I typed this quickly at work and miscommunicated a bit. Problem now is I'm trying to explain it in the way I meant.
But they way I worded it is most definitely incorrect.
Question: Whitehouse visit
- Thread starter prattalumni
- Start date
But they way I worded it is most definitely incorrect.
I am not saying the Democrats have not used this strategy, but I am saying none of the prior Presidents were sociopaths who used their office to steal from the American public.
Not able to speak for Selma, but I took his position as about elect-ability.
Rarely do you see consistent principles (e.g. consistent egalitarianism or consistent libertarians) work effectively in our essentially two party elections. Many people are not consistent, and in any case to get elected you mainly have to be a "big tent" politician. In practice you have to hobble together a portion of the electorate that does not really agree internally with itself, so you give each portion a little bit of what it wants even though each portion may conflict with another logically and ideologically. The European countries with multiparty elections do the hobbling together after the election when they form coalitions. And I take it Selma's point is rather about how who represents a "consistent" ideology is applied to the selection of a primary candidate, you get someone who is likely not good at big tent politics.
I too can relate to what your saying here. I was raised in a conservative environment and my parents were both Democrats. They left the D party when Reagan came into office. Vietnam profoundly changed me and my politics and admittedly I became cynical about politics. I'm not a one issue voter, but I very much line up with the democrats. Trump has pretty much done me in concerning politics.
I'm ok with the team going to the WH. This won't be perceived as an endorsement of Trump or his policies. I have faith that Coach Saban will handle this right.
OK, I've rested a little bit to clear my head.
For starters, I wasn't clear that I was speaking specifically of ELECTED OFFICIALS (not individual voters) who get called "moderates," particularly those who try to make a big deal about "being in the mainstream" during campaigns. Now I think (from what I've read) that I'm agreement with you regarding the utter uselessness (in the real world) about the labels attached to folks. There are really - in the descriptive sense - two kinds of moderates in politics: 1) those that are described by others as moderate; and 2) those who want to make sure to describe themselves as moderates. The second class - the weasel class in my view - are the ones who want to make sure they fall right on the side of an issue where greater than 50% agree with them pretty much all the time. Two folks I'd include in this group are Bill Clinton and Dick Gephardt (Richard Nixon and Mitt Romney are two others, yet both of them wanted to make sure folks called them "conservative".....and perhaps the most moderate of the moderates was GHW Bush, which is why he only won once).
I was not clear in that I was referring specifically to elected officials, NOT the electorate at large. I have no doubts that voters who might be described as moderates. I'm NOT saying (for example) that these folks listed above don't have a conviction or two that are important to them - but they'll sell it out in a second to get votes.
Of course, I'll admit PART of the problem is both the electorate AND the coverage of these things. Journalism inherently has to over-simplify to communicate in a short period of time so they look and say, "Ok, Candidate A is for the Strategic Defense Initiative, therefore, he's a conservative."
But that's all I was saying and referring to the elected NOT the electors.
I wouldn't pass up a trip to DC or a visit to the whitehouse. I would be fine however if Trump was away golfing on that day.
To be fair, I'd pass up a trip regardless of whom occupies the throne if I were a PRO athlete. However - I DO think (and have said this) that if you are the student of the university and they're invited that you should have to go. If you're a pro athlete (a la James Harrison), do what you wish - I really don't care.
This would be funny if you didn't believe it. Say what you want about Obama, but he did not do what Trump is doing - nothing like it at all. Or did Obama put his family in multiple positions in the government and use them to steer business his way? Did he make sure to have the government pay his business millions so they could be there to protect him and his family? Did Obama use his position to open up business opportunities for himself? Not talking books and speeches. Direct taxpayer funds flowing into a business he owns. Maybe you don't like how Obama and congress spent your money, but never did he directly enrich himself with taxpayer funds that were not his salary. There is no comparison.
I can say a lot of bad things about Barack Obama, whom I never voted for.
I can also say a lot of GOOD things about him.
I never worried that he might wake up in a fit of preteen angst and start WW3 with nukes falling from the sky.
I never saw him boasting about the size of his junk on TV.
I never worried that he would spill classified information right out in public trying to make a point that did nothing but make him look like a buffoon.
I can recall presidents back to Carter. With the exception of Bill Clinton's first six months (and give him credit - he hired David Gergen and got a lot better in his public approach), every President I've lived through exhibited stature, awareness of who/what he was, and tried to show a level of both dignity and adulthood and at least give the appearance of being a LEADER regardless of what was going on in the back room negotiations. This has been true of the guys I liked (Carter, Reagan, Bush), tolerated (Bush 2, Obama), or utterly despised (you know who). ALL of them had a sense of who they were.
Every single one of those guys had moments of drama. But their drama was limited to a few moments that made it out in public.
THIS guy has more drama every single day than I saw come out in the entire Iran/Contra and Lewinsky scandals COMBINED. My son, who is 19 and Asperger's, demonstrates more maturity and capacity to lead this country than this guy does.
I'm too young to recall anything about Watergate other than the TV schedule getting interrupted by hearings (and I didn't even know what that was about, only that Mom's soaps weren't on). But even as the heads rolled around Nixon, I cannot imagine that he was on TV every single night in a childish tirade like this orange-haired bozo is.
Obama had some narcissistic tendencies and at times tended to lapse into "constitutional law professor lecture" mode that was ingratiating at times.
But regardless of the fact I agreed with Obama on almost nothing, the man carried himself with dignity and looked and (more important) ACTED like a leader.
This guy acts like the guy who boasts about what an awesome poker player he is, loses a hand because he does something incredibly stupid (like betting his entire company on a pair of twos), and then - when he loses - throws the chips and cards around the table and screams "unfair" and accuses everyone at the table of cheating.
I lived through Vice President Dan Quayle. If he had become President (and he was the most thoroughly unqualified VP of my life), it would not have been this insane. (Quayle was a rich trust fund kid, but he also was smart enough to know he wasn't all that bright; he did phenomenal overseeing the Senate vote and debate in the run-up to Operation Desert Storm).
Sarah Palin as President would not have been this nutty. THINK about that.....
I can agree with everything you said until this point. I just don't know if I can say if she is more sane than trump, or that I trust her more than trump. I can say that she probably doesn't have the staff turnover, or the childish remarks he does, but given the option between the two I still take jumping off the cliff than saying on over the other.
I agree with Bill that Palin would be a better President than the current guy. For all her faults, and there were many, I never perceived her as a mean spirited, vindictive person. Though she is nutty as a fruitcake, IMO she is not a crook stealing from the American people.
Last edited:
What hurt McCain more than anything was when the stock market crashed and he TRIED to downplay it. Right up until that moment it was a tie race. The voters actually DO make independent assessments of each candidate (this seems to surprise some people). They had let McCain be DIFFERENT than Bush (as he was) right up until the moment he uttered the phrase that destroyed his chances of winning: "The fundamentals of our economy are strong."
That killed him.
Not Palin.
Not "Bush is in the White House"
Not the so-called blue wall.
There's an eerie fact behind this that almost nobody knew about back in 2008.
Look at the following line from a speech:
"New Hampshire has stood more than its share of rain, job - hurting and the families wondering how they're going to make their ends meet. But there is going to be a rainbow out there. There's some fundamentals that are pretty darn good.
This was a speech given on January 15, 1992 - by President George H W Bush in Exeter, New Hampshire....in the midst of a deepening recession. The moment I heard McCain's comments, this came flying back to my mind. Most folks who were adults in that campaign don't even remember this speech.
Why?
Well, the very next day, the "Star" tabloid broke the Bill Clinton affair with Gennifer Flowers story. But Bush would have had more trouble with that comment had he made it nationally in September after a market crash, too.
A liberal buddy of mine (now deceased) and I were talking about this and he said, "The fundamentals of the economy - the Republican gift that keeps on giving every single campaign."
Latest threads
-
SEC West Showdown Sends Alabama to Oxford to Meet with Ole Miss- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
Davis II Named to Stopper of the Year Midseason Watch List
- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
Eleven-Run Third Powers Alabama to 14-5 Win over Samford
- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
Maybe aTm's Pockets Aren't So Bottomless After All -- Layoffs In The Athletic Department
- Started by 4Q Basket Case
- Replies: 5
-
Time to un-vacate 2005-2007 on field victories and un-forfeit the 1993 season?
- Started by CmdrThor
- Replies: 20
-