For U.S. repubs>> Who is the leader of the party right now?

[MV/Liberace!]

yp... great post about the subs.

[West of the Rockies]

Anyone planning on watching that Romney documentary?  From the preview I saw, it looks pretty sympathetic.  Funny, off-stage, the guy seems funny, capable of humility.  I think we're still some years away from being able to elect a Mormon as president.  In our long history, we've had 44 presidents.  43 have been white Protestants.  One was a white Catholic.  Obama is a mixed-race Protestant.  No Jewish presidents, no women.

[Yorkshire pud]

Anyone planning on watching that Romney documentary?  From the preview I saw, it looks pretty sympathetic.  Funny, off-stage, the guy seems funny, capable of humility.  I think we're still some years away from being able to elect a Mormon as president.  In our long history, we've had 44 presidents.  43 have been white Protestants.  One was a white Catholic.  Obama is a mixed-race Protestant.  No Jewish presidents, no women.

You need a Buddhist. Calm, measured, enigmatic smile, philosophical. 

[West of the Rockies]

I agree, Yorkie, but that'll be the day we end up with what you describe!

[NowhereInTime]

You need a Buddhist. Calm, measured, enigmatic smile, philosophical.

You know, I would like to see a documentary about Mitt Romney.  Despite his latent contempt for people who haven't figured out how to be rich, he seems like a decent guy. (Bain capital tactics aside - but I almost wonder if that wasn't even a "kill or be killed" mindset working there.)
When he was governor of Massachusetts, he always seemed like a good neighbor and that he rolled the dice on healthcare reform?  Still deserves more credit than he's given.

[Yorkshire pud]

yp... great post about the subs.

Cheers.
I thought that all the submariners, no matter who they were fighting for were incredibly brave. To go in metal tube several hundred feet underwater for weeks on end? Jeeeze. Although they do eat well! Funny thing was, as one ex Captain's wife said; in a war he'd be in the safest place on the planet.

[bateman]

You know, I would like to see a documentary about Mitt Romney.  Despite his latent contempt for people who haven't figured out how to be rich, he seems like a decent guy. (Bain capital tactics aside - but I almost wonder if that wasn't even a "kill or be killed" mindset working there.)
When he was governor of Massachusetts, he always seemed like a good neighbor and that he rolled the dice on healthcare reform?  Still deserves more credit than he's given.

I agree with this. What concerned me about him was his national security team. Loaded up with neocons. Project for a New American Century guys who were considered further right than Bush. 70% worked for Bush, in fact. That, and his likely pandering to social conservatives.

[West of the Rockies]

You know, I would like to see a documentary about Mitt Romney.  Despite his latent contempt for people who haven't figured out how to be rich, he seems like a decent guy. (Bain capital tactics aside - but I almost wonder if that wasn't even a "kill or be killed" mindset working there.)
When he was governor of Massachusetts, he always seemed like a good neighbor and that he rolled the dice on healthcare reform?  Still deserves more credit than he's given.

Alright, who are you, and what have you done with NowhereinTime? 

I concur with your sentiment actually....

[DanTSX]

I agree with this. What concerned me about him was his national security team. Loaded up with neocons. Project for a New American Century guys who were considered further right than Bush. 70% worked for Bush, in fact. That, and his likely pandering to social conservatives.

Neocons are bad news.

But does it really matter?

We still have Obama entering expeditionary wars and skirmishes around the globe directly.   And supporting armed uprisings indirectly.  Guantanimo?  Open.

I think you might be looking at Romney through the Anything But Bush vernacular.  I can't really blame anyone for that.

[DanTSX]

You know, I would like to see a documentary about Mitt Romney.  Despite his latent contempt for people who haven't figured out how to be rich, he seems like a decent guy. (Bain capital tactics aside - but I almost wonder if that wasn't even a "kill or be killed" mindset working there.)
When he was governor of Massachusetts, he always seemed like a good neighbor and that he rolled the dice on healthcare reform?  Still deserves more credit than he's given.

