Your question was where is the next TR coming from. TR was considered at the time to be a wing nut and a troublemaker. He was put in the VP role under McKinley to get him out of the way in a place where he couldn't do any damage. The last thing anyone expected was for McKinley to be assassinated and TR end up President. Today's opposition research would have had a field day with him.
It is possible to learn at home; I finished a biography of TR a couple of months ago. Reading; you should try it.
I am a big Teddy fan myself, and you are absolutely correct here. There were a TON of people who wanted him nowhere near the presidency.
And there was a ton of opposition towards him for the sake that he wanted to be a more public figure with sports, big game hunting, and being more of a public face.
Who knows if he would have had a chance today with the way people are scrutinized?
in Albany, big deal. He probably would be diagnosed with ADHD and he was principled. He was a pain in the ass to the other Police Commissioners, big deal. His job as VP was to. make sure McKinley didn't die, but lucky for us he did. He did more in one day than most do in a month
RE: The Bush name could eventually prove to be an anchor around
I'm not sure that Victor Cruz is really qualified to run for the Presidency. He's definitely got charisma, but maybe he should start at the local level and then climb up?
While I"m sure Romney would bring honor and integrity back to the White House, he's not the right candidate for the time. I'm glad he's out. Now if only Jeb would follow suit.
the person of their time? Teddy blew the doors off the Presidency and changed America for the better. I donr know if we will ever see the likes of TR again or Franklin for that matter
TR ...best president we ever had IMHO
The Rs have a screwed up combination and it is likely to fade
the person of their time? Teddy blew the doors off the Presidency and changed America for the better. I donr know if we will ever see the likes of TR again or Franklin for that matter
TR ...best president we ever had IMHO
Teddy was a mixed blessing. Personally dynamic, presided over our emergence on the international scene, but expanded the profile and expectations of the Presidency like few before him. Only Lincoln, a wartime President, and Jackson can really have been said to have been as consequential among the non-Founders, in many ways for better but in ways that in less capable hands would prove to be much worse.
RE: The Rs have a screwed up combination and it is likely to fade
Evangelicals conflated with Wall street and money conflated with gun rights and anti abortion...
Somewhere in there is reasonable conservative philosophy.
Then as someone notes above, the demographics are changing ....not in their favor
Reports of their demise, yadayadayada... The seminal issue is immigration, which undermines their appeal to growing constituencies. Ironically the tension that probably should be there between Democratic constituencies on the subject isn't there because of other issues and because of good old fashioned party identification. They were dead in the water after 2008 and managed to dominate the two midterms. Not the same as a presidential of course, but if you had told them that six years after getting demolished in 2008 they'd have viable majorities in both houses I think they would have been pretty surprised.
The primary factor in their poor performances was women's issues
R's learned to shut-up about wacko stuff like abortion in caes of rape or incest and did much better.
R's also have a big advantage in congressional elections from redistricting. That more than compensates for their demographic disadvantage, which they have always had.
I have voted democratic pretty much every year outside of maybe a few individual races. But I can not throw my hat into the ring with people that don't believe in
Evolution
World is older then 6k years
Jesus is coming back soon
The government is coming to take our guns
Taxing the rich less creates more jobs because they are the job creators and will have more money to hire people.
Anything that has to do with what a woman does with her body
If Hillary is the Democratic candidate the R's will have a tough time getting much of the women's vote.
Who knows? The War on Women rhetoric seemed to boomerang this time around, and if the Republicans find a Veep nominee who has ovaries and isn't tabloid fodder Hillary dominating the female vote (over and above the usual Democratic advantage) may not be a given.
If Hillary is the Democratic candidate the R's will have a tough time getting much of the women's vote.
Perhaps. The White House will be harder, and demographics matter alot more (exept for Gore). My gut is that Hillary isn't as popular with women as other female candidates, and R's may really be learning the value of appealing to the non-white-male voting block.
as the World Power in the 20th Century. He was a super hawk and believed might makes right. He built the navy. However he was the first president to invite a Black man to the White House and fought the Morgan's Gould's and the Trusts. Who is the person that will define 21st Century America? I don't see that person
Does The Rise of Teddy Roosevelt by Edmund Morris qualify as a pretty good bio of TR? If it does, shut the fuck up
you actually have to open it. Leaving it on your coffee table to try and give visitors a false impression of your intellectual prowess obviously doesn't do you any good.
If Hillary is the Democratic candidate the R's will have a tough time getting much of the women's vote.
Perhaps. The White House will be harder, and demographics matter alot more (exept for Gore). My gut is that Hillary isn't as popular with women as other female candidates, and R's may really be learning the value of appealing to the non-white-male voting block.
