Political Thread

[indianasmith]

Conrad Black wrote a magnificent biography of Nixon about 5 years ago.  It is a surprisingly good read.
Did you know that he is the only person, besides FDR, to be nominated for national office FIVE times?



As far as the EPA goes - I think a very good case could be made for streamlining and reforming it, but doing away with it would be pretty stupid.  One mistake has been to cast this as a debate between regulation and deregulations, when I think a better way to frame it would be a battle between sensible regulation and suffocating over-regulation!

[lester1/2jr]

strongly disagree 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_Shock

http://www.econreview.com/events/wageprice1971b.htm

"Nixon (which include the Ford years) 1970-1977
The Nixon years saw non-defense government employees rise from 960,000 in Johnson's last year to 1,173,000 in 1977. Nixon (and Ford) have responsibility for an increase of 213,000 employees."


"Nixon 1970-1977
During the Nixon (and Ford) years the growth rate of total Federal spending was 6.54%, 7.42%, 9.76%, 6.51%, 9.67%, 23.38%, 11.87% and 10.07%, respectively. Those eight years average a growth rate of 11.73%."

http://sideshow.me.uk/annex/JustForTheRecord.htm

[Jim H]

I don't think Ron Paul has a great chance if Obama does a good job of putting out some of his stances.  He could just mention how Paul wants to completely deregulate banks (framed with what deregulation, arguably anyways, helped cause), desire to make abortion illegal, repeal birthright citizenship, and opposition to sexual harassment statutes and Paul would get nothing from left leaners and lose a lot of the moderates.  That alone would make him unelectable, actually, in my estimation.  I don't think the "anything but Obama" crowd will turn out to be 100% that way come election season either.

Just how I see it.

[indianasmith]

Lester - for the record, you oppose any and all Federal growth, from what you've posted on here earlier, and didn't you once say that America hasn't had a single good President since George Washington?

I get the feeling no candidate will EVER make you happy unless he proposes to disband 90% of the Government and institute mass executions of Federal employees . . . .

Jim - you raise exactly the point that concerns me about Ron Paul.  Many of his positions sound very reasonable until you look at what they would entail.  I'm not going to say that some of his proposals might not actually be good for the country, but they are too easy for his enemies to pick apart and beat him  over the head with.

[RCMerchant]

[lester1/2jr]

indiana- there are gradations of terrible and Nixon was pretty far down there.

[HappyGilmore]

I love Ron Paul. He's running as Republican, I believe, but fits in with my Libertarian beliefs. Only thing I can see losing him supporters is his foreign policies.

[RCMerchant]

indiana- there are gradations of terrible and Nixon was pretty far down there.

I gotta agree there. Nixon and Bush Jr. Jr maybe the worst ever. What a moron.

[indianasmith]

Nixon has been demonized and vilified by three consecutive generations of American intellectuals and liberals.  He was a man of great personal flaws and remarkable achievements both.  The old college textbook THE AMERICAN PAGEANT summed him up very neatly, I think:

"Few Presidents had flown so high.  None had sunk so low."


As for W - the jury is still out.  It will be 20 years before there is any kind of real perspective on his term of office.  That being said, I doubt he will rate as terribly as his contemporary detractors seem to think.

[Flick James]

Nixon has been demonized and vilified by three consecutive generations of American intellectuals and liberals.  He was a man of great personal flaws and remarkable achievements both.  The old college textbook THE AMERICAN PAGEANT summed him up very neatly, I think:

"Few Presidents had flown so high.  None had sunk so low."


As for W - the jury is still out.  It will be 20 years before there is any kind of real perspective on his term of office.  That being said, I doubt he will rate as terribly as his contemporary detractors seem to think.

W's perception will be linked inextricably to perception of his war efforts. Think of how much LBJ did that was non war-related. Regardless of what one thinks of his domestic policies, he was one of the most active president of the 20th Century. How often does he get associated with any of it? His name will forever be associated with the escalation of the Vietnam Conflict.

[lester1/2jr]

I dont have to wait 20 years bush was horrible. 80-2000 were good years. We stayed out of prolonged conflicts and the government didn't spy on people or anything or overreach in general. Reagan had iran Contra and Clinton had the Lewinsky shenangins but they were both otherwise responsible self made men with decent judgement.  What they didnt see coming were the ramifications of Greenspans inflation heavy monetary style and the neoconservatives foreign policy ie getting in the face of the muslims. these would come back to haunt us with the huosing bubble and 9/11 respectively. So they were good times but it was destined to be a short time.

[Allhallowsday]

I agree with much of what RON PAUL has espoused.  However, I think he's described global warming as a "hoax".  I think that is irresponsible and troubling for many reasons.  His isolationism is appealing, but ultimately old-fashioned and naive. 

[bob]

indiana- there are gradations of terrible and Nixon was pretty far down there.

I gotta agree there. Nixon and Bush Jr. Jr maybe the worst ever. What a moron.

what do you mean maybe, W is thee worst ever

[ulthar]

what do you mean maybe, W is thee worst ever

Really, the worst ever?

You guys are sweeping a lot of American History under the rug.  Taft comes to mind as a good historical metric for "bad President."

Make no mistake...I'm not a Bush apologist.  I agree with some of what he did in office, but vehemently oppose a lot of other stuff he did.  His presidency, at best, could be described as an ideological contradiction.

On the topic the of the 2012 election, my 9 year old daughter asked me tonight if I thought Obama would be reelected.  I told her "I think so."  I just don't see the Republicans putting up the candidate to beat him.

This is 1996 again...sort of.  Sorry, I'm not adding much as I think it's been said in the thread earlier.

[indianasmith]

Bob's reaction is exactly what I am talking about.

Political passions get so hot that people automatically assume that whoever they don't like, or passionately disagree with, must be the "worst ever."  And some Presidents who were popular during their lifetime have been dismissed as absolute failures, while Harry S Truman, who left office with an approval rating around 30%, is ranked as one of the truly great Presidents of the 20th Century.

Personally, I think Obama is the worst President since Jimmy Carter, whom history has already judged to have been a dismal failure in office.  Obama may be even worse.  But that is MY opinion, and may or may not reflect the judgement of history.  On the other hand, I thought Bush overall was an above average President - and frankly, since I think that Islamic extremisim is the greatest threat the free world has faced since the Nazis, I think he showed some courage in facing it.  I just wish he had articulated better what we were fighting for, and against.

All that being said, it's gonna be a fascinating election year.  Our process is slow, expensive, and crazy, but it is also tremendously entertaining.  As one book I read on thee Presidency put it: "the Founding Fathers invented a glorious game."