Compared to Deval Patrick, Mike Dukakis, Weld, and Celluci?  Anyone looks better than that.


Mass executives really hit their high water mark with Calvin Coolidge though.  I really enjoyed reading how a statist asshole like him could kick around socialist thugs.

[DanTSX]

If Joe Biden is not he dumbest person in Washington DC, I don't know who would be.  He ran once before (primaries).  He had to bail when it was pointed out his speeches were plagiarized from a British politician named Neil Kinnock.  Just not a bright person.  Which is probably why Obama picked hm.



Hillary's resume is fine, it's just that she shows poor judgment and has no accomplishments. 

Not that that's been a barrier to being elected President lately.

Hillary doesn't have a resume?

I'm a conservative and I think that is wrong.  Senator, Sec of State, Legal career, throwing lamps at Bill, licking box.

She runs her life like a Russian mobster.

But I don't think she can win.  Everyone knows that there are skeletons in her closet, and bodies to be found.

[NowhereInTime]

Hillary doesn't have a resume?

I'm a conservative and I think that is wrong.  Senator, Sec of State, Legal career, throwing lamps at Bill, licking box.

She runs her life like a Russian mobster.

But I don't think she can win.  Everyone knows that there are skeletons in her closet, and bodies to be found.

There's not a Republican out there she can't beat, except maybe Christie, who would challenge for Northeastern states like NJ, PA, CT and even Hillary's own NY.

[DanTSX]

There's not a Republican out there she can't beat, except maybe Christie, who would challenge for Northeastern states like NJ, PA, CT and even Hillary's own NY.

We will see how it goes.

Hillary has as many people that hate her as that love her. 

It will come down to if she can get more votes for her, than against her.  Not a run off between Democrats and Republican candidates.

[awake]

It's confusing because it's out of context.  This reads like the Left wing media's rendition of the Reagan years. 

Well, I don't know what context would change the facts mentioned.  I ask that you help me understand how any of the mentioned transgressions would seen as ok in today's republican party.  Hell, he signed gun legislation.  And raising taxes?  In the current repub political climate, I do not see how the Reagan record would be acceptable.  In fact, I think that if I showed Reagan's legislative record to a conservative group without including his name, they would not see that record as "conservative". 

[Quick Karl]

Anyone planning on watching that Romney documentary?  From the preview I saw, it looks pretty sympathetic.  Funny, off-stage, the guy seems funny, capable of humility.  I think we're still some years away from being able to elect a Mormon as president.  In our long history, we've had 44 presidents.  43 have been white Protestants.  One was a white Catholic.  Obama is a mixed-race Protestant.  No Jewish presidents, no women.

Funny thing - In Russia they've only had old Russian guys running the show. I suppose they should elect some random woman and/or person of color just to get even, regardless of the outcome, instead of actually working together as a country of citizens to elect the BEST person to lead the changes their country might need (it's up to them) with respect to larger picture instead of select groups of people - you know, like in America!

[Marc.Knight]

Funny thing - In Russia they've only had old Russian guys running the show. I suppose they should elect some random woman and/or person of color just to get even, regardless of the outcome, instead of actually working together as a country of citizens to elect the BEST person to lead the changes their country might need (it's up to them) with respect to larger picture instead of select groups of people - you know, like in America!

Very true.  That's why, in the USA, numerous lower level thinkers will vote for someone's appearance over the content of their character.  Here comes Hillary.

[Quick Karl]

Very true.  That's why, in the USA, numerous lower level thinkers will vote for someone's appearance over the content of their character.  Here comes Hillary.

Character means nothing when you vote for what you can get instead of our posterity.

Another great problem America has is the "revenge vote".

[PB the Deplorable]

Well, I don't know what context would change the facts mentioned.  I ask that you help me understand how any of the mentioned transgressions would seen as ok in today's republican party.  Hell, he signed gun legislation.  And raising taxes?  In the current repub political climate, I do not see how the Reagan record would be acceptable.  In fact, I think that if I showed Reagan's legislative record to a conservative group without including his name, they would not see that record as "conservative".

Well, to be fair they should see the entire record, not a few items that are cherry picked then distorted.

I'm posting a few short answers and providing context, but for some of it you'll have t be more specific.  An important point to keep in mind is the D's held the House for the entire Reagan Presidency, and that's where most legislation originates.  Presidents aren't dictators just able to decree their policies - at least they didn't used to be.

Taxes - tax rates went down considerably under Reagan.  Along with other policies (including from the Fed) this led to increased economic activity which led to increased tax receipts.  Is there a specific tax rate that went up?.

Increased spending, increased size of government, increased deficits.  This is mostly on the Democrat Congress.  Do you remember every year RR sending his budget up to Capital Hill and every year Tip O'Neill declaring it 'dead on arrival'?  I do.

As President, RR had  handful of priorities:  Rebuilding the military after Jimmy Carter and the Ds hollowed it out, defeating or at least containing the Soviet Union, getting the economy going again, reducing the size of government.  He was successful on only the first 3.  In order to get his top priorities accomplished, he had to surrender to more spending.  The D's held the economy, support for the military, and facing down the Soviets (and their allies in Central America) hostage in order to get more spending and increase the size of government.

Sold weapons to Iran.  Did the Congressional hearings not show he wasn't involved, that it was Oliver North and John Poindexter? 

3 things:  1) all the US Presidents have been dealing with the Palestinian terrorists, but that's been deemed ok.  2)  With the Congress playing games with our policy regarding the Sandinistas and support for the Contras - changing the details of the Boland Amendment every year - they made it impossible to have a coherent policy.  I applaud Oliver North and John Poindexter for keeping them funded.  Defeating the Soviet and Cuban proxies like the Sandinistas/FMLN/FARC/etc, and Maoist groups like the Shining Path/Tupac Amaru/etc in our hemisphere was more important than a few weapons to Iran, if that was the choice to be made.  It's too bad the Democrats stood in the way of helping our friends  3) I'll take the Reagan Administration's record dealing with terrorists over Obama's any day.

What wrong with strengthening Social Security?  We should be doing that now.  Along with Medicare.  They exist, people have paid into them their whole lives, and promises have been made.

Signed a gun law - are you talking about the Hughes Amendment that was slipped in at the last moment?


There is some context and answers for some of your questions.  If someone showed up at a Conservative event and showed them your post, no, they probably wouldn't support that candidate.  They would at least have questions.  If details were provided and the full record of the Reagan years were included, hell yes they'd go for it.  In a heartbeat.   So would most Independents, and more than a few Democrats

[MV/Liberace!]

I agree with this. What concerned me about him was his national security team. Loaded up with neocons.

that's sort of a snippet of what bothered me about romney.  i felt like, should he have won, we would be properly set up to continue eight more years of military adventures in arab countries who don't deserve (or want) our soldiers dying on their soil for their problems.  however, the foreign military adventures haven't exactly come to a halt under the obama administration.

people like rand paul are radically different as republicans go.  i feel like we live in very troubled times, and it's going to take a radical to fix the problems we face.  this country was founded by people labeled as extremists, after all.  if paul were to run, i think he would probably be the most viable candidate to win a national election.  he provides a real contrast against the likely democrat cookie cutter candidate we'll see running in 2016.  i think we now live in times when safe republicans like romney and mccain are incapable of winning national elections.  the same goes for governor christie.  he's just another shape shifting republican who appeals to democrats but won't actually get their votes nationally.  the only thing setting him apart from most repubs is his willingness to be loud, pushy, and obnoxious.

[MV/Liberace!]

Well, I don't know what context would change the facts mentioned.  I ask that you help me understand how any of the mentioned transgressions would seen as ok in today's republican party.  Hell, he signed gun legislation.  And raising taxes?  In the current repub political climate, I do not see how the Reagan record would be acceptable.  In fact, I think that if I showed Reagan's legislative record to a conservative group without including his name, they would not see that record as "conservative".

i don't know about the raising taxes bit, so i'm willing to be educated on that... but my big problem with reagan was the denial of highway funds to states that didn't conform with the federal minimum drinking age of 21.  that set a horrible precedent where states' rights are concerned, and it's a great example of big government being ok so long as it's big government social conservatives can agree with.

[Marc.Knight]

that's sort of a snippet of what bothered me about romney.  i felt like, should he have won, we would be properly set up to continue eight more years of military adventures in arab countries who don't deserve (or want) our soldiers dying on their soil for their problems.  however, the foreign military adventures haven't exactly come to a halt under the obama administration.

people like rand paul are radically different as republicans go.  i feel like we live in very troubled times, and it's going to take a radical to fix the problems we face.  this country was founded by people labeled as extremists, after all.  if paul were to run, i think he would probably be the most viable candidate to win a national election.  he provides a real contrast against the likely democrat cookie cutter candidate we'll see running in 2016.  i think we now live in times when safe republicans like romney and mccain are incapable of winning national elections.  the same goes for governor christie.  he's just another shape shifting republican who appeals to democrats but won't actually get their votes nationally.  the only thing setting him apart from most repubs is his willingness to be loud, pushy, and obnoxious.

We do need "change" and not the type that the current government is feeding itself with. 

Imagine for a moment if China, as a humanitarian gesture, decided to send 50,000 troops into Mexico to topple the corrupt government and defeat the drug cartels who really run the country.  Mix in the probability that China would maintain that level of troops and more, as they needed to pacify the population with long-range bombers and thousands of "midnight raids" to root out Mexican insurgents.  Perhaps 100,000 or more Mexican men, women and children are killed.  Chinese "drones" scour the Mexican skies night and day in search of "terrorist" leaders.

How would we react to this scenario?  Would we like it?  Would it give us an added sense of security on our border?  Or, would we just be annoyed that the price of weed has gone through the roof?   

The USA has been carrying out scenarios such as this for decades now, with justification and without.  I think we need to regain our extraordinary world leadership in the innovative development of "ideas" and "principles" of human worth and liberty.  This is what makes the USA a great country, not the echo of guns in places that hate before, and especially after our "humanitarian" intervention.

[Little Hater]

Very true.  That's why, in the USA, numerous lower level thinkers will vote for someone's appearance over the content of their character.  Here comes Hillary.

There's someone voting for Hillary based on her appearance ? Dear God.

[Marc.Knight]

There's someone voting for Hillary based on her appearance ? Dear God.

My point exactly.    

[Quick Karl]

My point exactly.   

She was cute when she was younger you know... 

[West of the Rockies]

Hey, Paperboy... in regard to your post about half a dozen above my own, you ask if Reagan knew anything about Iran-Contra or if it was all done by Oliver North & Co.  Isn't that what politics always comes down to though?  Conservatives are convinced Obama knew everything about Benghazi; they believe he orchestrated the whole damn thing.  Liberals feel the same way about Reagan and Iran/Contra.  Will either of us convince the other side to re-examine its views?  Nah....

In the meantime, the oligarchs get ever richer and you and I scramble around like manic squirrels after nuts.

[PB the Deplorable]

Hey, Paperboy... in regard to your post about half a dozen above my own, you ask if Reagan knew anything about Iran-Contra or if it was all done by Oliver North & Co.  Isn't that what politics always comes down to though?  Conservatives are convinced Obama knew everything about Benghazi; they believe he orchestrated the whole damn thing.  Liberals feel the same way about Reagan and Iran/Contra.  Will either of us convince the other side to re-examine its views?  Nah....

In the meantime, the oligarchs get ever richer and you and I scramble around like manic squirrels after nuts.

As always.

I did say that I approved of Iran/Contra as a way of supporting our allies in Nicaragua when the D's were playing games with their funding.  Does anyone support not providing security for our ambassador or not sending help during the raid?

We also held extensive hearing on Iran/Contra incident and got more or less to the bottom of it so people could decide for themselves, while with Benghazi we got a different story every day and the whole thing has now been covered up and buried.

I think when people come out and say what happened - even when it has to be done after being given immunity - the country mostly understands.  Everyone makes mistakes.  They are to be learned from.  What they don't understand or like are the lies and cover ups.

[Marc.Knight]

Hey, Paperboy... in regard to your post about half a dozen above my own, you ask if Reagan knew anything about Iran-Contra or if it was all done by Oliver North & Co.  Isn't that what politics always comes down to though?  Conservatives are convinced Obama knew everything about Benghazi; they believe he orchestrated the whole damn thing.  Liberals feel the same way about Reagan and Iran/Contra.  Will either of us convince the other side to re-examine its views?  Nah....

In the meantime, the oligarchs get ever richer and you and I scramble around like manic squirrels with no after nuts.

[bateman]

that's sort of a snippet of what bothered me about romney.  i felt like, should he have won, we would be properly set up to continue eight more years of military adventures in arab countries who don't deserve (or want) our soldiers dying on their soil for their problems.  however, the foreign military adventures haven't exactly come to a halt under the obama administration.

people like rand paul are radically different as republicans go.  i feel like we live in very troubled times, and it's going to take a radical to fix the problems we face.  this country was founded by people labeled as extremists, after all.  if paul were to run, i think he would probably be the most viable candidate to win a national election.  he provides a real contrast against the likely democrat cookie cutter candidate we'll see running in 2016.  i think we now live in times when safe republicans like romney and mccain are incapable of winning national elections.  the same goes for governor christie.  he's just another shape shifting republican who appeals to democrats but won't actually get their votes nationally.  the only thing setting him apart from most repubs is his willingness to be loud, pushy, and obnoxious.

That, and Christie will get his ass handed to him once everything the Romney campaign dug up on him comes out.

http://swampland.time.com/2013/11/02/the-hunt-for-pufferfish/

[Ben Shockley]

NOTE TO CASUAL READERS

The bolded passages in the post quoted below are not emphasized to indicate my agreement with them.  The opposite.  They are examples of rhetorical dirty pool.  Read on:

Hey, Paperboy... Isn't that what politics always comes down to though?  Conservatives are convinced Obama knew everything about Benghazi; they believe he orchestrated the whole damn thing.  Liberals feel the same way about Reagan and Iran/Contra.  Will either of us convince the other side to re-examine its views?  Nah....

I did say that I approved of Iran/Contra as a way of supporting our allies in Nicaragua when the D's were playing games with their funding.  Does anyone support not providing security for our ambassador or not sending help during the raid?

We also held extensive hearing on Iran/Contra incident and got more or less to the bottom of it so people could decide for themselves, while with Benghazi we got a different story every day and the whole thing has now been covered up and buried.

I think when people come out and say what happened - even when it has to be done after being given immunity - the country mostly understands.  Everyone makes mistakes.  They are to be learned from.  What they don't understand or like are the lies and cover ups.

Okay, see what P*B did there, folks??  He acts like he's making nice and agreeing with you, while slipping in highly-disputed, totally ideological, self-serving assertions as if they are accepted historical canon!  Those are the parts I've highlighted.
*Boy combines the appearance of ideologized ignorance with a pragmatic skill at ruthlessly disseminating propaganda.  No finesse at all: just brutal, non-reflective repetition.  If anyone is backing this guy as an Internet propagandist, they are getting their money's worth, if only in terms of head-down persistence.

[Marc.Knight]

NOTE TO CASUAL READERS

The bolded passages in the post quoted below are not emphasized to indicate my agreement with them.  The opposite.  They are examples of rhetorical dirty pool.  Read on:

Okay, see what P*B did there, folks??  He acts like he's making nice and agreeing with you, while slipping in highly-disputed, totally ideological, self-serving assertions as if they are accepted historical canon!  Those are the parts I've highlighted.
*Boy combines the appearance of ideologized ignorance with a pragmatic skill at ruthlessly disseminating propaganda.  No finesse at all: just brutal, non-reflective repetition.  If anyone is backing this guy as an Internet propagandist, they are getting their money's worth, if only in terms of head-down persistence.

ok.