If you're not interested, move on.
I very much want Obama to be defeated in the next presidential election. If you don't, or are an Obama supporter, I promise, you will receive no flaming from me in this thread, as that is not my intent. This is simply my current observation of the Republican race.
I am not Republican, but I recently registered as one so I can vote for Ron Paul in the primaries. Based on what I've seen of the Republican race, I see Ron Paul, who is likely not to get the nomination sadly, as the only one that can surely defeat Obama in the main race. Most of the other candidates may be front-runners ahead of Paul amongst Republicans, but there are factors that make me believe that Paul might actually do better in a general presidential election. Here are some of the factors I consider:
One, he is very smart. His answers to questions are usually sharp and well-measured.
Two, he is well-respected. He may not be the Republican favorite, but he is generally well-respected, even by many Democrats, for his experience, integrity, and smarts. He is one of the few Republicans who can appear with Bill Maher or John Stewart and be treated with the same respect as liberal guests. Yet, he is stauchly pro-capitalist. If he won the nomination, he would certainly steal some liberal votes that would have gone to Obama, get the lion's share of the moderate vote, and of course, he's going to get EVERY Republican vote.
Three, he is virtually immune to scandal. He has always had a very "my life is an open book" posture. He has nothing to hide. You won't see any scandals, at least none that anybody will take seriously, about Ron Paul.
Four, in my opinion, he is the only candidate that would absolutely bury Obama in a Presidential Debate, and that's even taking into account Obama's superior public-speaking skills. He is the only one that I believe the public would take seriously about wanting to do something about the Washington stalemate that is continuing the strangle the U.S. economy.
This is my personal analysis of the situation. I don't think Romney or Gingrich would defeat Obama. Laugh if you want to. Say that people want Obama out of the office all you want. But just wait until the main race starts heating up and we start hearing Barack "golden tonsils" Obama start doing his thing. His speeches are like magic and are a profound influence on the equation. Afterall, if you said to anybody 9 months before the last presidential election that Obama was going to make it to the White House, most of them would say you were dreaming.
Granted I have been a Ron Paul supporter from the outset, so I cannot deny my bias. This is my observation at the moment. I'm not specifically trying to rally support for Ron Paul, although I wouldn't mind if I did. I also would like to see what others think of the race. I'm sure flaming and political posturing are likely in responses, but I just want to make it clear what MY intentions are. Yes, I'm a Paul supporter, but also that this is intended to be an analysis of who among the Republicans would stand the best chance of winning the presidency, even if you're not a Republican. If any flame wars get started, it won't be from me. I promise.
I heard an interview with Walter Jones (who I really like) on the radio last week. He said that of all the Republicans in the mix, Paul is singularly the most qualified to address the nation's problems. Given his 'druthers,' Jones said he'd support Paul.
Having said that, he did go on to say that he will endorse whoever gets the nomination. He believe that would be Romney, and while he will "endorse" Romney, I sense some hesitation in him on this point. He was 'political' in his wording and was trying very hard not to anything against Romney.
I think you and I will agree that this election, like most of them, is NOT about who will do the best job. It's a popularity contest based on who has hired the best consultants and speech writers, along with 'image.'
As much as is going wrong these days and as much as people complain about Obama (and what he's done while in office), I am not convinced at all that he will be defeated in November. I think Paul is the best choice - for a host of reasons - but, I too doubt he'll get the Party Nod...maybe precisely because he IS the best choice.
Conflict sells, especially in news circles and politics.
This is a very confusing year for me. I have yet to settle on a candidate to support. I didn't vote for Obama last time,for moral reasons,and none of the Republicans appeal to me. I despise having to "settle" because I try hard to analyze everyone for the best person for the job. My own governor is running and I couldn't be paid enough to back him. I'm a Moderate Independant so party is nowhere near as important to me as views and background qualifications. Man....this is gonna be tough! :question:
I agree with you in the assessment that Ron Paul is the most qualified, especially when it comes to economic recovery. His level of expertise in economics is unmatched among any of the potentials.
I understand the Republicans have their favorites, but my primary point is that I firmly believe that, despite me feelings on his qualifications, I think he is the most ideal opponent of Obama. If the Reps want to win, they have to accept that none of the Rep hopefuls are going to win head-to-head with Obama when it comes to oratory. They are simply out-matched. Paul's eloquence of ideas and delivery of those ideas are what set him apart against Obama. That's my view. I don't doubt some would differ.
Quote from: Flick James on January 12, 2012, 01:52:23 PM
That's my view. I don't doubt some would differ.
