Or alternatively titled, "who should have been president but never was?" People who you think should have been re-elected don't count, they were already President. Try and limit yourself to people who ran for the office, was a congressman, governor, or war hero. You know people who could have been plausible candidates.
I know fahdiz's choice. :lol:
William Jennings Bryan?
John C Calhoun would be a disaster, as would Thurmond. They are too sectional to manage the country.
Quote from: Lettow77 on March 31, 2011, 04:22:42 AM
Thurmond
I believe Tim's rules of engagement stated "people who could have been plausible candidates".
Alexander Haig
Al Gore
John McCain 2000
Henry "Scoop" Jackson
Honorable Mentions: Bob Dole '88, Mario Cuomo '92
:hmm:
I think RFK could have been a really great President, which is saying a lot coming from me considering how much I dislike the Kennedy clan.
Quote from: Caliga on March 31, 2011, 05:15:13 AM
:hmm:
I think RFK could have been a really great President, which is saying a lot coming from me considering how much I dislike the Kennedy clan.
I concur.
...and it probably would have happened if not for that crazy Arab. Oh wait, I mean the CIA. :)
Morgan Freeman ?
Martin Sheen ? :unsure:
Arnie, if only to see have seen all of those GOPtards do ballistic once he started enacting european communists policies.
Quote from: jamesww on March 31, 2011, 06:04:59 AM
Morgan Freeman ?
Martin Sheen ? :unsure:
Gregory Peck pwns them both.
Bob Dole.
Ben Franklin
Howard Baker.
Al Haig.
Mario Cuomo.
Off the top of my head.
Gary Hart
Barry Goldwater.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.chron.com%2Ftxpotomac%2FRoss%2520Perot%2520deficit.jpg&hash=8c8be1ca547ec22febaa495354cbda3b648f08e4)
This pie chart shows how much better things would have been if Ross Perot had won.
Victor Kiam.
Robert Taft
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 31, 2011, 06:09:25 AM
Quote from: jamesww on March 31, 2011, 06:04:59 AM
Morgan Freeman ?
Martin Sheen ? :unsure:
Gregory Peck pwns them both.
Good call, though Michael Gambon as LBJ trumps him.
Quote from: jamesww on March 31, 2011, 06:04:59 AM
Morgan Freeman ?
Martin Sheen ? :unsure:
Arnie, if only to see have seen all of those GOPtards do ballistic once he started enacting european communists policies.
You forgot: Bill Pullman.
"Today... we celebrate... OUR INDEPENDENCE!!!" :cry:
Quote from: Queequeg on March 31, 2011, 09:28:56 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 31, 2011, 07:28:47 AM
Barry Goldwater.
:D
YAY SEGREGATION!
:P He's a gay rights activist.
I concur with RFK. He would have been good.
I doubt there would have been much difference between an Al Gore Presidency and a GW Bush Presidency though. Instead of a failed SSA reform, we'd have had a failed environmental reform. Everything else would likely have been the same. Same wars. Maybe less international outrage over the wars due to the magic D.
William Seward instead of Grant would have been great.
If William Henry Harrison had actually been President for a significant amount of time, he'd have been a good one.
Wendell Wilkie was a civil rights activist before it was cool to be, and I think he'd have made a good President under different circumstances.
Having grown up in NY, I have to mention George Clinton. Not the funkadelic one, the other one.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 31, 2011, 10:50:14 AM
I concur with RFK. He would have been good.
Much better than his brother was, in fact. :)
I know I wouldn't have agreed with a lot of his policies, but he would potentially have been the best President in American history in terms of speech delivery. I don't know if you guys have ever seen the speech he gave when he found out Martin Luther King had been killed, but it was certainly the best and most moving American political speech I've ever seen, and I think compares favorably with any other great American political speech prior to television.
Hannibal Hamlin.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 31, 2011, 10:50:14 AM
I doubt there would have been much difference between an Al Gore Presidency and a GW Bush Presidency though. Instead of a failed SSA reform, we'd have had a failed environmental reform. Everything else would likely have been the same. Same wars. Maybe less international outrage over the wars due to the magic D.
I dunno, seems Iraq needed a fair amount of PR buildup before we went.
