Dear GOP Primary voters:
I'm a conservative independent and hence will not be voting in your primaries. However, I have voted republican in every presidential election since I was old enough to vote. You probably don't give a damm what I'm about to say, but I still want to impart to you my thoughts and advice on this election cycle.
First, I fully sympathize with your anger towards Barack Obama, who I believe is the worst president since LBJ. His policies have done enormous damage to this great country, and 4 more years of his administration will be a total defeat for capitalism, free markets, and national greatness. Having said that, however, you guys need to first win the 2012 election before worrying about actual governance.
This is where my "beef" comes in. You guys say that you want a conservative candidate who embodies your values who at the same time can beat Obama. You guys insist that you are a serious movement. And yet, your erratic behavior this year has been nothing short of embarrassing and downright harmful to the GOP and American conservatism. First, you were rooting for Sarah Palin, a profoundly ignorant woman who quit her governorship after 2 years and insists that she's a hapless victim of the media. You then flirted with that pompous vulgar man, Donald Trump, because he whipped you into a frenzy at CPAC and bashed China. Next, you fell in loves with Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, and Herman Cain in successive order, much akin to the high school cheerleader who takes turns dating the quarterback and the captain of the lacrosse team.
If you want to beat Obama, you have to get SERIOUS. This means selecting someone who is smart, knowledgeable, articulate, conservative, and ELECTABLE. None of your crushes thus far have more than 2 of those qualities mentioned. And yet, blinded by your hatred of the successful businessman, Mitt Romney, and your refusal to consider the most consistent conservative of them all, Jon Huntsman, who also would present the most profound threat to Obama, you are now in danger of relegating a great political party to a defeat of historic proportions. Do NOT fall into the traps of hatred and ideological fanaticism. THINK before you vote for the one who sets your hearts aflutter. Remember that without power, we conservatives will not be able to achieve any of our goals.
Sincerely,
A concerned thoughtful conservative
not directed towards you, but remembered this:
I'm Mitt Romney and I approve this message. face-palm*
Meanwhile at the GOP presidential race..
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2011-12-06/gingrich-poll-le…
I've been supporting Mitt Romney for the last 2 years, so I'm a Romney guy (Gingrich has always been my dream candidate but I never considered that he'd be a serious contender). But as a student of history I can't help but LOL at this post.
Ronald Reagan was just given the same verbal treatment in 1976 and 1980 that you gave every GOP candidate you listed--they're too conservative/unelectable. Dole and McCain were both nominated because they were thought to be highly electable. Well, ya know what? It's the economy, stupid. Rarely do presidential elections boil down to the cult of personality. It's the economy, economy a thousand times the economy. John McCain is probably the worst candidate the GOP has put up since, well, since FDR was president and he STILL got 47% of the vote. Think about that! With all the turmoil of 2008, a poorly financed McCain with low-intensity GOP support against a cult-like personality in Obama and McCain still got 47% of the vote.
At the end of the day the Democrat and Republican candidates have 45% built-in support barring extenuating circumstances, such as a Ross Perot candidacy or a wildly popular president, such as Reagan in 1984. The battle for the 10% swing comes down to money, the debates, and, above all, the state of the economy. ANY GOP candidate, from Bachmann to Perry, could defeat Obama if he/she can raise the money, perform well in the debates, and if the unemployment rate is above 7.5%. It's that simple.
A couple of points here.
You're correct that Reagan was dismissed by the mainstream media. Much of this was due to Reagan's age and his previous career as a B-movie actor. Let's compare Reagan to the likes of bachmann, cain, or palin on a substantive note. Reagan was a successful two-term governor of the largest state in the country and a vocal proponent of conservatism since the 1950's. Through his stint as host of general electric's tv show and his numerous writings and radio appearances, Reagan spoke out for low taxes, low government regulations, and a tough stance against the Soviet Union. By 1980, he had clearly emerged as the ideological leader of American conservatism who garnered praise from intellectuals such as William Buckley. There is no one in the GOP race right now who has the credentials that Reagan had when he ran for the presidency. So although you're technically right that the media was dismissive of Reagan, I don't think comparisons between Reagan and the current buffoons in the GOP race is apt.
Despite the pathetic state of the economy in 1980, Carter and Reagan were actually tied until the single presidential debate that was held about a week before the election. This is remarkable. Despite double-digit unemployment and long gas lines, Carter was still neck-in-neck with Reagan. Ultimately, Reagan's stellar performance convinced Americans that he passed the commander-in-chief threshold and could be trusted with the most powerful office in the land. The weekend before the election saw a massive shift in the polls, as undecideds and traditional democrats flocked to Reagan. So the fact remains that even when things are bad, a candidate has to be somewhat knowledgeable, competent, and articulate. Also, keep in mind that Obama, despite being a terrible president, is a great speaker and campaigner, who will have access to $1 BILLION in campaign funds. The notion that the GOP will easily beat Obama simply because the economy will remain weak is a dangerous conceit.
