New York (CNN) -- Newt Gingrich called President Obama "the most radical president in American history" at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference last week.

 

The leader of the 1994 Republican Revolution is a smart man and a historian, so he must know better. But he's also exploring a run for president, an action that frequently suspends good judgment in pursuit of sound bites. Perspective is the first thing abandoned in hyper-partisan attacks.

 

So here is a look at five presidents who, it could be argued, exceed Obama in the "radical" sweepstakes.

 

 

Read More

 

 

 

 

:popcorn:

Good article.

This will be interesting as the Obamites would love the first four and comparing their man to them. And then that momentum will come to a screeching halt on the fifth one.:D:p

I whole heartedly agree with all of them, and the fact that Obama is not radical. He is however, "black" said in a whispered tone as if to convey there is something wrong with that. Also plenty of sarcasm.

I whole heartedly agree with all of them, and the fact that Obama is not radical. He is however, "black" said in a whispered tone as if to convey there is something wrong with that. Also plenty of sarcasm.

 

For everyone I ever talk to you, that means nothing.

I only hear it brought up by those who want to use it as a reason that someone would stand opposed to his policies.

Honestly, that is the ONLY time I have ever heard it brought up.

I whole heartedly agree with all of them, and the fact that Obama is not radical. He is however, "black" said in a whispered tone as if to convey there is something wrong with that. Also plenty of sarcasm.

 

Never mind. I really don't need to get into this.

I whole heartedly agree with all of them, and the fact that Obama is not radical. He is however, "black" said in a whispered tone as if to convey there is something wrong with that. Also plenty of sarcasm.

Once again, people on the left simply aren't ready for a black president.

 

BTW, none of the one's listed in the article are as radical as Obama IMO. I know, I know, it must be because he's black.

For everyone I ever talk to you, that means nothing.

I only hear it brought up by those who want to use it as a reason that someone would stand opposed to his policies.

Honestly, that is the ONLY time I have ever heard it brought up.

 

The only time I EVER see Obama's race brought up is by those who are trying to find a reason (other then his political agenda) that so many Americans oppose him.

The only time I EVER see Obama's race brought up is by those who are trying to find a reason (other then his political agenda) that so many Americans oppose him.

 

I concur.

Isn't this ironic. A radical leader, Gingrich, is now labeling Obama as a radical. And even more ironic is Gingrich sticking with his Alinsky tactics - target, freeze, personalize, polarize - straight out of Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. Gingrich did an excellent job getting the liberal label to stick back in the early 90's as it is still prevalent today, so he will probably be successful with this "radical" tactic as well.

Isn't this ironic. A radical leader, Gingrich, is now labeling Obama as a radical. And even more ironic is Gingrich sticking with his Alinsky tactics - target, freeze, personalize, polarize - straight out of Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. Gingrich did an excellent job getting the liberal label to stick back in the early 90's as it is still prevalent today, so he will probably be successful with this "radical" tactic as well.

Gingrich doesn't need to do anything, Obama's done enough himself.

I thought this thread had the merits of bringing about good discussion of the current and some past Presidents, then the most liberal poster on BGP decided to bring race into it, and ruin any chance of a quality discussion...:ohbrother:

I thought this thread had the merits of bringing about good discussion of the current and some past Presidents, then the most liberal poster on BGP decided to bring race into it, and ruin any chance of a quality discussion...:ohbrother:

 

When has there ever been a good discussion of a topic like this on BGP? I can summarize the "discussion": My guy's the best thing since sliced bread and yours is a radical . . leftist ... fascist ... warmonger ... extremist ... un-American ... stupid . . . keep going. It's just a race -- on both extremes -- to thrown down a label, declare it undebatable, and click on over to the next thread and do it all again.

I whole heartedly agree with all of them, and the fact that Obama is not radical. He is however, "black" said in a whispered tone as if to convey there is something wrong with that. Also plenty of sarcasm.

 

Once again, a ridiculous statement. I understand that you consider yourself to be a historian, so here it is. The only two presidents that could be considered more "radical" that Obama are, by far FDR, and by a slighly less margin, Jackson. It is tough to argue against the invention of total social welfare in this country with the New Deal and incidents like the Court Packing Scheme as making FDR the far most radical. Jackson falls into the category because he intentionally overstepped his executive power.

Once again, a ridiculous statement. I understand that you consider yourself to be a historian, so here it is. The only two presidents that could be considered more "radical" that Obama are, by far FDR, and by a slighly less margin, Jackson. It is tough to argue against the invention of total social welfare in this country with the New Deal and incidents like the Court Packing Scheme as making FDR the far most radical. Jackson falls into the category because he intentionally overstepped his executive power.

Lincoln wouldn't be considered more radical than Obama?

 

His political views, upon his election, are one of the things that lead the south to succeed from the Union and to a war that cost the lives over 650,000 people.

 

His Emancipation Proclamation wasn't more radical than anything that Obama has done?