Also I think Wendell Wilkie would have done well.
:hmm:
I dunno if Dukakis would have turned out to be a good President, but I can confirm that he's a really nice guy who just seemed like a 'good' person. When I was working on my PhD he was teaching at Northeastern, and one of my friends had him as a thesis advisor (I think he was in the 'Urban Studies' department which was right next to ours). He used to come down and talk to us all the time about stuff. He was just "Mike", not "Michael Dukakis", "Prof. Dukakis", "Gov. Dukakis", or anything like that.
I also used to see him in Boston's back bay train station fairly often as I think he took Amtrak to NYC a lot for some reason. He didn't have a posse... just him and his suit bag. When I was an undergrad, a group of my friends were riding the subway once and he got on and sat down next to them, and initiated conversation and talked to them about the Red Sox or something the whole time.
Also, he was good friends with the CEO at BIDMC (he used to work with him fairly closely when the CEO ran the Boston Harbor cleanup project) and I encountered him a time or two in the CEO's office suite meeting Paul for lunch or whatever. He seemed to remember me from my NEU days.
One thing tho... he has a HUUUUGE head in proportion to the rest of him. He looks like an alien :o
Quote from: Caliga on March 31, 2011, 11:35:12 AM
One thing tho... he has a HUUUUGE head in proportion to the rest of him. He looks like an alien :o
Maybe that is genetic and explains why ancient Greeks were so smart.
Quote from: Caliga on March 31, 2011, 11:35:12 AM
:hmm:
I dunno if Dukakis would have turned out to be a good President, but I can confirm that he's a really nice guy who just seemed like a 'good' person. When I was working on my PhD he was teaching at Northeastern, and one of my friends had him as a thesis advisor (I think he was in the 'Urban Studies' department which was right next to ours). He used to come down and talk to us all the time about stuff. He was just "Mike", not "Michael Dukakis", "Prof. Dukakis", "Gov. Dukakis", or anything like that.
I also used to see him in Boston's back bay train station fairly often as I think he took Amtrak to NYC a lot for some reason. He didn't have a posse... just him and his suit bag. When I was an undergrad, a group of my friends were riding the subway once and he got on and sat down next to them, and initiated conversation and talked to them about the Red Sox or something the whole time.
Also, he was good friends with the CEO at BIDMC (he used to work with him fairly closely when the CEO ran the Boston Harbor cleanup project) and I encountered him a time or two in the CEO's office suite meeting Paul for lunch or whatever. He seemed to remember me from my NEU days.
One thing tho... he has a HUUUUGE head in proportion to the rest of him. He looks like an alien :o
Did he drive his little tank? :)
Quote from: The Brain on March 31, 2011, 11:55:56 AM
Did he drive his little tank? :)
Driving his tank with one hand while letting scary black men out of prison with the other.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 31, 2011, 10:50:14 AMI doubt there would have been much difference between an Al Gore Presidency and a GW Bush Presidency though. Instead of a failed SSA reform, we'd have had a failed environmental reform. Everything else would likely have been the same. Same wars. Maybe less international outrage over the wars due to the magic D.
I don't think Iraq would have happened. No Rumsfeld running the wars and I don't think you would have had the US reputation so damaged by torture. Not that Gore would have been good.
Quote from: The Brain on March 31, 2011, 11:55:56 AM
Did he drive his little tank? :)
:lol:
That and Willie Horton killed his campaign. :(
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 31, 2011, 12:43:54 PM
I don't think Iraq would have happened. No Rumsfeld running the wars and I don't think you would have had the US reputation so damaged by torture. Not that Gore would have been good.
I think Gore would have been better than Bush, but yeah not necessarily "good". For starters, he has all the charisma of a cord of firewood.
:angry:
Hillary Clinton
Quote from: Caliga on March 31, 2011, 12:56:54 PM
I think Gore would have been better than Bush, but yeah not necessarily "good". For starters, he has all the charisma of a cord of firewood.
Presidents who follow popular two term presidents in their own party tend to be weak (Taft, Hoover, Truman, Bush Sr.) That's not necessarily a bad thing, but Gore would probably would have been a one term president.