I don't disagree with you. I remain puzzled why the party leadership (not that I really care about The Party, but they are the ones, after all, who bolster their pet nominee) cannot see this, and why they insist on focusing on things that in the end will cost the election, not win it.
From a political study perspective, personal voting views aside, it's a fascinating phenomenon.
As a voter and tax payer, it's downright infuriating.
I would probably agree with mr walter Jones. I am a big Ron paul supporter but he won't get the nomination and I will probably vote for Romny if I bother to vote. I haven't really looked at Gary johnson though.
Most everybody here knows that I'm a right winger, so I'm pretty much an "anybody but Obama" kind of guy.
But Ron Paul's foreign policy stances scare the hell out of me. Iran is bent on getting a nuclear weapon and using it to trigger the global war that will bring about the coming of the Twelfth Imam. That is some twisted, evil stuff, and I don't believe Paul would do a thing to stop it. His isolationism reminds me too much of the more extreme Republicans in the run up to World War II, who were willing to let every Jew in Europe go to the ovens rather than see America intervene in "Europe's mess."
I believe in an America that is willing to stand up to evil, and I am not sure that Ron Paul recognizes evil for what it is.
Quote from: indianasmith on January 12, 2012, 06:14:12 PM
Most everybody here knows that I'm a right winger, so I'm pretty much an "anybody but Obama" kind of guy.
But Ron Paul's foreign policy stances scare the hell out of me. Iran is bent on getting a nuclear weapon and using it to trigger the global war that will bring about the coming of the Twelfth Imam. That is some twisted, evil stuff, and I don't believe Paul would do a thing to stop it. His isolationism reminds me too much of the more extreme Republicans in the run up to World War II, who were willing to let every Jew in Europe go to the ovens rather than see America intervene in "Europe's mess."
I believe in an America that is willing to stand up to evil, and I am not sure that Ron Paul recognizes evil for what it is.
I too get to claim the "right winger" status, but I guess the foreign bit does not scare me AS badly
right now. As my wife put it, he could always get a strong foreign policy running mate and have a strong cabinet. Or not...
Another point Walter Jones made, exactly on this topic regarding Paul's foreign policy stance, is that if we don't fix the domestic stuff SOON, foreign policy will be moot.
I think it's about priorities, though I confess that there is no clear cut path.
What a mess....if you think about it too much, you'll go crazy.
US bases around Iran
(http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/files/images/US%20bases%20surrounding%20Iran_0.preview.jpeg)
if that's not containment I don't know what is.
Indiana- Of course you disagree with his foreign policy but he has some nice consolation prizes for other types of conservatives.
A friend of mine shipped out to Afghanistan tonight. Another left two months ago.
Not really pertinent to the discussion, I guess...but, well, please keep these guys in your thoughts and prayers.
It's a dangerous place and a godawful mess. I'm not sure what the solution is, but the Taliban is NOT a viable solution. Their ideology is nothing less than opposition to civilization itself. Of course, we could liquidate the population and give the land to the Palestinians, eliminating two problems at once . . . . :lookingup:
(NOT a serious policy recommendation, BTW!)
I'm just proposing a hypothetical discussion about the upcoming election and an analysis of how I think it would play out. I am NOT trying to start a policy debate. Please make your best efforts NOT to make it one.
Quote from: Flick James on January 13, 2012, 09:50:53 AM
I'm just proposing a hypothetical discussion about the upcoming election and an analysis of how I think it would play out.
My view: Romney will get the Republican nomination rather easily, and defeat Obama rather easily.
Quote from: Rev. Powell on January 13, 2012, 09:55:22 AM
Quote from: Flick James on January 13, 2012, 09:50:53 AM
I'm just proposing a hypothetical discussion about the upcoming election and an analysis of how I think it would play out.
My view: Romney will get the Republican nomination rather easily, and defeat Obama rather easily.
And it may be a simple as that. I'm just not so sure. There's this nagging memory of 2008 when, at this same juncture before the election, I don't think very many people actually thought Obama would make it to the White House. Yet, once he starts talking, it's like a spell. Even now, if he addresses the nation, although I don't approve of his administration, he is inspirational. He carries himself remarkably well. I also remember the 2008 Presidential Debates. I'm not an enormous fan of John McCain as a politician, but as an American I respect him a great deal, and I think in general he commands a great deal of respect. In the 2008 debates Obama almost made him look foolish. That's no reflection on him regarding policies, simply how it came across. These things affect votes. Obama is an incredibly smart talker. It would not surprise me in the slightest if he was successfully able make the claim that he has done everything in his power to help America and the Republicans have done nothing but stand in his way, and make it stick. Maybe it is as you say, but I'm not so sure.
