Well, this is interesting...

[rhoenix]

...And must have many a Conservative with their panties in a bunch.

HERE'S A NOTION so heretical I hardly dare voice it.

What if Barack Obama turns out to be the Old Gipper?

The new Old Gipper, that is.

Many a stalwart Republican knight has tried to don Reagan's storied mantle, of course.

George H.W. Bush ran on Reagan's legacy. Bob Dole obligingly pledged to be "another Ronald Reagan if that's what you want." Spurning the presidential patrimony of preppy Poppy, George W. Bush made the Gipper his model.

This year's GOP contenders jousted jealously for the Reagan role. Phlegmatic Fred Thompson cast himself as Reagan's easygoing heir. A rhapsodic Mike Huckabee signed up former Reagan impresario Ed Rollins, who promptly proclaimed him "the next Reagan." Mitt Romney, who, vexingly enough, hadn't planned far enough ahead to revere Reagan during his actual presidency, executed one of his patented pirouettes, declaring himself a retrospective Reaganite. Rudy Giuliani boasted of his days in the Gipper's Justice Department.

John McCain frequently cites Reagan as his hero. In her vice-presidential debate, Sarah Palin even appropriated one of Reagan's resonant rebukes, chiding "there you go again" when Joe Biden put forth the outlandish suggestion that the immediate Republican governing record was somehow relevant to this campaign.

So if Obama is indeed the new Reagan, why, it would be political kingdom shaking, the modern-day equivalent of the unassuming, overlooked Arthur of legend sliding the sword from the stone.

I don't mean to suggest that Obama is like Reagan in policy terms. Heaven forfend. That would appall both Reagan and Obama fans. But Obama does seem to be creating the Democratic equivalent of the Gipper Gestalt, the Dutch Dynamic, which led to . . . the Ronnie Tsunami.

Folksy, funny, and infectiously optimistic, Reagan was an accomplished communicator. Less witty but more cerebral, Obama is also a compelling speaker, with a Reagan-like faith in the power of ideas. Just as the charismatic Reagan did in running against an opponent with a nasty streak, Obama radiates a basic likability.

And certainly 2008 is starting to look a lot like 1980, the year Reagan beat Jimmy Carter.

Back in those troubled times, Carter, leading an administration viewed as inept, had worn out his welcome. People clearly wanted to vote the incumbent and the governing party out, but weren't quite sure about the challenger.

Reagan, they were told, was a scary figure. A warmonger, even.

Then the two debated. Seeing the avuncular Reagan on the stage, Americans concluded he wasn't the radical ideologue of caricature, and that he'd make an acceptable alternative.

Lingering doubts resolved, he won in a landslide.

Voters now face the same basic question about Obama, says Democratic pollster Peter Hart. To wit: "Would [he] be somebody I could feel safe and comfortable with?"

Hart thinks Obama is crossing that threshold. "With two solid debate performances, Obama has conveyed that he knows what he is talking about and that he has a temperament that makes people more assured they are not just taking a roll of the dice," he says.

Indeed, a CNN post-debate poll found that not only did voters consider Obama the winner, they also said he seemed like a stronger leader during the encounter. Further, by an astounding 65 percent to 28 percent, they called him more likable than McCain.

With things moving Obama's way, the McCain-Palin campaign has apparently decided its best shot at beating Obama is to try to delegitimize him on character issues. That explains Palin's ludicrous attempt to turn Obama's regrettable but distant relationship with former violent extremist William Ayers into a case of "palling around with terrorists."

But just as it was difficult to view Reagan as a warmonger after seeing him debate, so is it hard for fair-minded people to watch Obama soberly discussing issues and seriously entertain the notion that he harbors anti-American sentiment or is a crypto-radical.

Which means that as the campaign enters its closing weeks, McCain and Palin may just be accomplishing something H.L. Mencken would have considered impossible: going broke by underestimating the intelligence of the American people.

Seriously, I laughed when I was reading this. I can only imagine what others might think.

[General Havoc]

I have been saying this exact thing for months! On this very board!

Their policies could not be more different, but I believe Barack Obama has tapped into the mantle of the Gipper far more effectively than any of the republicans. And I think he's done it intentionally. He uses excerpts from Reagan's old speeches (three times, I've heard him say that "it's morning in America"). He casts himself as a sea-change in American politics, a change based around eliminating the failed policies of his predecessors and entering a glorious and bright new era. And I believe he's right. I said once long ago that this election feels different. It feels like 1980, 1960, or 1932. A new chapter in American politics. Obama himself said once that Reagan changed America's direction. I think he could do the same.

Reagan was, I will stipulate, the only truly "Great" president of the last 50 years. Only one or two presidents besides him have even had the opportunities to be Great. Kennedy did, but was assassinated. Johnson did, but the Vietnam War broke him. For the first time since 1980, this next president has an opportunity to be Great. I think Obama might just be able to do it.