Quote from: Caliga on March 31, 2011, 11:35:12 AM
:hmm:
I dunno if Dukakis would have turned out to be a good President, but I can confirm that he's a really nice guy who just seemed like a 'good' person. When I was working on my PhD he was teaching at Northeastern, and one of my friends had him as a thesis advisor (I think he was in the 'Urban Studies' department which was right next to ours). He used to come down and talk to us all the time about stuff. He was just "Mike", not "Michael Dukakis", "Prof. Dukakis", "Gov. Dukakis", or anything like that.
I also used to see him in Boston's back bay train station fairly often as I think he took Amtrak to NYC a lot for some reason. He didn't have a posse... just him and his suit bag. When I was an undergrad, a group of my friends were riding the subway once and he got on and sat down next to them, and initiated conversation and talked to them about the Red Sox or something the whole time.
Also, he was good friends with the CEO at BIDMC (he used to work with him fairly closely when the CEO ran the Boston Harbor cleanup project) and I encountered him a time or two in the CEO's office suite meeting Paul for lunch or whatever. He seemed to remember me from my NEU days.
Which is why he failed; what was a decent, modest, non-egostical man doing thinking he could be a national politician.
Charles Hughes. :)
Quote from: Caliga on March 31, 2011, 11:35:12 AM
He used to come down and talk to us all the time about stuff. He was just "Mike", not "Michael Dukakis", "Prof. Dukakis", "Gov. Dukakis", or anything like that.
:x
I hate professors like that. Let's not pretend we're on the same level.
Eugene Debs.
Quote from: garbon on March 31, 2011, 01:32:21 PM
:x
I hate professors like that. Let's not pretend we're on the same level.
:huh:
Quote from: Caliga on March 31, 2011, 02:05:13 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 31, 2011, 01:32:21 PM
:x
I hate professors like that. Let's not pretend we're on the same level.
:huh:
Indeed.
I don't think the garbon persona would recognise the difference between real and fake.
Quote from: Caliga on March 31, 2011, 02:05:13 PM
Quote from: garbon on March 31, 2011, 01:32:21 PM
:x
I hate professors like that. Let's not pretend we're on the same level.
:huh:
Use of titles helps to make sure that people maintain appropriate behavior. I hated the over familiarity that some professors tried to foster by encouraging students to refer to them by their first name.
I understood what you were saying, but I guess I'd rather have a prof act like that, as opposed to "YOU WILL ADDRESS ME AS HERR DOKTOR PROFESSOR, MAGGOTS!" :sleep:
I never had one like that.
Quote from: jamesww on March 31, 2011, 02:07:16 PM
I don't think the garbon persona would recognise the difference between real and fake.
How could one put on airs without knowing the difference between real and fake? :huh:
Winfield Scott
Tom Dewey
RFK :yes:
Quote from: Caliga on March 31, 2011, 02:13:20 PM
I understood what you were saying, but I guess I'd rather have a prof act like that, as opposed to "YOU WILL ADDRESS ME AS HERR DOKTOR PROFESSOR, MAGGOTS!" :sleep:
Call me Mister Tibbs
Quote from: garbon on March 31, 2011, 02:15:26 PM
Quote from: jamesww on March 31, 2011, 02:07:16 PM
I don't think the garbon persona would recognise the difference between real and fake.
How could one put on airs without knowing the difference between real and fake? :huh:
You don't need to, as your shtick doesn't actually work. ;)
Are you sure you aren't talking about yours?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 31, 2011, 10:50:14 AMI doubt there would have been much difference between an Al Gore Presidency and a GW Bush Presidency though. Instead of a failed SSA reform, we'd have had a failed environmental reform. Everything else would likely have been the same. Same wars. Maybe less international outrage over the wars due to the magic D.
Wrong.
I think you forget Al Gore's intensely populist rhetoric against Wall Street and corporations that was such a centerpiece of his campaign which turned so many people off at the tail end of the dot-com surge...but nobody wanted to hear his fair warning, because nobody likes a Debbie Downer.
And no 2001 outrageously bullshit tax cuts and other revenue stream cut-offs that were such important initial ingredients to the fiscal shit soup we're in now.
Oh no, things would've very much not have been the same.
*cue Hansy's ZOMG GORE WOOD'VE SURRENEDERD TO AL QAEDA schtick*
QuoteWilliam Seward instead of Grant would have been great.