I think that if the Republicans want to win, they have to stop worrying about what candidate best represents the conservative rank and file buzzwords and get the man in there that will be the best opponent against Obama. I break the voters into three primary groups:
Conservative/Republican: It doesn't matter WHO wins the nomination, they will get every one of those votes. No dyed-in-the-wool Republican is going to vote for Obama. Those votes are locked.
Liberal/Democrat: I don't care how unsuccessful one may see the Obama adminstration, there's no way the lib/dems are going to vote for either Romney or Gingrich, unless there are a whole lot of Mormon Democrats (in Romney's case) but I doubt that's the case. There may be a very slim number who will not vote for Obama, or would vote third-party, but would NOT vote for Romney or Gingrich. Ron Paul, on the other hand, I am confident would pull in some lib/dem votes that would have gone to Obama. He is the only candidate who can do that.
Moderate: This group comprises moderates and everybody who only leans slightly left or right. I believe these votes would overwhelmingly be Ron Paul's. I don't think there would be any contest, whereas with Romney or Gingrich I'm not so sure. These are the people who are going to be swept away once Obama gets to talking. These are the people who made sure he got elected in the first place.
In my opinion, and this is just my opinion, I see Romney as maybe winning, but also very possibly losing, whereas I see Ron Paul as a landslide victory.
Quote from: Flick James on January 13, 2012, 11:16:19 AM
I see Ron Paul as a landslide victory.
Wow, I see Paul as a landslide loss against Obama. Paul inspires devotion in his followers. But from what I can tell liberals absolutely hate him and would turn out in droves to vote against him. I also see him as having zero appeal to moderates or swing voters. He would bring out a few people he normally would not vote at all, but not enough to overcome his negatives.
I personally haven't met anyone in real life, Republican or Democrat, who supports Paul. I have met a lot of people who either dislike him or think he's not a serious candidate.
I'm not saying I disagree with Paul's ideas, just saying as a practical matter I don't see him as a viable candidate.
Quote from: Rev. Powell on January 13, 2012, 11:38:55 AM
Quote from: Flick James on January 13, 2012, 11:16:19 AM
I see Ron Paul as a landslide victory.
Wow, I see Paul as a landslide loss against Obama. Paul inspires devotion in his followers. But from what I can tell liberals absolutely hate him and would turn out in droves to vote against him. I also see him as having zero appeal to moderates or swing voters. He would bring out a few people he normally would not vote at all, but not enough to overcome his negatives.
I personally haven't met anyone in real life, Republican or Democrat, who supports Paul. I have met a lot of people who either dislike him or think he's not a serious candidate.
I'm not saying I disagree with Paul's ideas, just saying as a practical matter I don't see him as a viable candidate.
Well, that's interesting given he has come in second place in the first two primaries of the season. Perhaps that is a fluke, but if he continues to show up consistently in the top 3 I would say that his appeal to Republicans would be undeniable. We'll see. So, you say moderates would vote for Obama over Ron Paul? We'll just have to agree to disagree there. But you know that I respect your input a great deal. You may be right.
Quote from: Flick James on January 13, 2012, 11:53:26 AM
Quote from: Rev. Powell on January 13, 2012, 11:38:55 AM
Quote from: Flick James on January 13, 2012, 11:16:19 AM
I see Ron Paul as a landslide victory.
Wow, I see Paul as a landslide loss against Obama. Paul inspires devotion in his followers. But from what I can tell liberals absolutely hate him and would turn out in droves to vote against him. I also see him as having zero appeal to moderates or swing voters. He would bring out a few people he normally would not vote at all, but not enough to overcome his negatives.
I personally haven't met anyone in real life, Republican or Democrat, who supports Paul. I have met a lot of people who either dislike him or think he's not a serious candidate.
I'm not saying I disagree with Paul's ideas, just saying as a practical matter I don't see him as a viable candidate.
Well, that's interesting given he has come in second place in the first two primaries of the season. Perhaps that is a fluke, but if he continues to show up consistently in the top 3 I would say that his appeal to Republicans would be undeniable. We'll see. So, you say moderates would vote for Obama over Ron Paul? We'll just have to agree to disagree there. But you know that I respect your input a great deal. You may be right.
Pretty sure Paul came in 3rd in Iowa. Personally I don't think his strong showing has much to do with appeal to Republicans. He's like a cult figure. This article describes Paul the way I see him: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ron-paul-worries-some-in-gop-as-sc-florida-primaries-loom/2012/01/12/gIQA7wQVuP_story.html. ("...Paul has a significant — and steady — following that exists almost entirely apart from the Republican party and is, in many ways, based on a disgust with the GOP.")
But what we're talking about is our perception of the public's perception, which is not a precise science by any stretch of the imagination. So, your guess is as good as mine.
Quote from: Rev. Powell on January 13, 2012, 12:57:42 PM
Quote from: Flick James on January 13, 2012, 11:53:26 AM
Quote from: Rev. Powell on January 13, 2012, 11:38:55 AM
Quote from: Flick James on January 13, 2012, 11:16:19 AM
I see Ron Paul as a landslide victory.
Wow, I see Paul as a landslide loss against Obama. Paul inspires devotion in his followers. But from what I can tell liberals absolutely hate him and would turn out in droves to vote against him. I also see him as having zero appeal to moderates or swing voters. He would bring out a few people he normally would not vote at all, but not enough to overcome his negatives.
I personally haven't met anyone in real life, Republican or Democrat, who supports Paul. I have met a lot of people who either dislike him or think he's not a serious candidate.
I'm not saying I disagree with Paul's ideas, just saying as a practical matter I don't see him as a viable candidate.
Well, that's interesting given he has come in second place in the first two primaries of the season. Perhaps that is a fluke, but if he continues to show up consistently in the top 3 I would say that his appeal to Republicans would be undeniable. We'll see. So, you say moderates would vote for Obama over Ron Paul? We'll just have to agree to disagree there. But you know that I respect your input a great deal. You may be right.
Pretty sure Paul came in 3rd in Iowa. Personally I don't think his strong showing has much to do with appeal to Republicans. He's like a cult figure. This article describes Paul the way I see him: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ron-paul-worries-some-in-gop-as-sc-florida-primaries-loom/2012/01/12/gIQA7wQVuP_story.html. ("...Paul has a significant — and steady — following that exists almost entirely apart from the Republican party and is, in many ways, based on a disgust with the GOP.")
But what we're talking about is our perception of the public's perception, which is not a precise science by any stretch of the imagination. So, your guess is as good as mine.
True. I actually meant to say that he has been in the top 3 in both of the initial primaries.
I knew that some would try to turn into a policy debate, and I'm sure it will continue to happen. However, the idea is to engage in speculation about the race itself. It's already been one of the most fascinating races in a long time, and I predict it will only get more so. I'm making a prediction that is completely out of my perception, and which could be completely out of left field. Since Ron Paul is unlikely to get the nomination, that makes even more speculative. But Ron Paul runs a very well-funded and organized campaign. He is also a brilliant speaker and debater, while perhaps not as oratorily gifted as Obama. I don't disagree with you at all the Romney will get the nomination, I think he is likely to as well. However, the outcome of the election between Obama and Romney is, I think, far from certain.
Quote from: Flick James on January 13, 2012, 01:29:10 PM
However, the outcome of the election between Obama and Romney is, I think, far from certain.
Obama's current level of support is shocking to me. I think it has to tail off. He's an incumbent who 1) has had low approval ratings through his entire administration and 2) entered office during a recession---and we're still in a recession four years later. Not saying that the recession is Obama's fault, but incumbents don't often win when the economy is bad. People will want a change.
Quote from: Rev. Powell on January 13, 2012, 01:59:54 PM
Quote from: Flick James on January 13, 2012, 01:29:10 PM
However, the outcome of the election between Obama and Romney is, I think, far from certain.
Obama's current level of support is shocking to me. I think it has to tail off. He's an incumbent who 1) has had low approval ratings through his entire administration and 2) entered office during a recession---and we're still in a recession four years later. Not saying that the recession is Obama's fault, but incumbents don't often win when the economy is bad. People will want a change.
It's an interesting phenomenon.
Depending on the outcome of the primaries, I may be offering you a karma-based wager, Rev.
Oh, and the following article:
http://reason.com/poll/2012/01/13/ron-paul-rising-evidenc-from-national-po (http://reason.com/poll/2012/01/13/ron-paul-rising-evidenc-from-national-po)
shows a fairly constistent upswing in Ron Paul support throughout the debates and into the beginning of the primaries. Granted the article is from reason.com, an obvious supporter of Ron Paul, but some of the observations regarding the Iowa and New Hampshire were notable, particulary:
The chart posted shows a slow, almost flatline increase in support during the debate cycle, but a sudden surge in support once the primaries began.
