OT – Who will run for President on the Republican side?

[Anonymous]

Historically, I see Newt as somewhat like Nixon (although I don’t have firsthand memories of Nixon.) Nixon was not very likable, but he was a smart guy and relentless in his political career. Despite failed attempts to be President over many decades, Nixon eventually found an opening and made it to the White House.

Of course the election landscape was dramatically different in 1968 (although there was a 3rd party candidate – Ron Paul?) But the personalities and careers of Newt and Nixon have some interesting similarities, IMO.

[Casca]

Nixon ran many times? Once, 1960, and the election was stolen from him in Illinois and West Texas. Unlike Algore, he didn’t want to put America through the tumult.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Here’s Time Magazine’s March 1980 assessment of the political landscape:

“National opinion polls continue to show Carter leading Reagan by an apparently comfortable margin of about 25%. They also show that more moderate Republicans like Ford would run better against the President. This suggests that Reagan is not the strongest G.O.P. choice for the November election and that he clearly faces an uphill battle. . .Carter, for all his problems, has the power of incumbency. As President, he can react to challenges by changing the direction of the whole Government, which he has done recently by attempting to balance the budget in the coming fiscal year, a course urged by all Republican candidates. Carter is an undeniably deft—and extremely lucky—politician. He also is a relatively known quantity in the White House, whereas the inexperienced Reagan would require a definite leap of faith by voters supporting him. Says Northwestern University Political Scientist Louis Masotti: “There’s a variation on the old cliché: you don’t change horses’ asses in midstream. You’ve got one, and at least you know its contours.””

For the record, moderate Republican John Anderson was considered to be more electable and largely because Reagan was viewed as an extremist. While the punditocracy keeps bloviating about electability and immoderacy, history oftens tells a different tale.

[briansd1]

Allan, are you talking about Newt?

I love his name. Newt is such a nerdy sounding name.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]Allan, are you talking about Newt?

I love his name. Newt is such a nerdy sounding name.[/quote]

Brian: Actually, I wasn’t. That 1980 piece was largely to show that most members of the chattering classes (both Left and Right) have a profound case of RCI (rectal-cranial inversion).

I get so tired of “conventional wisdom”, especially when it comes to handicapping races like this one. Most of these clowns offering opinions have no real clue what they’re talking about, they simply trot out the tired company line (Left or Right) and hope for the best.

As far as the candidates go: Nothing to be disappointed about with the GOP field, since its both weak and thin. I am disappointed with Obama, since he was given several excellent opportunities to change the conversation and has proven to be just another partisan hack.

[briansd1]

Ok Allan. You’re disappointed in Obama. But are any of the Republican alternatives worth writing home about?

I’m actually excited at Newt getting the nomination. The Republican race has been interesting.

Looks like Newt just scored a $20 million donation to his PAC.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/why-its-legal-for-one-donor-to-put-20-million-behind-gingrich/2011/12/15/gIQA2pxTwO_blog.html

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]Ok Allan. You’re disappointed in Obama. But are any of the Republican alternatives worth writing home about?

I’m actually excited at Newt getting the nomination. The Republican race has been interesting.

Looks like Newt just scored a $20 million donation to his PAC.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/why-its-legal-for-one-donor-to-put-20-million-behind-gingrich/2011/12/15/gIQA2pxTwO_blog.html%5B/quote%5D

Brian: I’d be interested in a Gingrich – Obama debate, because it would offer a good look at two opposing views and those views would be articulated by two intelligent and articulate individuals. I don’t see that happening, though, and I believe that Gingrich is pretty much unelectable.

On the GOP side, you’re right: It is fairly uninspiring, with the exception of Gingrich (unelectable), Paul (fairly unelectable) and Huntsman (call back in 2016). Perry is a fascist idiot, Bachmann is a kook, Romney wouldn’t know true conservatism if it bit him on the ass and Santorum strikes me as the male version of Michelle Bachmann.

I think Obama is doing a better job of “telling the story”, but that’s simply rhetoric standing in the place of substance. At some point, there needs to be a serious and substantive discussion on tax reform, entitlement reform, foreign policy and strategic policy (which will drive reform of the DoD) and immigration policy. Up to this point, we’ve settled for kicking the can down the road and Obama has missed some golden opportunities, especially regarding tax reform and reform of the financial sector.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
I think Obama is doing a better job of “telling the story”, but that’s simply rhetoric standing in the place of substance. At some point, there needs to be a serious and substantive discussion on tax reform, entitlement reform, foreign policy and strategic policy (which will drive reform of the DoD) and immigration policy. Up to this point, we’ve settled for kicking the can down the road and Obama has missed some golden opportunities, especially regarding tax reform and reform of the financial sector.[/quote]

I have to agree with all of this. Obama is a great story teller. The problem has been (my opinion here) is that he promised change, but was more comitted to getting things done, without regards to whether they really were consistent with the change he promised. Too concerned with changing the tone in Washington, than changing the policies in Washington. Form over substance. The exact opposite of what a tranformational leader needs to do. And he underestimated the republicans dedication to party over policy. There never was peace to be made, he never should have tried.

He did miss golden opportunities, and I think it’s unlikely he’ll get the chance again. There never was much he could have done about the economy given the political realities. It cost more money that it should have, but what was done accomplished as much as it could have. But there was plenty he could have done with all the other things you mentioned. I think you attribute it to lack of leadership. I attribute it to bad tactics. But whether by malevolence or incompetence, it just hasn’t worked.

I doubt another four years of him will help much. But I have little doubt it’s better than the alternative. It will be a slow easy roll.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
I think Obama is doing a better job of “telling the story”, but that’s simply rhetoric standing in the place of substance. At some point, there needs to be a serious and substantive discussion on tax reform, entitlement reform, foreign policy and strategic policy (which will drive reform of the DoD) and immigration policy. Up to this point, we’ve settled for kicking the can down the road and Obama has missed some golden opportunities, especially regarding tax reform and reform of the financial sector.[/quote]

I have to agree with all of this. Obama is a great story teller. The problem has been (my opinion here) is that he promised change, but was more comitted to getting things done, without regards to whether they really were consistent with the change he promised. Too concerned with changing the tone in Washington, than changing the policies in Washington. Form over substance. The exact opposite of what a tranformational leader needs to do. And he underestimated the republicans dedication to party over policy. There never was peace to be made, he never should have tried.

He did miss golden opportunities, and I think it’s unlikely he’ll get the chance again. There never was much he could have done about the economy given the political realities. It cost more money that it should have, but what was done accomplished as much as it could have. But there was plenty he could have done with all the other things you mentioned. I think you attribute it to lack of leadership. I attribute it to bad tactics. But whether by malevolence or incompetence, it just hasn’t worked.

I doubt another four years of him will help much. But I have little doubt it’s better than the alternative. It will be a slow easy roll.[/quote]

SK: Perhaps “lack of leadership” is too harsh and too simplistic. Lack of experience, combined with bad tactics, cost Obama dearly. I also think Obama was maybe too caught up in his legacy, and thus was committed to pushing “signature” legislation, like Obamacare.

Comparing him to, say, LBJ, really shows not only the different styles, but also the fact that LBJ was an outstanding dealmaker and thus knew the backroom aspects to legislation, unlike Obama, who didn’t really cut his teeth or pay his dues. His rise was truly meteoric and, as a result, he transitioned rapidly from academia to legislature to the Executive Office without really stopping along the way to learn the system.

I also couldn’t agree more re: the GOP alternative in either 2008 or 2012. McCain would’ve confronted the same problems and, if he didn’t do worse, it is doubtful he would’ve done better. I don’t see any of the present GOP nominees stepping in in 2013 and rapidly changing the game. The problems we’re confronting are both structural and systemic and all of the old “fixes” simply aren’t going to work.

And that is truly the most unfortunate part about Obama. He was in the right place at the right time, historically speaking, and has sadly fumbled the opportunity away.

[Anonymous]

[quote=SK in CV]He did miss golden opportunities, and I think it’s unlikely he’ll get the chance again. [/quote]

Can either of you guys provide specific examples of these missed opportunities, such as “he should have done A but choose to do B?” – things he could have realistically accomplished given the opposition he has faced from the Republicans?

I hear this sort of general criticism a lot these days, but I rarely hear specifics.

The only examples I can come up with myself are:

1) He should have more vigorously tried to prosecute financial crimes. But I’m not so sure how successful he would have been, since given the regulatory landscape and the loosely-defined nature of financial crimes. There were lots of shenanigans with large dollar numbers, but it’s just not clear that anyone blatantly broke the law.

2) He could have done more to protect civil liberties. Again, however, I think there are reasons why he is going along with the status quo. Perhaps not admirable reasons, but practical reasons. Being “soft on terror” in the age of Fox news is a guaranteed single-term presidency.

Aside from the above, on what specific plays did Obama drop the ball?

[SK in CV]

[quote=pri_dk][quote=SK in CV]He did miss golden opportunities, and I think it’s unlikely he’ll get the chance again. [/quote]

Can either of you guys provide specific examples of these missed opportunities, such as “he should have done A but choose to do B?” – things he could have realistically accomplished given the opposition he has faced from the Republicans?
[/quote]

Yeah. He could have and should have passed real health care reform. He (and some Senate Dems) negotiated against themselves, knowing full well that not a single Republican would support a bill that he put forward anyway. He (and they, primarily Max Baucus) continued to negotiate, it got worse and worse, and not a single republican voted for it. Surprise!

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=pri_dk]
2) He could have done more to protect civil liberties. Again, however, I think there are reasons why he is going along with the status quo. Perhaps not admirable reasons, but practical reasons. Being “soft on terror” in the age of Fox news is a guaranteed single-term presidency.

[/quote]

Pri: You need to read Glenn Greenwald’s piece in Salon today regarding Obama and the indefinite detention bill:http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_myths_about_the_detention_bill/

You cannot help but find this absolutely chilling. Given Obama’s background on Constitional Law, there is NO SINGLE REASON that can be reasonably provided to support this. NONE. NOT ONE. I don’t give a shit about being “soft on terror” or practical reasons. Obama lied, pure and simple, regarding the protection of civil liberties and is now signing this piece of shit legislation, after EXPRESSLY PROMISING he wouldn’t.

If you can offer a single, rational explanation for this, I’d like to hear it.

[markmax33]

[quote=zk]I’d like to see Romney get the nomination. I would get a kick out of fundamentalist christians having to choose between a democrat and a mormon.[/quote]

All those disgruntled christians would go vote for the most christian guy in the race running as a 3rd party candidate. Ron Paul would not only steal many votes from the Republicans but there are a ton of independents and liberals out there dying for another option. All he needs is 34%+ in a 3 man race!

[Hobie]

pri: Closed Yucca Mountain. The biggest problem with spent nuclear fuel is storage. Remember the Japan tsunami?

Energy is the fuel for our economy. Nuclear is the cleanest, safest, most efficient electricity generation.

Obama does not have a viable energy policy. He could have left this storage facility open and expanded our nuclear energy generation. This would reduce our burning fossil fuels and its accompanying pollutants. Not to mention its effect on the power OPEC has over the US.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Pri: You need to read Glenn Greenwald’s piece in Salon today regarding Obama and the indefinite detention bill:http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_myths_about_the_detention_bill/

You cannot help but find this absolutely chilling. Given Obama’s background on Constitional Law, there is NO SINGLE REASON that can be reasonably provided to support this. NONE. NOT ONE. I don’t give a shit about being “soft on terror” or practical reasons. Obama lied, pure and simple, regarding the protection of civil liberties and is now signing this piece of shit legislation, after EXPRESSLY PROMISING he wouldn’t.

If you can offer a single, rational explanation for this, I’d like to hear it.[/quote]

I find it chilling also. But what you and I think really doesn’t matter.

Fox news has 60% of the country.

What % does it take to win an election?

He broke a promise? All politicians do that. He’s going to run against Gingrich for cricksakes!

American voters forgive liars. They don’t forgive weaklings.

I remember the 1980 election. Carter kept “negotiating” with Iran and Reagan was going to nuke ’em, right? These “facts” were the reason why many people voted for Reagan.

“Weak” American presidents are single-term Presidents.

The rational explanation: Obama has read a few history books.

[Author]

Posts