You gotta be shitting me.
If defining a shtick as working if it's believable than both of yours do. :mellow:
How much freedom of action would Goldwater (or Gore, for that matter) really have had? Didn't they both have an intensely hostile Congress to deal with?
Quote from: Neil on March 31, 2011, 06:49:23 PM
How much freedom of action would Goldwater (or Gore, for that matter) really have had? Didn't they both have an intensely hostile Congress to deal with?
Yes. Seedy is right about the tax cuts though. I hadn't thought of that. Gore could have vetoed them.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 31, 2011, 06:42:46 PM
And no 2001 outrageously bullshit tax cuts and other revenue stream cut-offs that were such important initial ingredients to the fiscal shit soup we're in now.
This is true.
Joshua Chamberlain - War Hero, Governor, Professor of theology and linguistics. Knew at least 7 languages. Would have protected civil rights like Grant, but would have run a more competent and much less corrupt administration.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 31, 2011, 06:54:04 PM
Quote from: Neil on March 31, 2011, 06:49:23 PM
How much freedom of action would Goldwater (or Gore, for that matter) really have had? Didn't they both have an intensely hostile Congress to deal with?
Yes. Seedy is right about the tax cuts though. I hadn't thought of that. Gore could have vetoed them.
Gore favored some tax cuts. Just not as extensive as Bush's.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 01, 2011, 06:13:35 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 31, 2011, 06:54:04 PM
Quote from: Neil on March 31, 2011, 06:49:23 PM
How much freedom of action would Goldwater (or Gore, for that matter) really have had? Didn't they both have an intensely hostile Congress to deal with?
Yes. Seedy is right about the tax cuts though. I hadn't thought of that. Gore could have vetoed them.
Gore favored some tax cuts. Just not as extensive as Bush's.
For the middle class. Not for the obscenely wealthy and megacorporations.
Gore would have put my money into a lockbox. :mad:
Quote from: Caliga on April 01, 2011, 06:50:08 AM
Gore would have put my money into a lockbox. :mad:
I'm sure you enjoyed watching it proxied to worthless derivatives packages by your Wall Street masters instead.
I had no idea that was going on. :)
Quote from: Caliga on April 01, 2011, 06:55:26 AM
I had no idea that was going on. :)
And that's just the way your GOP wants it. Sucker.
I've never once voted Republican, you know. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Caliga on March 31, 2011, 02:13:20 PM
I understood what you were saying, but I guess I'd rather have a prof act like that, as opposed to "YOU WILL ADDRESS ME AS HERR DOKTOR PROFESSOR, MAGGOTS!" :sleep:
The teachers in my first uni were very laid back, and almost all were treated by their first names by the students. Some of them, in field trips, would join students when boozing, and in some ocasions drink them under the table.
Then again I studied science, which is a field way looser with formalities than business or law, and most of my teachers there were rather young.
Quote from: Caliga on April 01, 2011, 06:57:54 AM
I've never once voted Republican, you know. :rolleyes:
Not even for Rand Paul? :o
Oh whoops, I forgot I voted for him. :blush:
But I've never voted GOP for President. :cool:
Once I even voted for..... *drum roll* ...Ted Kennedy. :ph34r:
Quote from: Caliga on April 01, 2011, 06:57:54 AM
I've never once voted Republican, you know. :rolleyes:
:huh: Really? For some reason I always thought you were evil.
I usually vote Libertarian and, when I don't do that, Democrat. I won't vote for candidates that talk about GAWD and JAYSUS nonstop, or bash gays to win political points with slackjaws. :)
I'm the evil one.
'92 -Bush
'96 -Dole
'00- Bush
'04- Bush
'08 is a secret.
'96 Clinton :wub:
'00 Gore
'04 Badnarik
'08 Barr
:cool:
Quote from: Caliga on April 01, 2011, 07:27:40 AM
I usually vote Libertarian and, when I don't do that, Democrat. I won't vote for candidates that talk about GAWD and JAYSUS nonstop, or bash gays to win political points with slackjaws. :)
Oh, I see. You're not evil, just insane. :hug:
I am: True Neutral. *ohmmmmmmmm*
Quote from: Caliga on April 01, 2011, 07:29:20 AM
'96 Clinton :wub:
'00 Gore
'04 Badnarik
'08 Barr
:cool:
Barr? :lol:
Shine on you crazy diamond.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 01, 2011, 07:28:11 AM
'08 is a secret.