Hopefully we'll soon see...

[Cynical Cat]

Reagan was in no way great. His only accomplishments were financially disasterous policies, not being impeached for the flagerantly illegal Iran-Contra, having large number of his appointees convicted of illegal acts, and being able to tell the American people what they wanted to hear in a way they wanted to hear it. The last does not make a man great, it makes a man popular. Obama's speaking abilities and charisma make him very electable, but it's his policies that make him the better choice for president.

[SirNitram]

I am forced to enter an opinion which may surprise. I will state it, then the reasons: Reagan was a great.

We can, of course, take out the sliderule, the painstakingly detailed facts, and decisively show that all of CynCat's charges are quite true. But ultimately, they're not part of the equation: Left to stand alone, the illegal acts, massive debt, and disasterous policies could be tidied up relatively easily. Nor is 'Popularity' quite right either; many people are popular, but Reagan is a rare breed.

He managed to redefine things in quite absurd ways, viewed from clinical analysis, yet make everyone believe them. The 'Welfare Queen' is perhaps the most iconic. The story he told, of course, was entirely made up. Well into today, you hear about someone who knows someone whose seen one of these mythical creatures. While welfare fraud exists, it's never on the farcical scope of the claims(The modern incarnation, the 'Welfare guy with a plasma screen', is not actually welfare fraud. It was a NINJA loan by some moron that's now going down in flames.). But with that line, several concepts that would leak into the modern GOP began: The Other. The shiftless, lazy city folk. The waste of trying to help through the government. And so forth.

But more than that line, one line defines what would careen down the rails of history, remaking the USA in ways that we're now seeing come due rather suddenly. Government Isn't The Solution. Government Is The Problem. It was with that phrase that the deregulation of the corporate world began. Reagan, however, did more than merely begin the removal of laws(Remember; regulation is a law on a corporation.), he made a snazzy catchphrase for it and spread the idea around. His popularity dovetailed with the meme, and soon everyone in D.C. was happily chainsawing away laws that had been put in place to stop a second Great Depression. We now stand watching the results of three decades of that, as Wall Street violently lurches around, volatile as touch-sensitive explosives.

There's more, of course. Carter and his extra layer for warmth to conserve energy, the solar panels on the White House roof.. Gone. Why bother? Oil was cheap! We just have to keep the Middle East happy with us and not turning off the spigot..

Reagan is a Great because he shaped the world in his wake. That we can see dozens of ways this led to disaster doesn't change the fact that he did change things.

[General Havoc]

The charges Cyncat makes are all true, but they are not even close to the only accomplishments of the Reagan administration. Even if they had been however, the question is not whether Reagan did things you agree with. The question is whether he redefined the landscape of American politics, which as Nitram has pointed out, Reagan unquestionably did. You can believe that he was the Messiah or you can believe that he was the Antichrist, but you cannot believe that he was of no particular importance, as Carter, Bush Sr, (and I would argue, Clinton) were.

Assuming he wins (knock on wood), Obama, like Reagan will be arriving on the scene at a moment of great turmoil (perceived or otherwise), where the policies, and more importantly the politics of the previous administration(s) have been utterly, thoroughly discredited among the American people. Everyone seems to be hungering for a solution fundamentally different than those offered before, conditions where dark-horse candidates can thrive. Obama, like Reagan, has captivated the public's eye on the strength of somewhat nebulous promises (let's be fair), and oratorical skill.

There's a quote out there somewhere about Franklin Roosevelt (another 'Great' president) that when he was running in 1932 people would hear him speak and come away with the notion that he was "a nice young man who very much wanted to be the President", but that he had no particular attributes to recommend him to the office. He won, not because he was some expert nominated by God and General Custer, but because he was a sharp turn away from the policies that had landed the country in the greatest financial mess in history (or at least were perceived as having done so). He redefined American politics for two generations, becoming one of our Greatest presidents.

On a slightly less major scale, Reagan did just the same. The country in 1980 was running at huge inflation rates, appeared to be visibly losing the Cold War, and afflicted by what Carter came out and called "National Malaise". The country was ready for a sharp turn away from the politics of the 70s, and all the traumas involved therewith, and into the limelight stepped Reagan. "It's Morning in America..." There's a reason that everyone from Bush Sr. to Bush Jr. has been trying to lay claim to the mantle of Ronald Reagan. He defined politics for a generation.

Obama is smart to evoke Reagan, and his "greatness", for despite the quite obvious yawning differences in their background and politics and parties and situations, they both had the potential, when becoming president, to start with a clean slate. That's a chance afforded to presidents only once in a generation or so. Reagan seized it. Roosevelt seized it. Kennedy and Johnson did not.

With luck, twenty years from now, Democrats will be scrambling in primary elections across the country to promote themselves as the inheritors to the legacy of Barack Obama, and his sea-change of American politics. And given Obama's age, he'll probably still be around to anoint them in person.