s can’t vote for the republicans, nor can independents vote for tea bags. Why would the Republicans vote for anybody but their own??

  3. says

    Tina has a great point to make about Obama but it’s obscured by her special treatment of Lincoln.

    Yes, historians and us common folk all agree that Lincoln was the best president who happened to be Republican. But Tina’s examples of OTHER Republican presidents aim to show us something else: that in terms of today’s weird ideology that’s NOW called ‘Republican’, all those other presidents were not as ‘good-Republican’ as Obama has been. If Tina had played fair and equal, she likely would have found the same true of Lincoln too: he too was not as ‘good-Republican’ as Obama has been.

    Bottom Line: So long as Democrats stick to Obama and don’t run a real Dem in 2012, Republicans will feel free to run as rabid a ‘good-Republican’ as they can find, since at worst they will still end up at least with their good-enough-Republican Obama.

  4. Ken Bear Cole says

    I am amazed at your lack of honesty & truth in this article. The size of government has swollen under this administration. For the first two years of his Presidency, Obama & the dem controlled congress spent more money then all of the past presidents combined.

    As far as manditory healthcare being a republican or conservative idea is simply a lie. I Obamacare survives, it will devastate the insurance industry, which will result in more government administrative workers and hundreds of thousands of lost jobs.

    Both left & right poles indicate that voters are few up with President Obama & Congress. You are right that we were dooped. President Obama has misrepresentated himself & his desired policies. So let’s throw him out! The Dems should find another horse to run in this race.

    • michael nola says

      “For the first two years of his presidency, Obama and the Dem controlled congress spent more money than all of ther past presidents combined.”

      Just where do you get your laughable info from? The first wo years you mention totalled about $6 trillion in spending, nearly all of it having nothing to do with any any action of Obama, whom I will defintely not be voting for, but costs that were given him courtesy of those who preceeded him; most notably W, who gave us two totally unfunded wars, tax cuts during those wars, and the wonderful Medicare Part D, a totally unfunded corporate boondoggle that denied the government the right to negotiate drug prices, something the VA, for instance does.

      Actually, the total debt of this country was nearly $11 trillion when O man took office, and his first year’s budget was one he inherited from that heroic draft dodger, Bush.

      So do the math, Ken, if his first two budgets, one of which he inherited from W totalled $6 trilllion and he inherited a debt of $11 trillion, he could not possibly have spent more than all those before him.

      It’s called logic, and you should maybe bone up on it; with it you’ll also come to the conclusion that both parties are corporate whore, endless war parties, and like the corporations they serve, don’t give a damn about you or your family.

  5. in_awe says

    Uh, actually the Federal Office of Personnel Management shows that at best Obama has stabilized the federal workforce since 2009:

    Year Exec br. Mil. Courts Total
    2009 2,774 1,591 66 4,430
    2010 2,776 1,602 64 4,443

    So your rant:

    “Plus, he’s cut the size of government! Yes. Regardless of all those email forwards your kooky great-aunt sends you from her decades-old AOL account – the public work force has been reduced under an Obama presidency – therefore “shrinking the size of government.” The reason we had no net jobs in August is because the public sector (i.e., the government) lost jobs due to cuts. ”

    There are no search results in 2011 reporting layoff in federal civilian workforce. It took all of 15 seconds using Google to dispatch this claim as being blatantly false.

    As to Reagan raising taxes almost every year and still having a deficit seems to lack the honesty of mentioning that Congress was controlled by the Dems and their promises to cut spending in exchange for tax increases were never kept (surprise!).

    A April 1996 report by the Joint Economic Committee of the House of Representatives found that “after the high marginal tax rates of 1981 were cut, tax payments and the share of the tax burden borne by the top 1 percent climbed sharply. For example, in 1981 the top 1 percent paid 17.6 percent of all personal income taxes, but by 1988 their share had jumped to 27.5 percent, a 10 percentage point increase. ”

    “The share of the income tax burden borne by the top 10 percent of taxpayers increased from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. Meanwhile, the share of income taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers dropped from 7.5 percent in 1981 to 5.7 percent in 1988.

    A middle class of taxpayers can be defined as those between the 50th percentile and the 95th percentile (those earning between $18,367 and $72,735 in 1988). Between 1981 and 1988, the income tax burden of the middle class declined from 57.5 percent in 1981 to 48.7 percent in 1988. This 8.8 percentage point decline in middle class tax burden is entirely accounted for by the increase borne by the top one percent.

    Several conclusions follow from these data. First of all, reduction in high marginal tax rates can induce taxpayers to lessen their reliance on tax shelters and tax avoidance, and expose more of their income to taxation. The result in this case was a 51 percent increase in real tax payments by the top one percent. Meanwhile, the tax rate reduction reduced the tax payments of middle class and poor taxpayers. The net effect was a marked shift in the tax burden toward the top 1 percent amounting to about 10 percentage points. Lower top marginal tax rates had encouraged these taxpayers to generate more taxable income. ”

    “Incidentally, the claim that unrealistic supply side Reagan Administration revenue projections caused large budget deficits during the 1980s is false. Nonetheless, this false allegation is often used against current tax reform proposals. The official Reagan revenue projections immediately following enactment of ERTA did not assume huge revenue increases, and were actually quite close to the CBO revenue projections. Even the Democrat-controlled CBO projected that deficits would fall after the enactment of the Reagan tax cuts. The real problem was a recession that neither CBO nor OMB could foresee.”

    “The economic benefits of ERTA were summarized by President Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisers in 1994: “It is undeniable that the sharp reduction in taxes in the early 1980s was a strong impetus to economic growth.”

    Fact checking the rest of the article seems like a waste of time.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *