Why no Mitt? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Tully Mars · 02-09-2008, 04:41 AM

So Mitt's out. Doesn't seem to me that the conservatives are all that happy with the choices left. Huckabee doesn't seem to have much traction and the Right Wing talking heads seem to hate McCain (not so sure that's not a mutual feeling?) Listening to the likes of Rush, Ingram, Hannity et el it seemed they were all but ordering their audience to vote for Mitt. Well that didn't happen, least not in numbers that made a difference. Wonder what others think were the causes of Mitt's demise.

flstf · 02-09-2008, 05:27 AM

I'm not sure if this has anything to do with it but Mitt has always seemed a little too slick and polished. My wife commented to me a few months ago that he reminded her of a salesmen trying to peddle something he really didn't believe in. For whatever reason he failed to inspire people and overcome his "used car salesman" demeanor.

Rekna · 02-09-2008, 09:28 AM

I think the problem for Republicans this time around is that the politicians know they are not likely to win a Presidential election. Because of this anyone which would be a good candidate for the Republican party has decided to not risk tarnishing their image by losing the election. It is better for them to wait until the environment is less hostile toward them and try to win then.

Seaver · 02-09-2008, 10:40 AM

I like both Romney and McCain. The problem was that both were moderate conservatives. Everyone knew they were moderates, that's why they went so far early on.

McCain is more left than Romney, so he had to try to push himself as the "true conservative". Everyone knew he wasn't really that far right, so he never gained much traction.

Huckabee, if he ever got the nomination, would make Carter look like FD freaking R.

Fotzlid · 02-09-2008, 10:46 AM

I was watching Leno last night and Brian Williams was one of the guests. He commented that the other candidates were giving Romney a hard time because they felt he hadn't "put his time in the trenches" like they had. All they saw was some rich guy from Michigan who got elected govenor of Massachusetts who thought he should be president.

Tully Mars · 02-09-2008, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

I like both Romney and McCain. The problem was that both were moderate conservatives. Everyone knew they were moderates, that's why they went so far early on.

McCain is more left than Romney, so he had to try to push himself as the "true conservative". Everyone knew he wasn't really that far right, so he never gained much traction.

Huckabee, if he ever got the nomination, would make Carter look like FD freaking R.

Seems to me like if they are such moderates that would help them in the general much more then the primaries. But I could certainly be looking at it wrong.

I think McCain's rise is good news for the GOP regardless of what Rush, Coulter et el have to say. I don't think Clinton has a chance against him. Too many people hate her too much. All the talking heads I hear talk about there being nothing that energizes the rights base. I'd say if you want to energize the right- nominate Hillary.

Even if she wins she have a 51-49% edge in regards to popular support, give or take. IMO, the last thing the US needs is another four years of half the country literally hating their President.

If it comes down to Clinton V. McCain I'll be voting for McCain.

Seaver · 02-09-2008, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Seems to me like if they are such moderates that would help them in the general much more then the primaries. But I could certainly be looking at it wrong.

Well, he had to make it past the primaries first. The moderate conservatives were going for McCain, the evangelicals were going for Huckabee. He had to go somewhere for a base, he tried the secular conservatives but they didn't go for him as much as McCain.

Tully Mars · 02-09-2008, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Well, he had to make it past the primaries first. The moderate conservatives were going for McCain, the evangelicals were going for Huckabee. He had to go somewhere for a base, he tried the secular conservatives but they didn't go for him as much as McCain.

I see.

I wonder to what degree, if any, his religion played in his down fall. I used to work with several people who were LDS members and personally there's no way I'd vote for a Mormon. I know, what a bigot. But I wouldn't vote for a Jehovah's Witness or a Scientologist either. I see these has secretive cult like organizations more then religions.

host · 02-09-2008, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

Seems to me like if they are such moderates that would help them in the general much more then the primaries. But I could certainly be looking at it wrong.

I think McCain's rise is good news for the GOP regardless of what Rush, Coulter et el have to say. I don't think Clinton has a chance against him. Too many people hate her too much. All the talking heads I hear talk about there being nothing that energizes the rights base. I'd say if you want to energize the right- nominate Hillary.

Even if she wins she have a 51-49% edge in regards to popular support, give or take. IMO, the last thing the US needs is another four years of half the country literally hating their President.

If it comes down to Clinton V. McCain I'll be voting for McCain.

Romney lost because he showed a typical republican disconnect concerning the widening wealth gap. "Tax cuts for the rich" are increasingly viewed as a policy that is not beneficial to what remains of the middle class, The government has given back $100's of billions in tax cuts and ramped up borrowing from $18 billion in 2000, to $718 billion this year, yet the economy has somehow stalled? How could this be, with the literal creation of these hundreds of billions? McCain isn't dead yet because he is still perceived, because of his flip flopping, to have been against tax cuts for the rich, but he is for them.....

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/bu...ibution&st=nyt
Age of Riches
Two Candidates, Two Fortunes, Two Distinct Views of Wealth

By DAVID LEONHARDT
Published: December 23, 2007

....Like thousands of other Americans in a global, high-technology economy in which government was pulling back and wealth was being celebrated, Mr. Edwards and Mr. Romney used talent, hard work and — as both have suggested — luck to amass fortunes. They became a part of a rising class of the new rich.

Whether this class is a cause for concern — whether it deserves some blame for the economic anxiety felt by many middle-class families — has become a central issue in the 2008 presidential race. And Mr. Edwards and Mr. Romney are basing their candidacies in large measure on the very different lessons each has taken from his own success.

“Some people come from nothing to being wildly successful and their response is, ‘I did this on my own,’” Mr. Edwards said in an interview. “I came to a different conclusion. I believe that I did work hard, and I think people should work hard, but I think my country was there for me every step of the way.”

Today, he added, “the problem is all the economic growth is going to a very small group of people.”

Mr. Romney, by contrast, talks about the ways that his experiences at Bain showed him how innovative and productive the American economy can be and, particularly, how free markets can make life better for everyone.

“There is a model of thought among the Democrats — that the amount of money, the amount of wealth in a nation, is a fixed amount,” he said in an interview. “And that if Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are making a lot of money, that just means somebody else is not able to make as much. That happens to be entirely false.”

The two men represent a clear divide between the Democratic and Republican parties over whether the government should redistribute more wealth, from the rich downward, now that economic inequality is greater than it has been since the 1920s.

Mr. Romney and Mr. Edwards also represent a divide among the affluent themselves. Many of the new wealthy — the great majority, in all likelihood — see their success as a sign of this country’s economic strength. Yet there is also a minority — including Mr. Buffett and William H. Gates Sr., Mr. Gates’s father, who have both opposed eliminating the estate tax — worried about inequality.

Mr. Edwards is running perhaps the most populist campaign of any major candidate in a generation. He has called for universal health insurance, tighter trade restrictions, more financial aid for college students and higher taxes on the rich. In several cases, his main Democratic rivals have followed his lead. The political system is now rigged to help the rich, Mr. Edwards says, which makes a journey like his, from modest beginnings to the middle class and far beyond it, much harder than it was.

Mr. Romney agrees that the middle class is feeling pinched. But he says government can help by becoming smaller and by promoting competition in areas like health insurance and public schools. Those steps, as he sees it, would reduce taxes, lower the cost of health insurance and improve the quality of medical care and education.

“Rather than trying to take money from some to give to others, the best approach is to find ways to make everyone better off,” he said.

Even if neither man gets his party’s nomination, <h3>the argument over wealth and inequality is likely to play a big role in next year’s campaign. Polls show that the economy is now the top concern of many voters.......</h3>

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...52C1A963958260
THE RICH;Why Their World Might Crumble

By LESTER THUROW
Published: November 19, 1995

....As a result, since 1989 median household incomes have fallen more than 7 percent after correcting for inflation and family size, to $31,241 in 1993, from $33,585. Already working full time, women had no more extra hours of work effort to contribute to the family's income.

The same sharp rise in inequality has occurred in the distribution of wealth. The share of total net worth of the top one-half of 1 percent of the population rose from 26 to 31 percent in just six years, between 1983 and 1989. By the early 1990's the share of wealth (more than 40 percent) held by the top 1 percent of the population was essentially double what it had been in the mid-1970's and back to where it was in the late 1920's, before the introduction of progressive taxation.

These are uncharted waters for American democracy. Since accurate data have been kept, beginning in 1929, America has never experienced falling real wages for a majority of its work force while its per-capita G.D.P. was rising. In effect, we are conducting an enormous social and political experiment -- something like putting a pressure cooker on the stove over a full flame and waiting to see how long it takes to explode....

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/bu...yt&oref=slogin
A Grim Diagnosis for the U.S., and a Prescription

By HARRY HURT III
Published: December 16, 2007

....Mr. Kuttner cites numerous studies and statistics that show a staggeringly disproportionate distribution of wealth in America. Among the most telling is the fact that the median income of working-age families has actually fallen by 5.4 percent over the last seven years, adjusted for inflation, even as the gross domestic product has grown by 18 percent.

The very rich, meanwhile, have become much, much richer. “For the richest one-tenth of 1 percent, inflation-adjusted income soared by 550 percent from about $3.6 million in 1970 to $24 million in 2000,” he writes in summarizing recently updated National Bureau of Economic Research studies. “And at the very top, the richest 400 people had 1.1 percent of all the income in America, more than double their 1992 share.”....

You must hate Hillary a whole bunch:

Quote:

http://mccain.senate.gov/public/inde..._id=&Issue_id=
MCCAIN URGES FINAL PASSAGE OF THE MILITARY COMMISSIONS ACT OF 2006
September 28, 2006

Washington D.C. omg- U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) today delivered the following remarks on the floor of the Senate regarding the Military Commissions Act of 2006:

....."Finally, I would note that there has been opposition to this legislation from some quarters, including the New York Times editorial page. Without getting into a point-by-point rebuttal here on the floor, I would simply say that I have been reading the Congressional Record trying to find the bill that page so vociferously denounced. The hyperbolic attack is aimed not at any bill this body is today debating, nor even at the Administration's original position. I can only presume that some would prefer that Congress simply ignore the Hamdan decision, and pass no legislation at all. That, I suggest to my colleagues, would be a travesty.

"I urge my colleagues to support this legislation."...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...type=printable
Bush Signs Terror Interrogation Law
By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer

Tuesday, October 17, 2006

..Many Democrats opposed the legislation because they said it eliminated rights of defendants considered fundamental to American values, such as a person's ability to go to court to protest their detention and <h3>the use of coerced testimony as evidence.</h3> Bush acknowledged that the law came amid dispute.

"Over the past few months, the debate over this bill has been heated and the questions raised can seem complex," he said. "Yet, with the distance of history, the questions will be narrowed and few. Did this generation of Americans take the threat seriously? And did we do what it takes to defeat that threat?"

The American Civil Liberties Union said the new law is "one of the worst civil liberties measures ever enacted in American history."

"The president can now, with the approval of Congress, indefinitely hold people without charge, take away protections against horrific abuse, put people on trial based on hearsay evidence, authorize trials that can sentence people to death based on testimony literally beaten out of witnesses, and slam shut the courthouse door for habeas petitions," said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero.

"Nothing could be further from the American values we all hold in our hearts than the Military Commissions Act," he said....

Quote:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/...te.transcript/
FORMER SEN. JOHN MCCAIN: I think you could argue that Americans overall are better off, because we have had a pretty good prosperous time, with low unemployment and low inflation and a lot of good things have happened. A lot of jobs have been created.

But let's have some straight talk. Things are tough right now. Americans are uncertain about this housing crisis. Americans are uncertain about the economy, as we see the stock market bounce up and down, but more importantly, the economy particularly in some parts of the country, state of Michigan, Governor Romney and I campaigned, not to my success, I might add, and other parts of the country are probably better off.

But I think what we're trying to do to fix this economy is important. We've got to address the housing, subprime housing problem. We need to, obviously, have this package go through the Congress as quickly as possible.

<h3>We need to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, which I voted for twice to do so.</h3> I think we need to eliminate the alternate minimum tax that sits out there and challenges 25 million American families.

COOPER: It sounds like that we're not better off is what you're saying.

MCCAIN: Pardon me?

COOPER: It sounds like you're saying we're not better off.

MCCAIN: I think we are better off overall if you look at the entire eight-year period, when you look at the millions of jobs that have been created, the improvement in the economy, et cetera.

What I'm trying to emphasize, Anderson, that we are in a very serious challenge right now, with a lot of Americans very uncertain about their future, and we've got to give them some comfort....

In the final year of the Clinton presidency, before a series of cuts in income and inheritance taxes that overwhelmingly benefited the wealthiest Americans, the national debt increased by just $18 billion:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/r...ebt_histo4.htm
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/r...ebt_histo5.htm

At the end of the present fiscal year, on Sept. 30, 2008, with the addtion of the $168 billion "stimulus" package spending, the annual debt increase will be $718 billion:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPD...application=np
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/r...ebt_histo4.htm
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/r...ebt_histo5.htm

Quote:

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/01/04/mccain-100-years/
McCain Flip Flops Again: 100 Years In Iraq ‘Would Be Fine With Me,’ Even ‘A Million Years’
During a town hall meeting in Derry, New Hampshire last night, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) told a crowd of roughly two hundred people that it “would be fine with” him if the U.S. military stayed in Iraq for “a hundred years“:

The vote will be about the economy/wealth inequity, and the war, and if the American people become enlightened enough to realize that a Reagan era scheme to tax them forward, a tax on the entire income of those grossing under $105,000 per year, results in a surplus of $186 billion per year
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/fyOps.html

.....which is collected and immediately borrowed and spent by the government, is not counted in the white house's annual budget deficit announcements, and is used to camouflage the total impact of the Bush tax cuts, I don't think that Romney or McCain, two staunch backers of Bush foreign and tax policy, would be treated with the respect that they have been shown. Bush is a president who, in the midst of spending away the surplus SS tax collection, complains that the "problem" is the solvency of Social Security. The amount the government owes to the SS trust fund has more than doubled, to $2.18 trillion since Bush took office.

Tully Mars · 02-09-2008, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Romney lost because he showed a typical republican disconnect concerning the widening wealth gap. "Tax cuts for the rich" are increasingly viewed as a policy that is not beneficial to what remains of the middle class, The government has given back $100's of billions in tax cuts and ramped up borrowing from $18 billion in 2000, to $718 billion this year, yet the economy has somehow stalled? How could this be, with the literal creation of these hundreds of billions? McCain isn't dead yet because he is still perceived, because of his flip flopping, to have been against tax cuts for the rich, but he is for them.....

I completely disagree with this statement. If it were the general and his numbers were still good I could see this logic. But given this is the primaries I'd say he's still alive despite being seen as opposed to the tax cuts. Of the many, many complaints I've heard and read from the right wing talking heads the fact he didn't jump up and down with joy at at least some of Bush's wealth favored, lopsided cuts is probably the most oft mentioned. Well that and his position that deporting several million people simply isn't a reasonable solution to a complex issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

You must hate Hillary a whole bunch:

Hating people isn't really my thing. I find it odd that you would conclude that my willingness to vote for one candidate over another translates to hatred.

I take my vote seriously and make every attempt to vote for the candidate that I personally believe would benefit the country the most. I tend to disregard the little "D" or "R" when I vote. I've never been registered with either party, alway "independent." And unlike Bill O'Reilly- Al Franken's not going to be able to find a registration card that proves me a liar.

I don't agree with McCain on many issues. But I do on several other issues. For example I agree with him regarding torture. I don't think we should be engaged in torture either. He seems to have a pragmatic view of immigration and was willing to go against the GOP, right wing tide on the issue. His views on pork barrel spending are appealing to me. And the fact that he did not favor the Bush tax cuts without cutting spending also appealed to me.

At the same time I do not agree with many, many statements he's made regarding the war. For example his position that the current version of whack a mole that is the "surge" is a glowing success. I do not see how the military will be able to sustain the level of troop involvement on a long term basis, eventually even stop loss is going to be unable to provide the troops needed to maintain security at the level currently slowing the violence. I also don't see any of the political gains being made by the Iraqis that are needed to allow the troop level to be reduced. Basically I think it's a house of cards and while it's currently standing- it's leaning hard and will undoubtedly crumble, likely sooner rather then later. But I do think if he'd been listened to by the current POTUS we wouldn't be in the complete cluster fuck that we currently find ourselves.

All that said, given the option of either Hillary or John I'd toss my pebble into Johns bucket.

Does that mean I hate Hillary? Absolutely not. I could go through several points where I disagree with her positions as well as several where I agree with her, completely and whole heartedly. But it really comes down to, for me, I simply don't see her as being genuine and honest all too often. She, unlike McCain IMO, tends to swift her position based on what the polls and her base want it to be.

loquitur · 02-09-2008, 05:02 PM

Actually, I think Romney lost because people concluded he didn't have a genuine bone in his body and had all the sincerity of Joe Isuzu. Sure, he LOOKED like a president, but so do a lot of old time Hollywood actors.

Tully Mars · 02-09-2008, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

Actually, I think Romney lost because people concluded he didn't have a genuine bone in his body and had all the sincerity of Joe Isuzu. Sure, he LOOKED like a president, but so do a lot of old time Hollywood actors.

Well that seem to work well for Reagan.

loquitur · 02-09-2008, 06:45 PM

Except that Reagan had some well-thought-out principles that he had been advocating for a couple of decades. Romney seemed to be nothing more than a pandering machine.

Tully Mars · 02-09-2008, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

Except that Reagan had some well-thought-out principles that he had been advocating for a couple of decades. Romney seemed to be nothing more than a pandering machine.

Reagan was a great speech reader. When working sans script he came up with stuff like:

"Facts are stupid things."

"Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do."

When he spoke without the net of a speech writer concerning any thing scientific he usually became up with bizarre figures and facts. Like:

In 1980 when he offered this well thought out idea: "I have flown twice over Mt St. Helens out on our west coast. I'm not a scientist and I don't know the figures, but I have a suspicion that that one little mountain has probably released more sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere of the world than has been released in the last ten years of automobile driving or things of that kind that people are so concerned about." (Actually, Mount St. Helens, at its peak activity, emitted about 2,000 tons of sulfur dioxide per day, compared with 81,000 tons per day by cars.)

Or in 1985 he told an interviewer that the "reformist administration" of South African president P.W. Botha has made significant progress on the racial front. "They have eliminated the segregation that we once had in our own country," says the President, "the type of thing where hotels and restaurants and places of entertainment and so forth were segregated - that has all been eliminated." (Not even close)

Other times he stuck to the script provided and managed to sound genuine and sincere. Like these examples:

"You glance out the window and the people are walking around Pennsylvania Avenue and you say, 'I could never say I am going to run down to the drugstore and get some magazines.' I can't do that anymore." -- President Reagan, 8/11/82, to The Time's Hugh Sidey that he sometimes feels trapped in the White House.

"Sometimes I look out there at Pennsylvania Avenue and see people bustling along, and it suddenly dawns on me that probably never again can I just say 'Hey, I'm going down to the drugstore to look at the magazines,'" -- President Reagan, 12/09/82, discussing his feelings of confinement with a People reporter.

"Sometimes I look out the window at Pennsylvania Avenue and wonder what it would be like to be able to just walk down the street to the corner drugstore and look at the magazines. I can't do that anymore." - President Reagan, 12/16/82, conveying one of his regrets to The Washington Post.

"Sometimes I look out the window at Pennsylvania Avenue and wonder what it would be like to be able to just walk down the street to the corner drugstore and look at the magazines. I can't do that anymore." -- President Reagan, 12/16/82, sharing a sudden thought with a radio interviewer
.
"You find yourself remembering what it was like when on the spur of the moment you could just yell to your wife that you were going down to the drugstore and get a magazine. You can't do that anymore." -- President Reagan, 1/27/84 , telling Time magazine about being President.

sprocket · 02-09-2008, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

I'm not sure if this has anything to do with it but Mitt has always seemed a little too slick and polished. My wife commented to me a few months ago that he reminded her of a salesmen trying to peddle something he really didn't believe in. For whatever reason he failed to inspire people and overcome his "used car salesman" demeanor.

Mitt really looks worse than that to me... he looks like a serial killer. A Ted Bundy kind of guy.

Ustwo · 02-09-2008, 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

Reagan was a great speech reader. When working sans script he came up with stuff like:

"Facts are stupid things."

"Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do."

When he spoke without the net of a speech writer concerning any thing scientific he usually became up with bizarre figures and facts. Like:

In 1980 when he offered this well thought out idea: "I have flown twice over Mt St. Helens out on our west coast. I'm not a scientist and I don't know the figures, but I have a suspicion that that one little mountain has probably released more sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere of the world than has been released in the last ten years of automobile driving or things of that kind that people are so concerned about." (Actually, Mount St. Helens, at its peak activity, emitted about 2,000 tons of sulfur dioxide per day, compared with 81,000 tons per day by cars.)

Or in 1985 he told an interviewer that the "reformist administration" of South African president P.W. Botha has made significant progress on the racial front. "They have eliminated the segregation that we once had in our own country," says the President, "the type of thing where hotels and restaurants and places of entertainment and so forth were segregated - that has all been eliminated." (Not even close)

Other times he stuck to the script provided and managed to sound genuine and sincere. Like these examples:

"You glance out the window and the people are walking around Pennsylvania Avenue and you say, 'I could never say I am going to run down to the drugstore and get some magazines.' I can't do that anymore." -- President Reagan, 8/11/82, to The Time's Hugh Sidey that he sometimes feels trapped in the White House.

"Sometimes I look out there at Pennsylvania Avenue and see people bustling along, and it suddenly dawns on me that probably never again can I just say 'Hey, I'm going down to the drugstore to look at the magazines,'" -- President Reagan, 12/09/82, discussing his feelings of confinement with a People reporter.

"Sometimes I look out the window at Pennsylvania Avenue and wonder what it would be like to be able to just walk down the street to the corner drugstore and look at the magazines. I can't do that anymore." - President Reagan, 12/16/82, conveying one of his regrets to The Washington Post.

"Sometimes I look out the window at Pennsylvania Avenue and wonder what it would be like to be able to just walk down the street to the corner drugstore and look at the magazines. I can't do that anymore." -- President Reagan, 12/16/82, sharing a sudden thought with a radio interviewer
.
"You find yourself remembering what it was like when on the spur of the moment you could just yell to your wife that you were going down to the drugstore and get a magazine. You can't do that anymore." -- President Reagan, 1/27/84 , telling Time magazine about being President.

Yea you sure showed Reagan being nothing but a speech reader without a few out of context quotes.

I think the left has a hard time dealing with Reagan, what he did, and why he was loved for it, so instead they try to attack him, badly, as being stupid, a puppet, etc.

If you took the time to read what the man wrote, perhaps, I doubt it but perhaps, you would change your mind.

guyy · 02-10-2008, 12:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

Reagan was a great speech reader. When working sans script he came up with stuff like:

"Facts are stupid things."

"Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do."

When he spoke without the net of a speech writer concerning any thing scientific he usually became up with bizarre figures and facts.

Yes, but Reagan was not right in the head. The trauma of the assasination attempt brought out his Alzheimer's. The guy was not with it for most of his time in office.

host · 02-10-2008, 12:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Yea you sure showed Reagan being nothing but a speech reader without a few out of context quotes.

I think the left has a hard time dealing with Reagan, what he did, and why he was loved for it, so instead they try to attack him, badly, as being stupid, a puppet, etc.

If you took the time to read what the man wrote, perhaps, I doubt it but perhaps, you would change your mind.

It certainly doesn' take much to satisfy you, does it? Reagan, by almost every measure, was probably the worst president in the 20th century:

Quote:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/reagan/...e/index_5.html
1986

February 16: The U.S. ships 1000 anti-tank missiles to Iran.

May 29: Colonel Oliver North tells McFarlane that profits of weapons sales to Iran are being diverted to the Contras.

August 27: Reagan signs an anti-terrorism law that bans arms sales to nations that support terrorism, and strengthens U.S. anti-terrorist measures.

September: Former National Security Advisor WilliamMcFarlane takes 23 tons of weapons to Iran.

October 30: 500 anti-tank missiles shipped to Iran.

November 3: Lebanese magazine "Al Shiraa" reports that the U.S. has sold arms to Iran. The Iranian government confirms the story. This marks the beginning of Iran-Contra.

November 13: In a nationally televised speech to defend against charges concerning arms sales to Iran, Reagan admits sending some defensive weapons and spare parts to Iran, but denies it was part of an arms for hostages deal. "Our government has a firm policy not to capitulate to terrorist demands.... We did not -- repeat, did not -- trade weapons or anything else for hostages, nor will we." Polls show that the American people do not believe Reagan.

November 21: Attorney General Meese is asked to conduct an inquiry of the Iran affair to get facts straight.

November 22: Meese's office discovers the Iran-Contra connection. When searching North’s office, they found a memo dated 4/4/86 from North to Poindexter, which included an amount that to be sent to the Contras from the profits of the Iran sales. North, who had spent the night shredding papers, later called the diversion of funds, "a neat idea."

November 24: Meese tells Reagan that some proceeds from the sale of arms to Iran went to the Contras. Reagan is visibly shaken and according to Meese, surprised. He is aware that the diversion of funds could mean impeachment for violation of the Boland Amendment.

November 25: National Security Advisor John Poindexter resigns and Oliver North is fired. In press conference, Meese announces Iran-Contra: $10m to $30m of profits from sale of U.S. arms to Iran had been diverted to Swiss bank accounts for use by Contra rebels in Nicaragua.

December 1: Reagan appoints the Tower Commission to review Iran Contra.

December 2: In a "New York Times" poll, Reagan's approval drops from 67% to 46% in one month. Frank Carlucci replaces Poindexter as National Security Advisor.

December 18: C.I.A. Director William Casey undergoes surgery for a malignant brain tumor.

December 19: Independent counsel Lawrence Walsh is appointed to investigate Iran-Contra.

1987

February 2: Reagan testifies to the Tower Board for a second time. His testimony is inconsistent and confused. The Board pointed out Reagan hadn’t known about August shipment of anti-tank missiles, but Reagan had said he DID know. When asked for an explanation, Reagan picked up a briefing memo he had been provided and read aloud: "If the question comes up at the Tower Board meeting, you might want to say that you were surprised."

February 20: A Reagan memo to the Tower Board reads: "I don’t remember, period." "I’m trying to recall events that happened eighteen months ago, I’m afraid that I let myself be influenced by others’ recollections, not my own.... The only honest answer is to state that try as I might, I cannot recall anything whatsoever about whether I approved an Israeli sale in advance or whether I approved replenishment of Israeli stocks around August of 1985. My answer therefore and the simple truth is, ‘I don’t remember, period.’"

February 26: The Tower Commission report is delivered to Reagan. The report could not link Reagan to diversion of funds from Iran to the Contras. <h3>But it concluded that Reagan, confused and unaware, allowed himself to be misled by dishonest staff members</h3> who organized the trade of arms to Iran for hostages held in Lebanon and pursued a secret war against the Nicaraguan government. The report charges that Reagan had failed to "insist upon accountability & performance review, " allowing the National Security Council process to collapse. Reagan’s approval rating is down to 42%.

February 27: Although reluctant at first, Reagan yields to pressure from his advisors and Nancy to fire Chief of Staff Donald Regan. Reagan calls Howard Baker to offer him the position of Chief of Staff. Donald Regan finds out through CNN -- only after Baker has accepted. He is furious.

March 4: On national television, Reagan acknowledges mistakes on Iran-Contra. "A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions tell me that’s true, but the facts and evidence tell me it is not. As the Tower Board reported, what began as a strategic opening to Iran deteriorated, in its implementation, into trading arms for hostages. This runs counter to my own beliefs, to administration policy, and to the original strategy we had in mind. There are reasons why it happened, but no excuses. It was a mistake." Reagan’s approval rating rebounds to 51%....

Reagan advanced his political career by shilling for a repressive police state, first to win election as California governor, and later, to hone his reputation in aniticpation of a presidential run:

Quote:

http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/MRC/pacificaviet/

May 17, 1968: Students and faculty against the war hold a "Vietnam Commencement" at UC Berkeley. The rally was originally been planned for the campus Greek Theater, but it was banned by the UC Regents under the pressure of Governor Ronald Reagan.

The San Francisco Chronicle (May 17,1968)reports: "Governor Reagan, in a letter dated May 10 to Theodore R. Meyer, chairman of the Board of Regents, declared the proposed exercises 'in violation of Regents' policy; and demanded that the ceremonies be cancelled. ... Reagan reiterated that such a ceremony 'would be so indecent as to border on the obscene'. ... He called upon the University administration to ban the ceremonies on any part of the UC campus; to revoke the registration of the campus draft opposition organization, and to institute disciplinary action against faculty members who have been aiding the draft resisters." Reagan subsequently comments that even if the assembly is legal, it is "still beneath contempt." He contends that only thing saving the demonstrators from being guilty of treason is the lack of a formal US declaration of war on North Vietnam.

The Commencement takes place in Sproul Plaza instead. 866 UC Berkeley seniors and graduate students sign an oath and affirm it publicly before the assembled group: "Our war in Vietnam is unjust and immoral. As long as the United States is involved in this war I will not serve in the armed forces." The program includes the mother of imprisoned Ronald Lockman, an African-American soldier who refused shipment to Vietnam, and the sister of another jailed draft resister, John Wells [LAT, 5/18/68; Wofsy, 2001][See also January 1968 address by Wells)

October 23, 1968: Dozens of UC Berkeley students barricade themselves in Moses Hall to protest the Regents' refusial to allow Black Panther leader Eldridge Cleaver to teach an accredited course [see Black Panther Sound Recording Collection]

April-May 1969 On April 18, the underground paper The Berkeley Barb runs an announcement calling for interested individuals to bring building materials to a university-owned vacant lot near Haste Street and Telegraph Avenue in order to build a community park. A large crowd assembles to create "People's Park".

In early May, UC Berkeley administrators decide to reclaim the land, and on May 15, 250 Berkeley police and California Highway Patrol officers are called in to enforce this edict. The park is bulldozed, and a large chain-link fence is erected. As construction the fence began, a crowd of 6000 moved towards the park after rallying at nearby Sproul Plaza. Police fired tear gas at the approaching crowd. Protesters threw rocks and bottles. Sheriff Deputies retaliated with double-0 buckshot, blinding one man (Alan Blanshard) and killing another (James Rector). That evening, California Governor Ronald Reagan calls in the National Guard and the California State Highway Patrol to restore order. <h3>Reagan is quoted on May 15, 1969 in the San Francisco Chronicle as saying "If there has to be a bloodbath, then let's get it over with."</h3>

On May 20, National Guard helicopters tear-gas a peaceful demonstration on Sproul Plaza, setting off several days of rioting and confrontation by Berkeley's students and citizens. National Guard continues to occupy Berkeley until all protesters are subdued and/or incarcerated. [Rorabaugh, pp: 156-166]....

After 190 years, the national debt was still under $1 trillion, but after eight years of Regan tax cuts and tax "reform" the debt ballooned to more than $2.5 trillion, and has risen steadily since, except during the last three years of Clinton's presidency:

Quote:

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/r...ebt_histo4.htm
Historical US Treasury Debt Outstanding - Annual 1980 - 1989

09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 *$1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 *$1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 *$1,377,210,000,000.00
09/30/1982 *$1,142,034,000,000.00
09/30/1981 *$997,855,000,000.00
09/30/1980 *$907,701,000,000.00

rlbond86 · 02-10-2008, 02:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Yea you sure showed Reagan being nothing but a speech reader without a few out of context quotes.

I think the left has a hard time dealing with Reagan, what he did, and why he was loved for it, so instead they try to attack him, badly, as being stupid, a puppet, etc.

If you took the time to read what the man wrote, perhaps, I doubt it but perhaps, you would change your mind.

The reverse could be said for the right, who revere him; but he was the beginning of the right's fiscal irresponsibility. Reagan was a terrible economist who got all the credit for Paul Volker's genius.

Seaver · 02-10-2008, 06:45 AM

Quote:

It certainly doesn' take much to satisfy you, does it? Reagan, by almost every measure, was probably the worst president in the 20th century:

Yep, the man who pushed the Russians toward implosion and waved the smoldering feelings of national pride back to popularity is SO much worse than Ford or Carter.

Tully Mars · 02-10-2008, 06:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Yea you sure showed Reagan being nothing but a speech reader without a few out of context quotes.

And the quote out of context is?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I think the left has a hard time dealing with Reagan, what he did, and why he was loved for it, so instead they try to attack him, badly, as being stupid, a puppet, etc.

At the time Reagan made his famous comments regarding South African government he was engaged in a battle with the congress whether to impose sanctions on South Africa. The battle went on for several years and he vetoed the final bill. The Senate overrode that veto by a 78-21 vote in 1986. So this isn't some obscure world fact. This was something he voiced his opinion on repeatedly. And repeatedly he was wrong. So he either didn't know what he was talking about or he was lying. I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt and go with "didn't have a clue."

The day after Reagan made that comment the press asked one of his spokesmen, Larry Speakes, whether the President really believed segregation had all been eliminated. His answer was something like- "no, not totally." Really? That's what he said yesterday. Maybe facts really were stupid things to Reagan.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

If you took the time to read what the man wrote, perhaps, I doubt it but perhaps, you would change your mind.

Read what? Got links? I got time.

dc_dux · 02-10-2008, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Yep, the man who pushed the Russians toward implosion and waved the smoldering feelings of national pride back to popularity is SO much worse than Ford or Carter.

You left out how Reagan funded both Iran and Iraq...or turned and ran after the worst terrorist attack against Americans to that time (241 American military killed in Beirut bombing) leaving Lebanon in the hands of Hezballah.

Tully Mars · 02-10-2008, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

You left out how Reagan funded both Iran and Iraq...or turned and ran after the worst terrorist attack against Americans to that time (241 American military killed in Beirut bombing) leaving Lebanon in the hands of Hezballah.

Really when you look at the historical record of Reagan you have a snap shot of everything current conservatives love to hate. Everything from cut and run to funding dictators. I'd add massive spending increases but apparently that's no longer a problem for the right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

February 2: Reagan testifies to the Tower Board for a second time. His testimony is inconsistent and confused. The Board pointed out Reagan hadn’t known about August shipment of anti-tank missiles, but Reagan had said he DID know. When asked for an explanation, Reagan picked up a briefing memo he had been provided and read aloud: "If the question comes up at the Tower Board meeting, you might want to say that you were surprised."

I missed this the first time I read your post. I remember this happening, classic Reagan.

I also remember seeing a clip where a reporter asks Reagan a really tough question. I think it had to do with unemployment. Reagan got a really blank look on his face and didn't say anything for a couple seconds. Just then Nancy leans in and you can see her mouth "we're doing the best we can." Reagan's eyes widen, he begins his trade mark head shake and says "we're doing the best we can." Classic, just classic.

host · 02-10-2008, 11:19 AM

Today, the presidency relies on a "brand", "September 11", or "9/11", and a "fear card":

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...080128-13.html

...On a clear September day, we saw thousands of our fellow citizens taken from us in an instant. These horrific images serve as a grim reminder: The advance of liberty is opposed by terrorists and extremists -- evil men who despise freedom, despise America, and aim to subject millions to their violent rule.

Since 9/11, we have taken the fight to these terrorists and extremists. We will stay on the offense, we will keep up the pressure, and we will deliver justice to our enemies. (Applause.)....

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20071101.html

....And I knew full well that if we were successful protecting the country that the lessons of September the 11th would become dimmer and dimmer in some people's minds. Well, I just don't have that luxury, and nor do the people that work with me to protect America, because we have not forgotten the lessons of September the 11th. And I expect, and the American people expect Congress to give us the tools necessary to protect them. ....

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0070123-2.html

...We know with certainty that the horrors of that September morning were just a glimpse of what the terrorists intend for us -- unless we stop them.....

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...060921-11.html

....The crisis constituted by the grave acts of terrorism and threats of terrorism committed by foreign terrorists, including the terrorist attacks in New York, in Pennsylvania, and against the Pentagon of September 11, 2001, and the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks on United States nationals or the United States that led to the declaration of a national emergency on September 23, 2001, has not been resolved. These actions pose a continuing unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States. For these reasons, I have determined that it is necessary to continue the national emergency declared with respect to persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism, and maintain in force the comprehensive sanctions to respond to this threat.

GEORGE W. BUSH

THE WHITE HOUSE,

September 21, 2006.....

The reason that "the faithful" still don't see the pathetic descent into "politics of fear", as that, and nothing more, and still do not see Reagan for what he was, an actor, reciting his lines in a highly manipulated, never ending PR campaign, is because they refuse to look:

Quote:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...+we+can&st=nyt
April 29, 1984
CAN THE MAGIC PREVAIL?
By STEVEN R. WEISMAN
Steven R. Weisman is chief White House correspondent for The Times.

AMERICANS LIKE HIM.

Amid the whir and clank of machinery at a Ford Motor Company assembly plant in Claycomo, Mo., a few weeks ago, even the men wearing ''Mondale'' baseball caps joined in cheering Ronald Reagan. In New York City, he told Jewish leaders some things they didn't want to hear about Israel. Then he grinned and wished his audience a joyful Pesach, and they responded with appreciative laughter and applause.

When a President runs for re-election, conventional wisdom holds that he runs on his record. Across the country, voters are surely sizing up Mr. Reagan's performance on the economy and foreign policy. But Presidents must also strike a personal chord and they must embody the dreams and values of the nation. ''You cannot be a successful President unless you can project a vision about the purpose of America,'' says Thomas E. Cronin, a leading scholar of the Presidency. And it is becoming clear that this year, to a degree unmatched in modern times, the public is being swayed by these intangibles. One of the most astonishing features of Mr. Reagan's political success is that, whether or not they agree with him and his policies, Americans like him.

As a candidate, President Reagan still benefits from the public's yearning for a take-charge leader after the succession of national traumas from Watergate to the Iran hostages. His political fortunes have been helped by the expanding economy and by the vitriolic Democratic primary campaign. Yet the White House's own political experts say that Mr. Reagan's greatest political asset is his ability to project himself as a man of conviction, genial self-confidence, optimism and old-fashioned values. It has enabled the President to weather countless political storms largely unscathed.

He has committed untold public bloopers and been caught in dozens of factual mistakes and misrepresentations. He has presided over the worst recession since the Great Depression. The abortive mission in Beirut cost 265 American lives, and there has been a sharp escalation in United States military involvement in Central America. An extraordinary number of Mr. Reagan's political appointees have come under fire, with many forced to resign, because of ethical or legal conflicts. Yet he is The Man in the Teflon Suit; nothing sticks to him.

Millions of voters do approve of Mr. Reagan's conservative policies, and millions more don't concern themselves about policy issues. That is to be expected. What is extraordinary is the President's support from another quarter. Opinion polls show that he wins substantial allegiance among those very people who worry about his record-breaking deficits, who fear that his actions could lead to war and who believe that his economic program has clobbered the poor.

Says Fred I. Greenstein, professor of politics at Princeton University: <h3>''He is more successful than any recent President in establishing space between himself and his policies.''</h3>

Clearly, the creation of that space has been a major goal of the Administration. Richard B. Wirthlin, the Reagan campaign polltaker, puts it in terms of a ''social contract'' between the President and the public - ''the giving of a stewardship to a President based upon trust, confidence and congruence with a system of beliefs, rather than a congruence with a set of articulated policies.'' Mr. Reagan's unmatched skills as a communicator of basic values have been applied to achieving that end.

It remains to be seen, of course, whether Mr. Reagan's magic will prevail in this election year. A series of foreign-policy setbacks might well tarnish his public image. He suffered a stunning defeat earlier this month when the Republican-controlled Senate overwhelmingly repudiated C.I.A. participation in the mining of Nicaraguan ports. A major disaster in Central America might turn the race around. And his popularity could be damaged if the economy turned sour.

Yet it seems evident that, given the success of his strategy to date, the political marketing of Mr. Reagan's personal qualities may change the nature of the 1984 campaign. To a degree unknown in recent elections, the challenger will have to meet the incumbent's personality head on, matching his style and countering his over-arching message with one of his own.

The Reagan approach may also have a more lasting effect. He has fashioned a new chemistry of image, message and personality - a Presidential persona - that could change the boundaries of the American Presidency itself.

IN HIS BOOK ''WHY NOT THE BEST?'' JIMMY Carter quotes a line from Reinhold Niebuhr that summarizes the former President's view of the world and of his trade: ''The sad duty of politics is to establish justice in a sinful world.''

Americans in this century have tended to elect Presidents who represented change rather than continuity. John F. Kennedy's youth and vigor were an antidote to the era of Dwight D. Eisenhower. Jimmy Carter, like Mr. Reagan, based his appeal on his persona, offering the nation integrity in the aftermath of Watergate. But the contrasts between Mr. Carter and his successor are particularly illuminating.

Mr. Carter bore the burdens of office like a cross. He identified personally with his Administration's traumas, and told Americans that there were no simple answers. The apotheosis of his martyr Presidency came with his refusal to set out on the campaign trail in 1980 because of the Iran hostage crisis. Clinging to the Rose Garden, he succeeded in turning the White House into a kind of prison.

He also regarded the mastery of the details of his job as crucial to his leadership. During the Middle East summit meeting at Camp David, he got down on hands and knees to study maps of the Sinai. He read volumes of Russian history before meeting with Leonid I. Brezhnev, the Soviet leader. He sought to educate Americans to nuances. Discerning a ''crisis of confidence'' over energy shortages, he consulted leading intellectuals on their view of the national malaise. He called on Americans to accept limits on future growth. On every count, Ronald Reagan's approach to the Presidency is dramatically different. Mr. Reagan positively enjoys the job, keeps his distance from crises, ignores details both as Chief Executive and Chief Communicator. No matter how grave things look, his attitude is invariably upbeat and reassuring. Some of the differences from Mr. Carter were inevitable, given the nature of the two men. More significantly, Mr. Reagan and his aides perceived the style of the Carter Administration as wrong-headed and doomed to fail. They had altogether new and different ideas about how to present the President to his people.

Every Administration for a generation has spent substantial time and energy seeking to make optimum use of television and the print media in the President's behalf. But as the candidate of the minority party and a President whose legislative plans represented a dramatic break with the past, Mr. Reagan had a special need. And because of the long history of Presidents driven from office or defeated for re-election, White House aides were also determined to use the media to strengthen the institution of the Presidency itself. To an unprecedented extent, Mr. Reagan and his staff have made television a major organizing principle of his Presidency. His day is planned around opportunities for TV coverage. Every effort is made to assure a constant flow of positive visual images and symbols from the White House.

In 1982, as unemployment soared and the President was accused of lacking compassion for those out of work, Mr. Reagan avoided appearing in public and before the TV camera in black tie. Instead, he showed up for events concerned with unemployed teen-agers, dock workers and others being trained for new jobs. When disaster strikes a community, Mr. Reagan doesn't stop at sending relief funds - he makes a detour, as he did to flooded-out Louisiana last year, to be photographed stacking sandbags. When a Presidential journey overseas is in the works, producers from the television networks accompany White House aides on the advance trips. The two groups jointly figure out the best photo angles of the President - staring into the demilitarized zone from South Korea, gazing grimly across the Berlin Wall. Plans for the President's trip to China were similarly television-tailored.

This Administration's exceptional ability to manipulate the media is impressive. One means of assuring that the cameras stay on the President, for example, is a White House policy that has Mr. Reagan himself making important announcements on television. For details and analysis, the news media are handed over to Treasury Secretary Donald T. Regan, Defense Secretary Caspar W. Weinberger or other top aides - <h3>but under ground rules whereby they may not be identified in news accounts. As a result, the only person who can be shown on the 7 o'clock news's coverage of such announcements is the President himself, offering broad, positive precepts.</h3>

Another goal is to keep Mr. Reagan's image as far from bad news and negative discussion as possible. Sometimes the President disappears altogether. <h3>The momentous announcement of the withdrawal of the Marines from Lebanon was made in a written statement distributed late in the day, minutes after Mr. Reagan had left for his ranch in California. There were no senior officials immediately available to the press to explain why the withdrawal was ordered.</h3>

The White House communications staff is nothing if not imaginative. Last year, former Interior Secretary James G. Watt stirred up a hornet's nest of rock-and-roll lovers after he ousted the Beach Boys from their July 4 concert on the Mall. Mr. Watt was summoned to the White House and handed a large plaster foot that had a bullet hole in it, a brilliant device for making light of the incident. Later, it was learned that David R. Gergen, director of communications at the time, had commissioned the making of the foot weeks before, with the thought that it would come in handy if someone in the Administration happened to make a gaffe.

A sense of timing showed up on a more serious topic last December when the White House learned that the Pentagon was about to release a report criticizing the Administration for alleged failures in the massacre of marines in Beirut. White House officials pre-empted the negative impact of the report by leaking Mr. Reagan's reaction to the charges the day before the report was made public.

THE MASTERY OF MEDIA TECHNIQUES HAS been placed in the service of a President with a remarkable approach to political discourse....

Mitt was a caricature of both of these phenomena, and his "performance" was too much, even for the faithful to take, and they have an amazingly high tolerance for this sort of thing.

guy44 · 02-10-2008, 12:43 PM

Not to continue the threadjacking, but I have to say that while Reagan was a pretty bad President, I'm not sure he really had all that much on Hoover. The guy's attitude towards the massive, soul-crushing Great Depression was to let the free market handle it. That's pretty bad, and America was never as bad off under Ronnie as it was under Hoover. Also, Nixon and Reagan could have a battle royale over which one was worse; I'm not sure who'd win.

But to get back to the original intent of this thread, I think Romney lost because he completely and utterly abandoned his strengths when he entered this race. Partially, I think, this is because he doesn't have an honest bone in his body - as I've seen it put, he thought the easiest way to win was as a hardcore conservative; if he though the best way to win was as a pirate, he would have run as a pirate.

But Romney is a brilliant businessman and technical manager who should have run on fiscal responsibility and being the only adult in the room. Instead he tried to run as the Mormon Pat Robertson, which was silly on its face. I'm not saying there weren't other important factors at play - the other candidates truly hated him, there's significant anti-Mormon sentiment amongst the GOP primary voters, etc. - but I think he might have pulled it out running as a socially moderate money manager.

Tully Mars · 02-10-2008, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guy44

Not to continue the threadjacking, but I have to say that while Reagan was a pretty bad President, I'm not sure he really had all that much on Hoover. The guy's attitude towards the massive, soul-crushing Great Depression was to let the free market handle it. That's pretty bad, and America was never as bad off under Ronnie as it was under Hoover. Also, Nixon and Reagan could have a battle royale over which one was worse; I'm not sure who'd win.

Hoover had problems, for sure. But I often wonder how many of those problems were past down to him from six years of Calvin Coolidge.

There's so many bad ones to choose from I wouldn't even know where to begin. Seems to me one of the main things that either makes a breaks a President in the eyes of history is the economy. I don't think that's going be kind to Bush Jr.

But you're right that's another debate and we should get back to the thread at hand.

Quote:

Originally Posted by guy44

But to get back to the original intent of this thread, I think Romney lost because he completely and utterly abandoned his strengths when he entered this race. Partially, I think, this is because he doesn't have an honest bone in his body - as I've seen it put, he thought the easiest way to win was as a hardcore conservative; if he though the best way to win was as a pirate, he would have run as a pirate.

Now that's funny. I can see him dressed up with a parrot and an eye patch as I type.

Quote:

Originally Posted by guy44

But Romney is a brilliant businessman and technical manager who should have run on fiscal responsibility and being the only adult in the room. Instead he tried to run as the Mormon Pat Robertson, which was silly on its face. I'm not saying there weren't other important factors at play - the other candidates truly hated him, there's significant anti-Mormon sentiment amongst the GOP primary voters, etc. - but I think he might have pulled it out running as a socially moderate money manager.

I'm not so sure he could run as a socially moderate money manager. I sincerely believe any major move he made had to be cleared through Salt Lake.

guy44 · 02-10-2008, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

I'm not so sure he could run as a socially moderate money manager. I sincerely believe any major move he made had to be cleared through Salt Lake.

I find that hard to believe. First of all, I can't help but see a little bit of "JFK will be run by the Vatican" in that kind of thinking. Also, even if Romney was taking orders from Salt Lake, I doubt the folks there thought they could micromanage his Presidential campaign. Empirically speaking, his father ran as a socially moderate, fiscally conservative Republican. Harry Reid is the Senate Majority Leader for the Democrats. And Mitt himself was his father's kind of politician while serving as Governor of Massachusetts. I don't know for sure, of course, whether running as the MBA candidate would work for him, but I think it might have.

Tully Mars · 02-11-2008, 04:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guy44

I find that hard to believe. First of all, I can't help but see a little bit of "JFK will be run by the Vatican" in that kind of thinking. Also, even if Romney was taking orders from Salt Lake, I doubt the folks there thought they could micromanage his Presidential campaign. Empirically speaking, his father ran as a socially moderate, fiscally conservative Republican. Harry Reid is the Senate Majority Leader for the Democrats. And Mitt himself was his father's kind of politician while serving as Governor of Massachusetts. I don't know for sure, of course, whether running as the MBA candidate would work for him, but I think it might have.

Well I base that comment on having worked with three LDS members and one ex LDS member. Two of the three told me any major decision in your life must be cleared by the church. I found that odd and asked "what do you mean by major?" "Moves, job changes stuff like that." Decisions by the church are something called "words of wisdom." Failing to follow these words will lead to your being shunned.

After knowing them and reading some article I think it's completely possible.

BTW the ex LDS member was pretty much thrown out of the church for wanting to divorce her husband who was molesting their daughter. Church said no, work it out. She filed anyway, they tossed her. The other two people I worked with, from what I saw, never spoke a word to her.

aceventura3 · 02-11-2008, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

So Mitt's out. Doesn't seem to me that the conservatives are all that happy with the choices left. Huckabee doesn't seem to have much traction and the Right Wing talking heads seem to hate McCain (not so sure that's not a mutual feeling?) Listening to the likes of Rush, Ingram, Hannity et el it seemed they were all but ordering their audience to vote for Mitt. Well that didn't happen, least not in numbers that made a difference. Wonder what others think were the causes of Mitt's demise.

I supported Huckabee from the time he announced. It seems to me that no one took him serious and wrote him off early. Of all the people on the republican party side, I felt he was the one candidate whose positions most closely matched mine and who seem to be the type of person who who always act according to his convictions.

Hence the problem I had with Mitt, and McCain. I think both of these men play the "political game" and their views will evolve to match the political need at the time. I tend to support people who have solid core beliefs.

I won't support McCain in the general election. I may vote for a third party candidate as I have done a few times in the past.

I have already accepted the real possibility of a Democratic President and Congress. I am already planning on getting "free" health care. Since I am getting older and not at retirement age, why not let some of you young healthy folks foot my bills.

loquitur · 02-11-2008, 02:23 PM

I guess I have real problems with people in public office making political decisions based on their religion. Especially in a country with separation of church and state. Huckabee seems like a nice guy, and he certainly is a good speaker, but he creeps me out.

host · 02-11-2008, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

.......I won't support McCain in the general election. I may vote for a third party candidate as I have done a few times in the past.

I have already accepted the real possibility of a Democratic President and Congress. I am already planning on getting "free" health care. Since I am getting older and not at retirement age, why not let some of you young healthy folks foot my bills.

ace, Huckabee claimed he went into politics to "bring Jesus Christ into government". How would you react if another candidate said he got into politics to bring some other deity into government?

The young healthy folks "foot your bills", now because the present, private insurer for profit system could not exist if it did not have a healthy base of premium payers who make no claims. A single payer system would be much fairer to those who are young and healthy, because now they subsidize the system and provide the profitability.

"The money" has to come from bringing taxes on the wealthiest one percent, back to an average of what they've been for the last fifty years. 50 years ago ace, income above the $400,000 annual thresh hold was taxed at 90 percent, and there was no $700 billion annual increase in the federal debt, as there will be this year.

Under the much more modest tax structure during the Clinton era, the annual federal debt increase reached a low of just $18 billion annually.

All of John and Cindy McCain's wealth and most of their income can be traced to the criminal enterprises described here:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...97#post2398297

.....how much should they, and hundreds of thousands of others living on "dirty money", be taxed, ace? Who do you think financed the campaigns that put the puppets in office who reduced the tax on income above $400,000 from 90 percent then, to below 40 percent now?

Tully Mars · 02-11-2008, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I have already accepted the real possibility of a Democratic President and Congress. I am already planning on getting "free" health care. Since I am getting older and not at retirement age, why not let some of you young healthy folks foot my bills.

Nothing's free, certainly nothing from the government. Anytime the US government gets involved we end up with $500 hammers and $1000 toilet seats. I can't wait to see what they do with health care. $1,000,000 MRI's... not the machine, each scan?

Well Iraq's a mess the economy's in the crapper what better time to punt. Let the other team have the ball for a few downs. If the Dems do win, which I still doubt, I await the constant stream of criticism from Fox News et el.

dc_dux · 02-11-2008, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

I guess I have real problems with people in public office making political decisions based on their religion. Especially in a country with separation of church and state. Huckabee seems like a nice guy, and he certainly is a good speaker, but he creeps me out.

I think this is the creepiest Huckabee story I've seen:

In March 1997, after a tornado ripped through Arkadelphia killing six people and destroying over 70 businesses downtown, Gov. Huckabee held up disaster funding for weeks because he objected to the insurance industry’s term for destruction-by-tornado: “act of God”:
Senate Bill 491 was so straightforward it ran to only two pages. It sought to protect tornado victims from insurance companies that might cancel policies after they filed claims. “No insurance policy or contract covering damages to property shall be canceled nor the renewal thereof denied solely as a result of claims arising from acts of God,” it read.

“Acts of God” had a long history in English maritime law and was standard language in many insurance policies…

According to state legislative records, Huckabee first registered his objection to the Senate bill five days after the tornado. But his staff did not relay his concerns, he later wrote.

“While I realize that to some this is a minor issue, it is a matter of deep conscience with me to attribute in law a destructive and deadly force as being an ‘act of God,’ ” he eventually wrote to the bill’s sponsors, [state Rep. Dennis R.] Young and Sen. Wayne Dowd. While acknowledging that “acts of God” was the “appropriate” legal term, he suggested the legislature substitute “natural disaster.”
Amazingly, Huckabee won this argument. After five alternative phrases for “acts of God” were rejected, the governor and the legislature came to terms on the phrase “natural causes.”

On April 4, three weeks after the town was nearly wiped off the map, Huckabee finally released the disaster relief funds.
http://www.pensitoreview.com/2008/01...ct-of-god-aid/

host · 02-11-2008, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

Nothing's free, certainly nothing from the government. Anytime the US government gets involved we end up with $500 hammers and $1000 toilet seats. I can't wait to see what they do with health care. $1,000,000 MRI's... not the machine, each scan?

Well Iraq's a mess the economy's in the crapper what better time to punt. Let the other team have the ball for a few down. If the Dems do win, which I still doubt, I await the constant stream of criticism from Fox News et el.

Tully, what do you think of people who vote for people to represent them in government, or to be president of the US, candidates who profess to have contempt for government and or no faith that it can work on behalf of the people?

If you vote for a man for president, who says and believes this:

Quote:

Quote Details: Ronald Reagan: The nine most terrifying... - The ...The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.' Ronald Reagan 40th president of US (1911 - 2004 ...
www.quotationspage.com/quote/33742.html

...or who appoints his campaign manager and then his campaign manager's former college roommate, a fired Arabian Horse Assoc. Judge to head FEMA, don't you think ideas like you expressed in your post will be self fulfilling, compared to say....in the following example?

Quote:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...54C0A965958260
THE MIDWEST FLOODING; In This Emergency, Agency Wins Praise for Its Response

By KEITH SCHNEIDER,
Published: July 20, 1993

The Mississippi River flooding is providing the first real test of Mr. Witt's ability to manage FEMA, a much-maligned agency during the last several years. So far, he is getting favorable reviews, and the agency's performance appears to be a political plus for President Clinton, Mr. Witt's longtime friend. But Mr. Witt warned that the toughest challenges could lie ahead...

..."What we are interested in is mitigation, in helping to prevent damage and disasters," said Mr. Witt, who ran the Arkansas Office of Emergency Services for over four years before President Clinton appointed him head of FEMA....

Tully Mars · 02-11-2008, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

I think this is the creepiest Huckabee story I've seen:

In March 1997, after a tornado ripped through Arkadelphia killing six people and destroying over 70 businesses downtown, Gov. Huckabee held up disaster funding for weeks because he objected to the insurance industry’s term for destruction-by-tornado: “act of God”:
Senate Bill 491 was so straightforward it ran to only two pages. It sought to protect tornado victims from insurance companies that might cancel policies after they filed claims. “No insurance policy or contract covering damages to property shall be canceled nor the renewal thereof denied solely as a result of claims arising from acts of God,” it read.

“Acts of God” had a long history in English maritime law and was standard language in many insurance policies…

According to state legislative records, Huckabee first registered his objection to the Senate bill five days after the tornado. But his staff did not relay his concerns, he later wrote.

“While I realize that to some this is a minor issue, it is a matter of deep conscience with me to attribute in law a destructive and deadly force as being an ‘act of God,’ ” he eventually wrote to the bill’s sponsors, [state Rep. Dennis R.] Young and Sen. Wayne Dowd. While acknowledging that “acts of God” was the “appropriate” legal term, he suggested the legislature substitute “natural disaster.”
Amazingly, Huckabee won this argument. After five alternative phrases for “acts of God” were rejected, the governor and the legislature came to terms on the phrase “natural causes.”

On April 4, three weeks after the town was nearly wiped off the map, Huckabee finally released the disaster relief funds.
http://www.pensitoreview.com/2008/01...ct-of-god-aid/

I always thought the right wing whacks were the first to blame disasters on a vengeful God. Isn't it Pat Robinson who's always blaming the gays et el for causing God to strike out in the form of "acts of God."

But as one of the posters, Big Dan, to the article you linked said:

I really think that the Nazi rightwing media is bashing Huckabee because he’s sincere about mixing church & state. All the Republicans lie about it just to appeal to their crazy evangelical right base, and here comes Huckabee who really means it! He doesn’t get it, that you’re supposed to lie about it! He’s the real deal! And the Republicans and their Nazi media know this, that’s why they’re bashing Huckabee, and only Huckabee! I really don’t think the Huckster is “in on it”, he’s serious!!!

Maybe Huck's just not in on the whole scheme.

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Tully, what do you think of people who vote for people to represent them in government, or to be president of the US, candidates who profess to have contempt for government and or no faith that it can work on behalf of the people?

I think all too often anymore the voters are left with a simply decision of the lesser of two evils... which I'm told is still evil.

aceventura3 · 02-11-2008, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

I guess I have real problems with people in public office making political decisions based on their religion. Especially in a country with separation of church and state. Huckabee seems like a nice guy, and he certainly is a good speaker, but he creeps me out.

I am not a religious person, but I do have core beliefs. For example: On the issue of life. When you look at Huckabee's Arkansas record he has shown he can govern, being respectful of others, being compassionate and staying true to his core beliefs. I recall him getting a lot of criticism over the fact that he supported the children of illegals being eligible for for scholarships if they graduated from the public school system. I agree with him on that issue. Some conservatives talk about about valuing life until it comes to issues like that. Either you value life and the American Dream or you don't. Children should always be given the benefit of opportunity in life.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

Nothing's free, certainly nothing from the government. Anytime the US government gets involved we end up with $500 hammers and $1000 toilet seats. I can't wait to see what they do with health care. $1,000,000 MRI's... not the machine, each scan?

Well Iraq's a mess the economy's in the crapper what better time to punt. Let the other team have the ball for a few downs. If the Dems do win, which I still doubt, I await the constant stream of criticism from Fox News et el.

Some people are net winners when it comes to "freebies" from the government, and others incur the cost. I think government, at least in theory, should be neutral. I do understand that in some cases through corporate welfare or other programs sometimes working class people pay the costs for rich people. In my view it is not a class issue but an issue of equal opportunity for all.

frogza · 02-14-2008, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

Well I base that comment on having worked with three LDS members and one ex LDS member. Two of the three told me any major decision in your life must be cleared by the church. I found that odd and asked "what do you mean by major?" "Moves, job changes stuff like that." Decisions by the church are something called "words of wisdom." Failing to follow these words will lead to your being shunned.

After knowing them and reading some article I think it's completely possible.

BTW the ex LDS member was pretty much thrown out of the church for wanting to divorce her husband who was molesting their daughter. Church said no, work it out. She filed anyway, they tossed her. The other two people I worked with, from what I saw, never spoke a word to her.

I would have to say you have been misinformed. The LDS church leaves decisions to it's members. Now if someone was considering a job as a hit man or prostitute or some other job that was in direct violation of one of the 10 commandments, then they would advise against it.

I am LDS and have moved over 45 times in my life, never once did I ask for permission or even advice. I never consulted with the church for my career, my marriage or any other major decision, and I am in very good standing with the church.

Also, the Word of Wisdom, is the commandment to not drink alcohol or smoke or use illegal drugs. We don't refer to the teachings of the church leaders as "Words of Wisdom", even when we think there is wisdom in what they say.

What you are describing with your friend that was "kicked out" that sounds like she either didn't give the whole story, or she was actually a member of one of the many break-offs from the LDS church, such as the FLDS. My mother has had two divorces and is in perfectly good standing with the church.

/thread jack

Tully Mars · 02-14-2008, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by frogza

I would have to say you have been misinformed. The LDS church leaves decisions to it's members. Now if someone was considering a job as a hit man or prostitute or some other job that was in direct violation of one of the 10 commandments, then they would advise against it.

If what you're saying is true, then yes I have been very misinformed. Very, very, very misinformed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by frogza

I am LDS and have moved over 45 times in my life, never once did I ask for permission or even advice. I never consulted with the church for my career, my marriage or any other major decision, and I am in very good standing with the church.

You've moved 45 times in your life? You must move very often.

You've never consulted the church or it's leaders in any of these major decisions in your life? That seems odd.

Quote:

Originally Posted by frogza

Also, the Word of Wisdom, is the commandment to not drink alcohol or smoke or use illegal drugs. We don't refer to the teachings of the church leaders as "Words of Wisdom", even when we think there is wisdom in what they say.

Maybe I'm not using the correct terminology?

Quote:

Originally Posted by frogza

What you are describing with your friend that was "kicked out" that sounds like she either didn't give the whole story, or she was actually a member of one of the many break-offs from the LDS church, such as the FLDS. My mother has had two divorces and is in perfectly good standing with the church.

I have no idea what FLDS is so I can't speak to that.

I believe the term she used was excommunicated and I'm certain the other co-workers in our office who were LDS members never spoke or interacted with her at all, least not in my presence. It was an extremely uncomfortable feeling within the office. I have no idea what happened prior. For all I know she burned down one of their churches. I only know her version, never discussed the issue with anyone but her. My feeling was she was deeply hurt by the situation.

She did point me in the direction of several web sites and books. I didn't spend a lot of time researching anything but what little I did look at didn't impress me even slightly. I found the church history bordered on shocking, least in my opinion.

In the work environment it was my impression, and my impression only, that she was much more honest then the current LDS members. For some reason it appeared to me they were all to willing, all too often, to take the "the end justifies the mean" mentality. Working in law enforcement and with the courts I didn't think much of these tactics.

Of course this is a very small sampling so who knows? For all I know none of them were LDS members, not like I followed any of them to church.

frogza · 02-14-2008, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

You've moved 45 times in your life? You must move very often.

You've never consulted the church or it's leaders in any of these major decisions in your life? That seems odd.

Yea, growing up I hated it. Finding new friends every 6 months on average is tough.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tully Mars

I have no idea what FLDS is so I can't speak to that.

FLDS stands for The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, they are a break off from the LDS church (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints). They practice a very strict version, mandating that people consult their leaders for major decisions, they practice shunning those who have been excommunicated, polygamy and more.

There are several other churches that use LDS in their name, each one using their own flavor of "Mormonism" Based on your description, the others were either A) Members of one of the other LDS churches or B) Poor followers of the LDS faith.

02-09-2008, 04:41 AM	#1 (permalink)
Tully Mars Living in a Warmer Insanity Super Moderator Location: Yucatan, Mexico	Why no Mitt? So Mitt's out. Doesn't seem to me that the conservatives are all that happy with the choices left. Huckabee doesn't seem to have much traction and the Right Wing talking heads seem to hate McCain (not so sure that's not a mutual feeling?) Listening to the likes of Rush, Ingram, Hannity et el it seemed they were all but ordering their audience to vote for Mitt. Well that didn't happen, least not in numbers that made a difference. Wonder what others think were the causes of Mitt's demise. __________________ I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

02-09-2008, 10:40 AM	#4 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	I like both Romney and McCain. The problem was that both were moderate conservatives. Everyone knew they were moderates, that's why they went so far early on. McCain is more left than Romney, so he had to try to push himself as the "true conservative". Everyone knew he wasn't really that far right, so he never gained much traction. Huckabee, if he ever got the nomination, would make Carter look like FD freaking R. __________________ "Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

02-10-2008, 12:43 PM	#25 (permalink)
guy44 Somnabulist Location: corner of No and Where	Not to continue the threadjacking, but I have to say that while Reagan was a pretty bad President, I'm not sure he really had all that much on Hoover. The guy's attitude towards the massive, soul-crushing Great Depression was to let the free market handle it. That's pretty bad, and America was never as bad off under Ronnie as it was under Hoover. Also, Nixon and Reagan could have a battle royale over which one was worse; I'm not sure who'd win. But to get back to the original intent of this thread, I think Romney lost because he completely and utterly abandoned his strengths when he entered this race. Partially, I think, this is because he doesn't have an honest bone in his body - as I've seen it put, he thought the easiest way to win was as a hardcore conservative; if he though the best way to win was as a pirate, he would have run as a pirate. But Romney is a brilliant businessman and technical manager who should have run on fiscal responsibility and being the only adult in the room. Instead he tried to run as the Mormon Pat Robertson, which was silly on its face. I'm not saying there weren't other important factors at play - the other candidates truly hated him, there's significant anti-Mormon sentiment amongst the GOP primary voters, etc. - but I think he might have pulled it out running as a socially moderate money manager. __________________ "You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

02-09-2008, 05:27 AM	#2 (permalink)
flstf Easy Rider Location: Moscow on the Ohio	I'm not sure if this has anything to do with it but Mitt has always seemed a little too slick and polished. My wife commented to me a few months ago that he reminded her of a salesmen trying to peddle something he really didn't believe in. For whatever reason he failed to inspire people and overcome his "used car salesman" demeanor.

02-09-2008, 09:28 AM	#3 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	I think the problem for Republicans this time around is that the politicians know they are not likely to win a Presidential election. Because of this anyone which would be a good candidate for the Republican party has decided to not risk tarnishing their image by losing the election. It is better for them to wait until the environment is less hostile toward them and try to win then.

02-09-2008, 10:46 AM	#5 (permalink)
Fotzlid Junkie Location: Greater Boston area	I was watching Leno last night and Brian Williams was one of the guests. He commented that the other candidates were giving Romney a hard time because they felt he hadn't "put his time in the trenches" like they had. All they saw was some rich guy from Michigan who got elected govenor of Massachusetts who thought he should be president.

02-09-2008, 05:02 PM	#11 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	Actually, I think Romney lost because people concluded he didn't have a genuine bone in his body and had all the sincerity of Joe Isuzu. Sure, he LOOKED like a president, but so do a lot of old time Hollywood actors.

02-09-2008, 06:45 PM	#13 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	Except that Reagan had some well-thought-out principles that he had been advocating for a couple of decades. Romney seemed to be nothing more than a pandering machine.

02-11-2008, 02:23 PM	#30 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	I guess I have real problems with people in public office making political decisions based on their religion. Especially in a country with separation of church and state. Huckabee seems like a nice guy, and he certainly is a good speaker, but he creeps me out.