Paul overwhelmingly has won the young voters in both Iowa and New Hamphire. These voters can be very unpredictable during elections, but if they make the decision to show up to the polls in great numbers on the big day, that can have a significant effect.
Paul won the vote amongst those who have never attended a GOP caucus in Iowa. I'm not sure what to make of that one, or how significant it is, but I thought it was interesting.
Paul won the Independent vote in both Iowa and New Hampshire by a wide margin.
These points are focusing on groups that a likely minority groups in a caucus or primary (they have to be if Paul didn't win overall), but in a general election these groups become statistically larger.
This is polled data that is being presented by reason.com, so I'm not naive. The data is likely to be skewed to some degree. I just think the observations are noteworthy.
What's amazing to me is that for all his relatively extreme ideas on cutting spending and eliminating departments and legalizing everything, he gets the most pushback on his foreign policy in particular Iran which , I guess it's a matter of opinion if it's qualitatively "good" or not , but is a pretty mainstream opinion and in fact a continuation of our current policy of not being in a war with them.
Some good observations here. Last time around, I was a Huckabee guy who supported McCain because he was who I got stuck with, and I respected his honorable service to his country in the military more than I respected his political positions. Also, I knew then - and I think I have been born out to some degree - that Obama was arguably the most far left Presidential candidate since George McGovern or Henry Wallace - and BOTH those guys lost!
That being said, I knew McCain was going to lose from the get-go. Something the Republicans should have learned from 1996: Young and Charismatic will beat Old and Cranky EVERY SINGLE TIME! That, aside from his isolationist foreign policy, is another thing that really scares me about Ron Paul. We're going to put a testy 78 year old man up against a President who plays basketball and makes appearances on MTV? I have the same concerns - to a lesser degree - about Gingrich and Romney. Both are middle aged, white, not particularly exciting, mainstream candidates.
But here are the reasons I find Obama vulnerable:
The Far Left is somewhat disaffected with him because GITMO is still open, his withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan was slower than they would have liked, and he's too cuddly with the big bankers.
Blacks will support him by a 95% margin or better, but now that there has already been a black President, you will see a tailing off of enthusiasm for Obama. Black turnout will be lower.
Independents are much less enthusiastic about Obama than they were last time around.
Obama is trailing significantly in several swing states he really must have to carry the election.
The GOP is VERY motivated to get rid of this guy, because many of us see him as the worst President since Jimmy Carter - maybe even worse than Carter - and will vote for almost anyone as an alternative.
That's my analysis of the moment.
Quote from: indianasmith on January 13, 2012, 06:13:28 PM
Some good observations here. Last time around, I was a Huckabee guy who supported McCain because he was who I got stuck with, and I respected his honorable service to his country in the military more than I respected his political positions. Also, I knew then - and I think I have been born out to some degree - that Obama was arguably the most far left Presidential candidate since George McGovern or Henry Wallace - and BOTH those guys lost!
That being said, I knew McCain was going to lose from the get-go. Something the Republicans should have learned from 1996: Young and Charismatic will beat Old and Cranky EVERY SINGLE TIME! That, aside from his isolationist foreign policy, is another thing that really scares me about Ron Paul. We're going to put a testy 78 year old man up against a President who plays basketball and makes appearances on MTV? I have the same concerns - to a lesser degree - about Gingrich and Romney. Both are middle aged, white, not particularly exciting, mainstream candidates.
But here are the reasons I find Obama vulnerable:
The Far Left is somewhat disaffected with him because GITMO is still open, his withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan was slower than they would have liked, and he's too cuddly with the big bankers.
Blacks will support him by a 95% margin or better, but now that there has already been a black President, you will see a tailing off of enthusiasm for Obama. Black turnout will be lower.
Independents are much less enthusiastic about Obama than they were last time around.
Obama is trailing significantly in several swing states he really must have to carry the election.
The GOP is VERY motivated to get rid of this guy, because many of us see him as the worst President since Jimmy Carter - maybe even worse than Carter - and will vote for almost anyone as an alternative.
That's my analysis of the moment.
Nothing wrong with your observations there, Indy. They are pretty solid in my book. I particularly appreciate your observation about young and charismatic vs old and cranky. That is legitimate observation. So is the issue of black voter turnout. If my workplace is any indication, most of the black people I work with have stated they have no intention of voting for Obama, even the one or two of them that said they voted for him in 2008.
I hear you about the young voter issue. This is all the more reason I think Paul is a better opponent to Obama. Even though he is older than Romney, he actually tends to do better amongst young voters in both the polls and the primary voting thus far. He also, as I have stated before, commands more respect with people like Bill Maher and John Stewart. The MTV thing, I don't know what to think of that. Obama may have the MTV crowd. Interesting.
Election year has begun. Let the speculation begin!
I miss the good old days...
(http://www.paulsen.com/pat-pix/paulsen-poster-lg.jpg)
Quote from: tracy1963 on January 14, 2012, 01:15:33 PM
I miss the good old days...
(http://www.paulsen.com/pat-pix/paulsen-poster-lg.jpg)
A great bit of Americana there. Thanks for posting that.
I don't think you can count on the person who's simply "not the incumbent." George W. Bush was an incredibly polarizing President, and in 2004 the best the Democrats could put up against him was John Kerry. Kerry had nothing going for him other than not being George W. Bush.
He lost.
That's how I feel about the Republican front-runners. They don't have much more going for them other than not being Obama.
Ron Paul strikes me as a cult figure. That's not any sort of commentary on his ideas, but his base is a lot of very fervent followers. That base does not necessarily translate to votes. Much as you might like him to get nominated, well...
That being said, I think there is a very large contingent of voters who are going to vote against the status quo, politics as usual. That was a large part of what got Obama in.
I used to have the utmost respect for John McCain. He spent years as a maverick senator, and somebody who I could actually expect to stand behind his beliefs. Then he decided to run for the presidency, and all of a sudden each and every stance I respected him for was thrown aside in the hopes that he would become President. His pick of Sarah Palin was what doomed his campaign. "Too crazy for Boy's-Town, too much of a boy for Crazy-Town."
I wanted to want to vote for him at the start, but well...
Well, the anger against the status quo is still going very strong, strong enough for the swing votes. Gingrich won't win, because there's nobody more establishment than him in the entire race. Romney might swing it, but he's more of a dead fish than Al Gore. Ron Paul I would expect to stick more to his beliefs than McCain, but he's still the outsider.
As far as the somewhat-Democrats, Obama has been a terrible disappointment, but that doesn't mean they are ready to jump back into Republican waters. I really don't think the anger against Obama is as widespread as is stated, especially if you only read certain papers.
If you want my prediction, Obama will win in 2012. And then it will be business as usual. The Republicans will then sweep the elections in 2016. And then it will still remain business as usual.
Thanks for the input, Mofo. This thread is mainly about election speculation, and you've contributed nicely. I want to thank everybody for not turning this into a policy debate. This thread has been about the analysis of the voting public and the electoral process, not policy, and I know it's probably been hard to resist. I just want to say I appreciate the effort.
The only Republicans I would vote for are Ron Paul and Mitt Rom, only because they aren't as, in my view, as bat-s**t crazy as the others are. I find it funny how some want to get rid of the EPA, when Nixon started the EPA.
Quote from: El Toro Loco on January 15, 2012, 12:05:55 PM
The only Republicans I would vote for are Ron Paul and Mitt Rom, only because they aren't as, in my view, as bat-s**t crazy as the others are. I find it funny how some want to get rid of the EPA, when Nixon started the EPA.
Nixon was a remarkably center-oriented president. Also, in my opinion, a damn good one.
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!
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
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.
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 . . . . :teddyr:
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.
(http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l79/RCMerchant/l10.jpg)
indiana- there are gradations of terrible and Nixon was pretty far down there.
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.
Quote from: lester1/2jr on January 15, 2012, 05:59:38 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: indianasmith on January 15, 2012, 06:30:07 PM
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: RCMerchant on January 15, 2012, 06:14:29 PM
Quote from: lester1/2jr on January 15, 2012, 05:59:38 PM
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
Quote from: bob on January 15, 2012, 08:40:35 PM
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.
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."
I think Romney will get it for the same reason McCain got it in 08, he seems to really want the job the most. Gingrich is promoting himself, Paul is promoting his message and they are likely more or less happy with that.
I've got a wierd "hair on the back of my neck" feeling about Paul that I can't quite describe. Sure he's my guy in the primaries, but I just think he may be a surprise. I was reading today that he got a very sought-after endorsement from South Carolina Senator Tom Davis, which means he could very well win there in a few days. I would be very surprised, given that endorsement, if he didn't take at least second in SC.