It will be the same breakdown. Single and ultra liberal women will vote for Hillary. Married women will vote for the R candidate. That's how's it was under Romney and most of the recent elections. Meanwhile the Dems have lost the white male vote and will not be getting that back with Hillary.
as the World Power in the 20th Century. He was a super hawk and believed might makes right. He built the navy. However he was the first president to invite a Black man to the White House and fought the Morgan's Gould's and the Trusts. Who is the person that will define 21st Century America? I don't see that person
We'll see if that person is even a possibility nowadays. It's misremembering to pretend that they lacked tabloid journalism and sensationalism in that day and age, but internet news is a different phenomenon entirely. And while nobody could afford to be deaf to public opinion, TR was as apt to shape it as to react to it. Does a guy like that get anywhere near the White House nowadays?
You can make the case (though many will disagree) that Obama had those qualities. Even if you don't agree with the above, it is hard to imagine any POTUS succeeding when the opposition is so determined to see him fail. I don't think things will change much even if a Republican gets elected unless they can also gain control of 60 seats in the Senate.
I would suggest their visions were clear but that realities, both political and otherwise got in the way. That is a good thing or we would have what is happening now in Russia.
Its is interesting since both Reagan and Bill Clinton
reached across the isle and built consensus to push ideas and suggest courses of legislation.
which has not been the case in a while.
However, while there is still support for consensus at some point, the legacies of both of those presidents in terms of laws passed may not be so hot as respective leaders supporters would like to think.
I would like to believe that there is a new consensus to be built in the populist segment of each party, however, the potential consensus builders seem to be facing a continual stonewall in each party, with the insiders looking to preserve the weird compromise of theories that Bill and Ronald ended up with.
Somebody said recently, we have to stop looking at 20th century solutions.
because he put in limits on receiving services and welfare, forced people to do work programs and such, so he therefor was seen as 'someone who worked across the isle.'
But, if you think about it, what everyone really wants is a growing economy, jobs and to build their own lives and those sorts of compromises are really just tweaking around the edges.
Yes, the economy was growing like crazy at the time..BUT
That was the cheap money game...and
Now that the cheap money game is over, taking the wind out of the sails of the vestiges of the Clinton Miracle, we can start looking for a new way.
Just forging compromises around the edges of the old 20th Century solutions wont do it.
If Hillary is the Democratic candidate the R's will have a tough time getting much of the women's vote.
Who knows? The War on Women rhetoric seemed to boomerang this time around, and if the Republicans find a Veep nominee who has ovaries and isn't tabloid fodder Hillary dominating the female vote (over and above the usual Democratic advantage) may not be a given.
Teddy like Lincoln in this regard saw far into the future. He entered politics when the size of the average American was shrinking as was life span and infant mortality wad increasing. So was the appeal of socialism, anarchism and Lenin was not the only one reading Marx. The average work week was six days times 12 hours and the average pay per day was $2 dollars. He became more and more find a third way as he served longer.
And to me the thing that makes one think the most of him? The I am fit as a Bull Moose speech he gave when he rose from being shot was remembered for its "get off my plane" bad ass quote. But 90% of what he advocated was eventually implemented into law the first term of Franklin Roosevelt s administration.
The vision met the time when the divide between the social crisis foment of the Industrial Revolution simply had to be healed.
I thought for sure he was going to run, esp. after all the latest chatter that he didn't think Jeb Bush would be a strong nominee.
On the GOP side, I think it comes down to Bush, Walker, & Paul. Bush's stances on Common Core & immigration might hurt him-esp. immigration-but I think he ends up prevailing.
On the Democratic side, it's Webb, O'Malley, Sanders, & oh yeah, HRC. HRC wins in a walk.
Bush vs. Clinton. Ugh. I'll vote for HRC obviously, but can't America do better than offer up these two families?
that Bush Vs Clinton sucks Bull Moose Balls as a choice for the country, that is a big deal, since our politics are very different.
and hehe separate note, anything is possible but:
''RE: who would this one be addressed to, were it today?
Chris in Philly : 1/30/2015 2:27 pm : link : reply
In comment 12116212 idiotsavant said:
Quote:
You?''
since, yeah, the beard, 6'195lbs...i dont look much like any 'miss'
If Hillary is the Democratic candidate the R's will have a tough time getting much of the women's vote.
Who knows? The War on Women rhetoric seemed to boomerang this time around, and if the Republicans find a Veep nominee who has ovaries and isn't tabloid fodder Hillary dominating the female vote (over and above the usual Democratic advantage) may not be a given.
Kelly Ayotte?
She is so boring....but maybe that's a good thing.
If Hillary is the Democratic candidate the R's will have a tough time getting much of the women's vote.
Who knows? The War on Women rhetoric seemed to boomerang this time around, and if the Republicans find a Veep nominee who has ovaries and isn't tabloid fodder Hillary dominating the female vote (over and above the usual Democratic advantage) may not be a given.
Kelly Ayotte?
She is so boring....but maybe that's a good thing.
Ayotte is up for reelection in '16. I'm not sure if she could run for VP while simultaneously running for Senate. I know in KY you can't. Biden was able to do it in '08.
that someone who stumbles out of that clown car of candidates is actually going to beat Hillary, should she be the Democratic nominee. Yeah, she gets people fired up because of "no more glass ceiling!" and "it's our time!" and all that, but is that going to be enough to overcome her actual past positions and platform and inspire enough Dems to vote for her?
I guess I might hold my nose and vote for her if her competition is that much worse, but it would be a bitter pill.
Where I would vote hillary. The manipulation and deceitful Ness of her is one of the worst I've ever seen of anpolitician. I think she is just a miserable person and candidate.
Quote:
Were you home schooled?
Your question was where is the next TR coming from. TR was considered at the time to be a wing nut and a troublemaker. He was put in the VP role under McKinley to get him out of the way in a place where he couldn't do any damage. The last thing anyone expected was for McKinley to be assassinated and TR end up President. Today's opposition research would have had a field day with him.
It is possible to learn at home; I finished a biography of TR a couple of months ago. Reading; you should try it.
I am a big Teddy fan myself, and you are absolutely correct here. There were a TON of people who wanted him nowhere near the presidency.
And there was a ton of opposition towards him for the sake that he wanted to be a more public figure with sports, big game hunting, and being more of a public face.
Who knows if he would have had a chance today with the way people are scrutinized?
Agreed. Big fan of his.
I guess you're not from Jersey. Christie has no chance. 1st rd KO.
Christie Falls Off Chair. - ( New Window )
I'd say that's a pretty fair guess.
Quote: swing and a miss. Cruz = Senator Ted Cruz
.
I'm not sure that Victor Cruz is really qualified to run for the Presidency. He's definitely got charisma, but maybe he should start at the local level and then climb up?
For the life of me, I will never, ever understand this.
Walker 2016
TR ...best president we ever had IMHO
Somewhere in there is reasonable conservative philosophy.
Then as someone notes above, the demographics are changing ....not in their favor
Quote:
the person of their time? Teddy blew the doors off the Presidency and changed America for the better. I donr know if we will ever see the likes of TR again or Franklin for that matter
TR ...best president we ever had IMHO
Teddy was a mixed blessing. Personally dynamic, presided over our emergence on the international scene, but expanded the profile and expectations of the Presidency like few before him. Only Lincoln, a wartime President, and Jackson can really have been said to have been as consequential among the non-Founders, in many ways for better but in ways that in less capable hands would prove to be much worse.
Somewhere in there is reasonable conservative philosophy.
Then as someone notes above, the demographics are changing ....not in their favor
Reports of their demise, yadayadayada... The seminal issue is immigration, which undermines their appeal to growing constituencies. Ironically the tension that probably should be there between Democratic constituencies on the subject isn't there because of other issues and because of good old fashioned party identification. They were dead in the water after 2008 and managed to dominate the two midterms. Not the same as a presidential of course, but if you had told them that six years after getting demolished in 2008 they'd have viable majorities in both houses I think they would have been pretty surprised.
R's also have a big advantage in congressional elections from redistricting. That more than compensates for their demographic disadvantage, which they have always had.
Congress is Gerrymandering
Demographics are undeniable.
Evolution
World is older then 6k years
Jesus is coming back soon
The government is coming to take our guns
Taxing the rich less creates more jobs because they are the job creators and will have more money to hire people.
Anything that has to do with what a woman does with her body
to name a few...
Who knows? The War on Women rhetoric seemed to boomerang this time around, and if the Republicans find a Veep nominee who has ovaries and isn't tabloid fodder Hillary dominating the female vote (over and above the usual Democratic advantage) may not be a given.
Perhaps. The White House will be harder, and demographics matter alot more (exept for Gore). My gut is that Hillary isn't as popular with women as other female candidates, and R's may really be learning the value of appealing to the non-white-male voting block.
Quote:
If Hillary is the Democratic candidate the R's will have a tough time getting much of the women's vote.
Perhaps. The White House will be harder, and demographics matter alot more (exept for Gore). My gut is that Hillary isn't as popular with women as other female candidates, and R's may really be learning the value of appealing to the non-white-male voting block.
It will be the same breakdown. Single and ultra liberal women will vote for Hillary. Married women will vote for the R candidate. That's how's it was under Romney and most of the recent elections. Meanwhile the Dems have lost the white male vote and will not be getting that back with Hillary.
We'll see if that person is even a possibility nowadays. It's misremembering to pretend that they lacked tabloid journalism and sensationalism in that day and age, but internet news is a different phenomenon entirely. And while nobody could afford to be deaf to public opinion, TR was as apt to shape it as to react to it. Does a guy like that get anywhere near the White House nowadays?
which has not been the case in a while.
However, while there is still support for consensus at some point, the legacies of both of those presidents in terms of laws passed may not be so hot as respective leaders supporters would like to think.
I would like to believe that there is a new consensus to be built in the populist segment of each party, however, the potential consensus builders seem to be facing a continual stonewall in each party, with the insiders looking to preserve the weird compromise of theories that Bill and Ronald ended up with.
Somebody said recently, we have to stop looking at 20th century solutions.
But, if you think about it, what everyone really wants is a growing economy, jobs and to build their own lives and those sorts of compromises are really just tweaking around the edges.
Yes, the economy was growing like crazy at the time..BUT
That was the cheap money game...and
Now that the cheap money game is over, taking the wind out of the sails of the vestiges of the Clinton Miracle, we can start looking for a new way.
Just forging compromises around the edges of the old 20th Century solutions wont do it.
Quote:
If Hillary is the Democratic candidate the R's will have a tough time getting much of the women's vote.
Who knows? The War on Women rhetoric seemed to boomerang this time around, and if the Republicans find a Veep nominee who has ovaries and isn't tabloid fodder Hillary dominating the female vote (over and above the usual Democratic advantage) may not be a given.
Kelly Ayotte?
And to me the thing that makes one think the most of him? The I am fit as a Bull Moose speech he gave when he rose from being shot was remembered for its "get off my plane" bad ass quote. But 90% of what he advocated was eventually implemented into law the first term of Franklin Roosevelt s administration.
The vision met the time when the divide between the social crisis foment of the Industrial Revolution simply had to be healed.
On the GOP side, I think it comes down to Bush, Walker, & Paul. Bush's stances on Common Core & immigration might hurt him-esp. immigration-but I think he ends up prevailing.
On the Democratic side, it's Webb, O'Malley, Sanders, & oh yeah, HRC. HRC wins in a walk.
Bush vs. Clinton. Ugh. I'll vote for HRC obviously, but can't America do better than offer up these two families?
and hehe separate note, anything is possible but:
''RE: who would this one be addressed to, were it today?
Chris in Philly : 1/30/2015 2:27 pm : link : reply
In comment 12116212 idiotsavant said:
Quote:
You?''
since, yeah, the beard, 6'195lbs...i dont look much like any 'miss'
Quote:
In comment 12116736 BobOnLI said:
Quote:
If Hillary is the Democratic candidate the R's will have a tough time getting much of the women's vote.
Who knows? The War on Women rhetoric seemed to boomerang this time around, and if the Republicans find a Veep nominee who has ovaries and isn't tabloid fodder Hillary dominating the female vote (over and above the usual Democratic advantage) may not be a given.
Kelly Ayotte?
She is so boring....but maybe that's a good thing.
"Peace will come, when the arabs love their children more than they hate us"
"Don't be humble....you're not so great"
Quote:
In comment 12116749 Dunedin81 said:
Quote:
In comment 12116736 BobOnLI said:
Quote:
If Hillary is the Democratic candidate the R's will have a tough time getting much of the women's vote.
Who knows? The War on Women rhetoric seemed to boomerang this time around, and if the Republicans find a Veep nominee who has ovaries and isn't tabloid fodder Hillary dominating the female vote (over and above the usual Democratic advantage) may not be a given.
Kelly Ayotte?
She is so boring....but maybe that's a good thing.
Ayotte is up for reelection in '16. I'm not sure if she could run for VP while simultaneously running for Senate. I know in KY you can't. Biden was able to do it in '08.
I guess I might hold my nose and vote for her if her competition is that much worse, but it would be a bitter pill.
Moderator: Ok, lets move on to the economy.
Repub: Benghazi.
Moderator: I'm sorry, that doesn't seem fitting he-
Repub: Benghazi.
Moderator: Sir...
Repub: Call me Ben.
Moderator: Ben?
Repub: GHAZI!
God help us,
I mean what you want Chef, McDonalds or BurgerKing?