In my family, '08 was a weird one. My mom is a staunch Republican, my dad is a staunch Democrat. However, my mom voted for Obama because of Palin, and my dad voted for McCain because Obama was black (I'm not editorializing).
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 01, 2011, 07:34:44 AM
Barr? :lol:
Shine on you crazy diamond.
I'm not the only person around here who voted for Barr. :shifty:
Quote from: DGuller on April 01, 2011, 07:35:11 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 01, 2011, 07:28:11 AM
'08 is a secret.
In my family, '08 was a weird one. My mom is a staunch Republican, my dad is a staunch Democrat. However, my mom voted for Obama because of Palin, and my dad voted for McCain because Obama was black (I'm not editorializing).
For me, I like Bombs Away McCain and loathe Palin. I'm ambivalent about Barack at best, but just love Joe 'F-Bomb' Biden.
BOMB-BOMB BOMB
BOMB-BOMB IRAN :wub:
Quote from: Caliga on April 01, 2011, 08:01:48 AM
BOMB-BOMB BOMB
BOMB-BOMB IRAN :wub:
We owe them for '79. Kill 'em all.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 01, 2011, 07:28:11 AM
I'm the evil one.
'92 -Bush
'96 -Dole
'00- Bush
'04- Bush
'08 is a secret.
'92 Clinton
'96 Clinton
'00 McCain
'04 Plead the 5th
'08 Obama
Quote from: katmai on April 01, 2011, 08:07:13 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 01, 2011, 07:28:11 AM
I'm the evil one.
'92 -Bush
'96 -Dole
'00- Bush
'04- Bush
'08 is a secret.
'92 Clinton
'96 Clinton
'00 McCain
'04 Plead the 5th
'08 Obama
You voted Libertarian in '04, didn't you? CONFESS!
Worse...Nader.
Quote from: katmai on April 01, 2011, 08:13:25 AM
Worse...Nader.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fresources2.news.com.au%2Fimages%2F2009%2F02%2F02%2Fva1237352982858%2FHitler-walk-a-Reich-shock-6468443.jpg&hash=0a9f71426af60b072d7702c6fbda435c1960504a)
WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS SHIT?
The world was a different place man, you wouldn't understand if you weren't there!
Quote from: katmai on April 01, 2011, 08:18:14 AM
The world was a different place man, you wouldn't understand if you weren't there!
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.titaniumteddybear.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F11%2Fgoofy-son-i-am-disappoint.jpg&hash=2264a9442792c17e044fa7c9427fe07814334b84)
Quote from: katmai on April 01, 2011, 08:07:13 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 01, 2011, 07:28:11 AM
I'm the evil one.
'92 -Bush
'96 -Dole
'00- Bush
'04- Bush
'08 is a secret.
'92 Clinton
'96 Clinton
'00 McCain
'04 Plead the 5th
'08 Obama
'08 McCain
Quote from: Caliga on April 01, 2011, 07:29:20 AM
'96 Clinton :wub:
'00 Gore
'04 Badnarik
'08 Barr
'96 Dole
'00 Whomever the Libertarian dude was. I was pissed at how Bush destroyed McCain.
'04 Kerry
'08 Obama
But the last two were just silly votes because:
1. I realized that the Presidential election would never be competitive in Texas
2. It pleases me for some reason to have Travis County be an island of nutty leftism in a sea of nutty religious conservatives.
Civic pride requires they hate us. If I thought there was more than a snowball's chance in hell that anybody but the Republicans could win Texas I might have voted differently.
Can't believe anyone forgot Hannibal Hamlin in '65. Shameful. :cry:
Quote from: Caliga on April 01, 2011, 07:37:07 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 01, 2011, 07:34:44 AM
Barr? :lol:
Shine on you crazy diamond.
I'm not the only person around here who voted for Barr. :shifty:
:yes:
'04 Bush
'08 Barr
Was Barr your rep in Congress, Habby?
I thought Bob Barr was black for the longest time.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 01, 2011, 10:21:15 AM
I thought Bob Barr was black for the longest time.
For the longest time I thought he was Roseanne's son. :)
'04 Kerry :x
'08 Obama
I'd be willing to vote Republican if their candidates were tolerable.
Would've wrote-in for McCain in 2000 if I was old enough to vote, and I'd vote for Huntsman in 2012 if he had a chance in hell of ever getting the nomination.
Quote from: Caliga on April 01, 2011, 10:22:32 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 01, 2011, 10:21:15 AM
I thought Bob Barr was black for the longest time.
For the longest time I thought he was Roseanne's son. :)
Googling Bob Barr Black indicates I'm not the only one.
Quote from: Caliga on March 31, 2011, 05:15:13 AM
:hmm:
I think RFK could have been a really great President, which is saying a lot coming from me considering how much I dislike the Kennedy clan.
I agree with this.
Quote from: Drakken on April 01, 2011, 09:47:57 AM
Can't believe anyone forgot Hannibal Hamlin in '65. Shameful. :cry:
I mentioned him.
I don't really get all the RFK love.
He was really smart, an excellent speaker, genuinely compassionate, loved the blacks, and put lots of Italians in jail. :wub:
Also he was supposedly an excellent behind-the-scenes negotiator (hence "Thank God for Bobby" coming from JFK following the Cuban Missile Crisis).
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 01, 2011, 12:00:37 PM
I don't really get all the RFK love.
Me, either. I don't think he would have made a great president.
What about Nelson Rockefeller instead of Teflon Brain?
Quote from: Habbaku on April 01, 2011, 12:12:17 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 01, 2011, 12:00:37 PM
I don't really get all the RFK love.
Me, either. I don't think he would have made a great president.
Well not with that "D" next to his name.
Quote from: Norgy on April 01, 2011, 12:13:47 PM
What about Nelson Rockefeller instead of Teflon Brain?
:thumbsdown:
Everyone loves to rave about liberal Republicans to make a point about the current breed, but they forget that liberal Republicans often led their cities or states into bankruptcy.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 01, 2011, 12:16:37 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on April 01, 2011, 12:12:17 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 01, 2011, 12:00:37 PM
I don't really get all the RFK love.
Me, either. I don't think he would have made a great president.
Well not with that "D" next to his name.
The kennedy's are an overrated bunch.
Truman now, there was a Democrat president.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 01, 2011, 12:16:37 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on April 01, 2011, 12:12:17 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 01, 2011, 12:00:37 PM
I don't really get all the RFK love.
Me, either. I don't think he would have made a great president.
Well not with that "D" next to his name.
Your hackery is showing.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 01, 2011, 12:21:24 PM
Truman now, there was a Democrat president.
He was a gracious loser too. :)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi13.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa299%2FSlayhem%2Ftruman.jpg&hash=123cc8b9e3e3b20cbe57c6b61329738afa076593)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 01, 2011, 12:18:08 PM
:thumbsdown:
Everyone loves to rave about liberal Republicans to make a point about the current breed, but they forget that liberal Republicans often led their cities or states into bankruptcy.
Unlike the whole union.
Meh, I have no love for "liberal" Republicans or any other Republican. It just seems to me that Reagan made them even worse.
No mention for Henry Clay?
Quote from: Norgy on April 01, 2011, 12:24:01 PM
It just seems to me that Reagan made them even worse.
To a degree, he certainly did. He gave them the rhetoric of balanced budgets and smaller government with none of the follow-through that they've been running on for the last 20 years.
Quote from: Habbaku on April 01, 2011, 12:25:46 PM
To a degree, he certainly did. He gave them the rhetoric of balanced budgets and smaller government with none of the follow-through that they've been running on for the last 20 years.
That's one point I can certainly see.
One could of course argue that his administration spent the Soviet Union to death and that the ambitious, costly and ultimately quite useless (in terms of their actual implementation) projects convinced Soviet leadership that their system was doomed.
On the other hand, (and correct me if I am completely off target here) I understand Reagan built much of his support within the party on the Moral Majority and the Christian Right and moved the Republicans towards a more social conservative agenda, thus alienating quite a few voters (including a lot of Languishtas).
It seems as if this agenda has become an important rallying point ever since in order to get nominated.
You are correct, Norg.
Chauncey Gardner :contract:
Quote from: Norgy on April 01, 2011, 12:32:59 PM
On the other hand, (and correct me if I am completely off target here) I understand Reagan built much of his support within the party on the Moral Majority and the Christian Right and moved the Republicans towards a more social conservative agenda, thus alienating quite a few voters (including a lot of Languishtas).
This may be more an issue of characterization than of analysis, but my impression is that Reagan built up his power more through appeal to the nationalistic/patriotic/jingoistic/assertive (choose whichever one you like) parts of the American psyche than by pandering to the religious right. In contrast to the defeatist self-loathing policies of Carter. Massive defense spending. Evil empire. Shoot the shit out of Cuban construction workers. Remember Carter was all about the Jesus too.
I can't think of any major legislation he signed that was particularly social conservative in nature (though Marty might be quick to jump in with his horribly homophobic policies on AIDS).
Reagan wasn't socially conservative, he was just old enough that some of his mainstream views were outdated.
You're partly right I think. There wasn't much in the way of actual social conservative policy enacted. It was during that time that the US religious community began to self-identify with the GOP. Before that, they were not all that partisan. It wasn't a coincidence. The GOP worked them into it. Even though they didn't actually do much for them in the way of tangible policy activity. So, they got played.
There wasn't any. For Reagan it was all lip service in order to get their votes. Religious right dudes are really dumb like that. You just have to say you're born again and pay them basic lip service, and they throw their votes at you. All you have to do is not support any pro-gay or pro-abortion legislation.
The left is harder to pander to: you have to both pay them lip service AND actually give them handouts. :(
Well, one of the cornerstones of the Democratic party was fierce, unrelenting defense of Roe v Wade, so it's not like social conservatives had any where else to go.
Quote from: Habbaku on April 01, 2011, 12:12:17 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 01, 2011, 12:00:37 PM
I don't really get all the RFK love.
Me, either. I don't think he would have made a great president.
I mainly feel he had the tough mindedness and leadership that would have made a good President. I think he had enough of that, at a difficult time in US history (civil rights issues, Vietnam, etc) that he could have moved the country in a more positive direction.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 01, 2011, 12:24:35 PM
No mention for Henry Clay?
His crooked bargain can never be forgiven :angry:
Well ok I did think of he and Webster but figured I should stick to the 20th century.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 01, 2011, 12:43:20 PM
This may be more an issue of characterization than of analysis, but my impression is that Reagan built up his power more through appeal to the nationalistic/patriotic/jingoistic/assertive (choose whichever one you like) parts of the American psyche than by pandering to the religious right. In contrast to the defeatist self-loathing policies of Carter. Massive defense spending. Evil empire. Shoot the shit out of Cuban construction workers. Remember Carter was all about the Jesus too.
I am sure Reagan would never have been elected twice without a positive message. And I think that's basically his greatest legacy. Ignore the negatives, focus on the greater visions. And that's not meant as negative criticism. Sure, it's easy to get the protest vote, but that will only get you that far. To stay in office, you need The Great Message.
I actually see a lot of the same trickery from Obama, in his speeches and especially his campaign.
As far as I understand, Reagan rather built on Carter/Russophobic Polack's policies and expanded them when it comes to defence and anti-Evil Empire policies.
Quote from: Norgy on April 01, 2011, 03:06:12 PM
As far as I understand, Reagan rather built on Carter/Russophobic Polack's policies and expanded them when it comes to defence and anti-Evil Empire policies.
It's undisputable that Carter started out the defense build-up. It's a little more debateable in my mind if Grenada, Pershing IIs, and "tear down this wall" were a direct continuation of boycotting the Moscow Olympics.
Quote from: Caliga on April 01, 2011, 06:57:54 AM
I've never once voted Republican, you know. :rolleyes:
I've never actually voted for the Democratic nominee in a Presidential election (though I have in other elections). I might have voted for Clinton in '92--I was undecided, but then Clinton gave a speach in which he said to ask yourself if you were better off than you were in '88. Well, I was better off than I had been so years earlier, so I figured if that's what he wanted me to vote based on, I should take his advice and vote for Bush. I would have voted for Tsongas, had he been the nominee (I voted for him in the primary).
Quote from: NorgyWhat about Nelson Rockefeller instead of Teflon Brain?
Doesn't exactly meet the plausibility test, since Nelson Rockefeller was dead before Reagan was elected. (I assume that you mean Reagan by "Teflon Brain", and not Nixon. Though Rockefeller as well as Reagan did challange Nixon for the Republican nomination in'68).
Quote from: dps on April 02, 2011, 06:59:29 PM
I would have voted for Tsongas, had he been the nominee (I voted for him in the primary).
I wrote in Tsongas that general. Then the dude croaks like three weeks later. :lol:
Tsongas had no chance. A candidate who promised to take the Federal Deficit seriously.
Quote from: Valmy on April 03, 2011, 12:22:49 AM
Tsongas had no chance. A candidate who promised to take the Federal Deficit seriously.
Which was why I voted for him.
Time to shake things up and break the rules. Who should have re-elected/elected again but wasn't?
Teddy shouldn't have run his mouth about not running in '08 after his win in '04. He would have won another landslide. Teddy 1901-1913!
Poppy Bush.
Nixon.
Gerald Ford.
Al Gore.
Quote from: Habbaku on April 03, 2011, 09:03:25 PM
Al Gore.
Really? Gore always struck me as something of an empty suit.
Quote from: Neil on April 03, 2011, 09:19:00 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on April 03, 2011, 09:03:25 PM
Al Gore.
Really? Gore always struck me as something of an empty suit.
I'm willing to take my chances when compared to 8 years of Bush.
Bill Clinton
Quote from: Habbaku on April 03, 2011, 10:05:21 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 03, 2011, 09:19:00 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on April 03, 2011, 09:03:25 PM
Al Gore.
Really? Gore always struck me as something of an empty suit.
I'm willing to take my chances when compared to 8 years of Bush.
Bush wasn't really so bad.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 01, 2011, 03:21:31 PM
Quote from: Norgy on April 01, 2011, 03:06:12 PM
As far as I understand, Reagan rather built on Carter/Russophobic Polack's policies and expanded them when it comes to defence and anti-Evil Empire policies.
It's undisputable that Carter started out the defense build-up. It's a little more debateable in my mind if Grenada, Pershing IIs, and "tear down this wall" were a direct continuation of boycotting the Moscow Olympics.
But of course an important aspect of Reagan's USSR policy was recognising, in Thatcher's words, that Gorbachev is a 'man we can do business with'. Lots of conservatives did not think that the Soviet system could ever produce a genuine reformer, Nixon for example, but Reagan recognised one and that was crucial.
Quote from: Neil on April 04, 2011, 07:54:48 AM
Quote from: Habbaku on April 03, 2011, 10:05:21 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 03, 2011, 09:19:00 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on April 03, 2011, 09:03:25 PM
Al Gore.
Really? Gore always struck me as something of an empty suit.
I'm willing to take my chances when compared to 8 years of Bush.
Bush wasn't really so bad.
Easy for a foreigner to say, Tomasinus.
Barely.
Who the fuck are you?
New :hmm:
That's not what your title says. :contract:
Long-time Lurker
I made an account a while back and forgot about it. :D
Quote from: Zeus on April 04, 2011, 10:17:20 PM
New :hmm:
Rhymes with Mew. We know who you are now.
Obama.
Quote from: Zeus on April 04, 2011, 10:14:59 PM
Barely.
Not at all. Sure, you've allowed your leaders to sell you on a path that has raised selfishness and short-sightedness to an art form using the excuse that America is the greatest and so you should have everything without having to pay for it, and at this point there's no chance of that ever changing. Still, you all should muddle on at least for the next half-century or so.
Quote from: Neil on April 05, 2011, 07:55:43 AM
Not at all. Sure, you've allowed your leaders to sell you on a path that has raised selfishness and short-sightedness to an art form using the excuse that America is the greatest and so you should have everything without having to pay for it, and at this point there's no chance of that ever changing. Still, you all should muddle on at least for the next half-century or so.
Sounds like every other democracy. :hmm: