M
- Status
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
Since two women are very prominent in the running for the Republican nomination, one wonders … how would Obama’s electoral chances improve or disimprove if in 2012, Hillary Clinton was Obama’s VP choice … replacing Biden.
And what if … the rumor started … that with HC on the “team” … BO would resign after six months into his second term, thereby making HC the first female president of the USA.
If that was the proposed Democrat Party scenario, then what would the best Republican ticket be under that circumstance?
And what if … the rumor started … that with HC on the “team” … BO would resign after six months into his second term, thereby making HC the first female president of the USA.
If that was the proposed Democrat Party scenario, then what would the best Republican ticket be under that circumstance?
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
Bachmann/Paul
E
estesbob
Guest
Hillary is way too smart to get y herself involved on a ticket with Obama. I personally think the only slim chance the Democrats have of the holding on to the White House is if Hillary challenges Obama for the nomination and wins-, even then the chances for the Democrats would be slim.
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
Romney:
businessinsider.com/mitt-romneys-seven-rules-that-can-revive-our-economy-2011-6
[not much on global warming or romneycare, though]
businessinsider.com/mitt-romneys-seven-rules-that-can-revive-our-economy-2011-6
[not much on global warming or romneycare, though]
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
T
Tsuwano
Guest
The Ford~Carter election of 1976 was my first election. I remember it clearly and even shook hands with Carter and a whole host of Democratic candidates when they traveled to Iowa the spring before the election. It was not a forgone conclusion that President Ford would lose the election to Carter. In fact, many folks expected Ford to win despite the baggage he carried of having pardoned Nixon. Actually, in my recollection, Ford’s pardoning of Nixon was hardly mentioned except in certain areas such as New York or Washington. In the Midwest and much of the country, it was thought that the pardoning was the right thing to do in order to get Watergate behind us. Everyone hoped Nixon would simply fade away, which he pretty much did. Ford earned a lot of respect for pardoning Nixon because he did so knowing that it would be brought up in the next election and used against him. The country went for Carter because he was a fresh face, a son of the deep South, and an unknown entity in a post Watergate era. He was considered to be an anti politician and untainted by the cynicism of the politics of Watergate. His smile proved it. In hindsight, we may be able to say that Ford’s pardoning of Nixon cost him the election, but I don’t really think it did. I think it was the desire of people to start over with someone completely new. We did it with Carter.
I
ishii
Guest
Wow, I’m sorry you consider my comments on political history unworthy of consideration due to my supposed partisanship- I’ve got news for you: everyone has a bias, even supposed objecgtive historians. I was merely offering what I think is my objective analysis of the 1976 election that I have gleaned over thirty or so years of following politics closely ( I remember the 1976 election but didn’t follow politics much until 1980). You also make unsubstantiated claims such as “I and most historians agree”… your claims might hold more water if you provide some evidence. You also claim that the "perception then and now is that Ford made some kind of deal with Nixon to be pardoned - yet you offer no proof of your claim. Hopefully your deep and thorough understanding of the election is based on evidence which you can provide? Ford definitely came back from a huge deficit in the summer and made the election close. The debate may well have stopped his momentum. Here is a passage from an article from a CNN site on politics and a link to the page: ( I don’t think CNN can be accused of being enmeshed with loyalty to the Republican party, do you?)
“In what is referred to as the blooper heard 'round the world, Ford stumbled over a question about Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union after New York Times reporter Max Frankel asked him about Soviet domination of that area”
“News reports about the debate were dominated by Ford’s statement and its potential effect on the race. Most observers felt the debate proved to be a turning point and the key to Carter’s narrow electoral victory. A post-debate Gallup poll on October 15 showed Carter six percentage points ahead of Ford, 48 percent to 42 percent.”
"Carter himself said later on: "If it hadn’t been for the debates, I would have lost. They established me as competent on foreign and domestic affairs and gave the viewers reason to think that Jimmy Carter had something to offer."
So I think its safe to say that the 1976 election was far from an easy victory for Carter - it went down to the wire and the debate had a big influence on the outcome. Carter, of course, had a lot of advantages - such as being an outsider, the country was ready for something new in the wake of Vietnam and Watergate. In 1976 Ford came from behind but fell short partly due to the debate. Interestingly, In 1980, Reagan also came from behind but arguable won due to his performance (and Carter’s dismal performance) in the debate.
The country was better off having Reagan president (loyal Republican partisan comment)
www-cgi.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/debates/history/1976/
Ishii
S
Stjudeprayforus
Guest
T
Tsuwano
Guest
I pretty much agree with this. I was leaning toward voting for Carter in the election because of President Ford’s association with the Republican Party. I felt the need to get the Republicans out of power due to Watergate and the cynicism that event engendered among Americans. Still, I wasn’t fully decided. I recognized genuine honesty in President Ford and I felt his heart was in the right place. But after President Ford made his comment about Eastern Europe not really being in the Soviet orbit, my decison to support Carter was reaffirmed. Most people I knew were flabbergasted by his comments and it played on the developing image that Ford was an amateur in world politics and not really capable of dealing with the hardliners in Moscow. My vote went to Carter.
I
ishii
Guest
I always thought Ford was a decent man who did a good job of helping America get beyond Vietnam and Watergate. A lot of people voted for Carter - then regretted it a few years later. Its hard to imagine a time when people actually thought both candidates for president were deserving of consideration. One has to go back to the election of 1960 to find two candidates who agreed on most of the basics and differed mostly on style.
Ishii
E
estesbob
Guest
Although abortion had not yet become a major issue it is interesting to note that Ford was the last pro-choice Republican presidential candidate and Carter was the last Pro life Democrat presidential candidate.
Llike millions of Americans. I voted for Carter first time around and almost immediately regretted my decision. . I believe the country was better off having Carter elected , however, as it led to the election of one of the greatest presidents in the history of the United States-Ronald Reagan. .
B
Big_Ro
Guest
Scott maybe you should re-read your own post. It was you that brought up the canard that the '64 CRA failed to create racial harmony and is therefore an unworthy law. My post clearly states that I don’t expect the law to make people be nice to each other. In fact, I could care less whether people are nice to me or not. However, I do expect and in fact demand that they respect and afford me my full measure of liberty which apparently can only be assured through the law. I personally am glad that we live in a country, for the time being, of laws.
Please explain how you got from my last post or any other post that I would deprive you of even a scintilla of your liberty. Now, if you mean that I seek to deprive you and your libertarian bretheren the liberty to discriminate against me because of my race, ethnicity, gender or some other specious attritbute, then I guess I am guilty as charged. I stand before the court unrepentant.
Your logic suggests that because the laws are incapable of preventing robberies, assualts or other manner of unsocial behavior we should do away with them. Again, if this is the type of anarchy that libertarians envision as a utopia, I want nothing to do with it. I have no delusions that the Law can or will force people to act in a manner that is accordance with a good social order and adherence to God’s outline for a moral life. However, as a matter of prudence, I am glad for and support a system of laws that promote as close an appoximation to such as possible. I shudder to think what kind of society a libertarian philosophy might usher in to the world and find it increasingly hard to square with the Catholic ethic.
Calling me a totalitarian…really? Sad, truly sad that you are reduced to name calling. You did give me a good laugh though. Thanks for that.
B
Big_Ro
Guest
Isii,
I’m sorry if my cranky demeanor made it seem like I thought your comments are unworthy. It was not my intention to delegitimize your thoughts. I just found your analysis unsatisfying. I would like to believe that reasonable people can disagree without personalizing the issue.
Having said that, I don’t feel I have to offer you or anyone else here any proof or evidence of what I assert. If I asked those other members to please provide proof or evidence for their all too often spurious comments and asertions rooted in little more than internet rumor, I would have to buy a new keyboard once a week. But, out of a sense of charity, let me say that I did indeed study the effect of debates in the television era on Presdiential politics as part of my collegiate studies. We watched hours of tape, read books, commentary both contemporaneous (spelling, uugghh!) and historical regarding that and many other televised debates including Adlai Stevenson’s prosecution of the soviets during the missle crisis. I’ve written a few hundred pages on the subject by the force of my professors desire that I provide proof of my knowledge. I resented even them questioning me, so you can understand why I might bristle at your insistence that I need to offer proof of my understanding. Arrogant? Beyond measure. Obstinate? sinfully so. Abrasive? Guilty. My apologies. I am as John Adams said, “an obnoxious person”. My apologies.
I’m sorry if my cranky demeanor made it seem like I thought your comments are unworthy. It was not my intention to delegitimize your thoughts. I just found your analysis unsatisfying. I would like to believe that reasonable people can disagree without personalizing the issue.
Having said that, I don’t feel I have to offer you or anyone else here any proof or evidence of what I assert. If I asked those other members to please provide proof or evidence for their all too often spurious comments and asertions rooted in little more than internet rumor, I would have to buy a new keyboard once a week. But, out of a sense of charity, let me say that I did indeed study the effect of debates in the television era on Presdiential politics as part of my collegiate studies. We watched hours of tape, read books, commentary both contemporaneous (spelling, uugghh!) and historical regarding that and many other televised debates including Adlai Stevenson’s prosecution of the soviets during the missle crisis. I’ve written a few hundred pages on the subject by the force of my professors desire that I provide proof of my knowledge. I resented even them questioning me, so you can understand why I might bristle at your insistence that I need to offer proof of my understanding. Arrogant? Beyond measure. Obstinate? sinfully so. Abrasive? Guilty. My apologies. I am as John Adams said, “an obnoxious person”. My apologies.
I
ishii
Guest
Big Ro, what’s gratuitously asserted can be gratuitously denied. I don’t often ask people to cite evidence for their claims, but when you deny my claim and then follow with " I and most other historians believe…" with no evidence backing you up whatsoever, I will call you on it. If what you’re saying has merit, it shouldn’t be difficult to come up with some evidence, given the info on the web and the fact that the event took place only 36 years ago. I did a quick search and came up with the CNN story, and of course there is the other poster who backed up my claim of the importance of Ford’s performance in the debate. If you did all of those studies like you say, and if there are all kinds of historians who support your position then it should be no problem finding some evidence. Until then, I think your case is rather unconvincing.
I think this has a bearing on the 2012 election in so far as it shows the importance of debates in a close election. This has been shown to be true in the Nixon/Kennedy debate as well as the Carter/Reagan debate.
Ishii
B
Big_Ro
Guest
Tell you what Ishii, if it makes you fell better about yourself, I’ll just concede the point. How’s that? It just feels to like a total waste of time going and digging through boxes for old books, papers and research that I haven’t touched or thought about in more than a decade to prove some obscure point about an election that happened what 30 years ago. Please, I’ve got better things to do. My daughters Softball team is scrambling to try and get in to a tournament. The director closed the registration early and now I’m looking for one within close enough proximity that everyone can attend. It’s a CYO select team and we’ve got parents scattered throughout the city and summer camps and vacations to contend with. So just fielding a full team is a challenge. I’m calling practically every Catholic Church in San Antonio trying to track down coaches and CYO directors. I’m organizing my boys Scout troop to attend a day camp in a couple of weeks and as expected the parents have ignored me for two weeks and now all of a sudden they want forms, times, etc. It’s my son’s B-day on Sunday (what my wife couldn’t hold on to him one more day so he could a Fourth of July baby. I probably need to let that go) and I need to go and buy a robotic’s kit or two for him. So you see. worrying about acceeding to your need to win some obscure point on a long gone election is not really high enough on my priority list. Love and much respect. Enjoy the win!
I
ishii
Guest
Big Ro, if you spent half as much time researching your claims as you do making sarcastic, rambling, insulting rants then you might actually be taken more seriously. This could be done with a few clicks of the mouse. Far from being an obscure point, debate performance is a timely, relevant issue that has bearing on the upcoming election. But fair enough - I will drop it.
Ishii
S
Stjudeprayforus
Guest
B
Big_Ro
Guest
Let’s see, I apologized to you for possibly posting a comment that might have made your post seem unworthy. I admitted to being cranky and abrasive. You say I’m rambling, sarcastic and my posts are rants and poorly researched. But I insulted you.
I’m supposed to be worried whether or not I’m being taken serious on a web forum.
I’m supposed to believe that you and others on these boards will be persuaded to vote for anyone other than Perry when and after he debates Obama.
Seriously, I’m tearing up from the laughter. Can barely see my key board. Earlier, Scott La Fance called me a totalitarian and I thought that was seriously funny. But this, well it takes the cake. Can’t thank you enough for the comic relief.
Again sorry if I insulted you. Not my intention.
Now back to that robotic kit…
B
Big_Ro
Guest
I swear…if you guys are this ginned up before you even have a nominee (which you do but it’s not official) how’s it gonna get when the primaries start or the general election?
BTW, I am sarcastic and I think it’s a sin. Maybe I’ll give it up for Lent next year.
BTW, I am sarcastic and I think it’s a sin. Maybe I’ll give it up for Lent next year.
- Status