I agree that debates matter. I actually think Newt can hold his own against Obama in this category, but he has other issues that will bring him down. If you think the likes of Perry/Cain/Bachmann could successfully debate against Obama and convince swing voters that they can be an effective president, then I don't quite know what to say.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/06/us-usa-campaign-romney-comput…
Good luck explaining THAT in a debate.
Agree with general sentiment of the post: the GOP has been acting out on sheer emotion...not their strong point. This election cycle will be a 'learning experience'. 2016 looks very promising for them, so there's a light at the end of the tunnel. Hope that helps
Obama is the worst president since LBJ? What, were you in a fucking COMA from 2000-2008?
Imbecile.
The right has basically whitewashed the shit out of the Bush years. It's completely absurd. I struggle to point to one singular great accomplishment under Bush.
One singular great accomplishment???
I'd be happy if I could point to a single thing he didn't completely fuck up.
they should amend the constitution to only allow people who went to HBS the right to vote
"Having said that, however, you guys need to first win the 2012 election before worrying about actual governance." - Brady4MVP
This is everything that is wrong with the political parties in this country. This tells you everything you need to know about this poster's political views- it's not about principles, it's about power. This is precisely the reason every year we have a choice between the lesser of two evils. Until this faux pragmatism is exposed for what is truly is- lust for power- we will lack honest candidates ready to make the hard, unpopular decisions and unwilling to throw principle aside at the first sign of trouble merely to ascend to power. Except Ron Paul. The natural retort of these "realists" is, of course, that principles won't do you any good if you have no power. I would counter, power is destructive if not guided by principles.
And to speak directly about the current field of candidates- our present situation dictates that we are beyond "so-called" moderates. Without resorting to hyperbole, the math is simple and the numbers are in- the global economy and this country face financial ruin. The situation is akin to a large vessel heading for an iceberg. When you were 100 miles away a slight turn to the wheel, almost imperceptible, would have been sufficient to avoid a collision. Today, maybe we have 500 feet. If you want the establishment insiders Romney, Gingrich, or whomever is the flavor of the month, fine- it's your decision. But your error will become apparent soon than you think.
By the way, hands down- Ron Paul is the most consistent Republican and is thoroughly conservative.
Could we ever have a conversation about Obama without blaming Bush? I mean in the beginning Obama was the second coming of Christ. Now he is not as bad as Bush. Real funny how expectations have changed.
Can the right have a conversation about Obama without the hyperbole of calling him the worst president ever or something along those lines?
So wait, the right calls him the worst President ever and the left's retort is that he is the 2nd worst President ever, Bush being the 1st.
Seems fine. I am cool with admitting that Obama is either the worst or 2nd worst President.
haha gold!
nobody ever said that. Brady's statement is ridiculous and Bush (as always) was an easy pick to disprove said statement. that's all.
Then you're delusional, bro. Obama isn't even in the Top 10. He's mostly a do-nothing fuckwit who'll pass his 8 years and be completely unremarkable aside from being the first black president.
If you're looking for the worst Presidents who've actually done their dead-level best to destroy the Constitution, the top 5 have to be:
Lincoln FDR Wilson Bush the Dullard And a tie between Hoover and Nixon
Full disclosure: I voted for Bush in 2000. Most shameful fucking vote of my life.
Spot on with this list.
Braverman, you cannot put to together a list of the worst Presidents this country has seen and not have Harry Truman as number 1.
He started the unitary executive of unlimited wartime powers and undeclared "police action" (or as it is referred to today "kinetic military action") . Lincoln at least argued the "necessary and proper clause" - every since Truman it has been- "I'm the POTUS - I can do whatever I please." He started domestic surveillance as a national policy. He created the precedent of Presidential unaccountability.
Without Harry Truman, and the the craven Congress that refused to impeach him, you don't have Bush allowing FICA courts to conduct secret hearings, you don't have Guantanamo, you don't have national security letters and warrantless searches, or the executive orders granting unlimited power to the federal government in case of "an emergency as defined by the President". I agree with all of your list, but Truman is the modern architect who bastardized the Constitution.
Obama is a bit of a Carter redux in my book, but worse than Bush II?
I think ranking the presidents is impossible to do because the individual powers of the presidency were so wildly different between the 18th, 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries. How do you compare Buchannan and Carter? Realistically it's impossible. So I think one must start in the modern era of politics, which started right around 1913 with Woodrow Wilson. And even from there the rankings will differ wildly between ideological positions. For example, I consider Truman one of America's greatest presidents of all time but libertarians like the above poster see Truman as lower than Adolf Hitler.
My list of the modern era from worst to best (I don't rank Obama or W. Bush because there isn't enough time/historical context):
LBJ Wilson Hoover Carter Harding Nixon H.W. Bush Coolidge FDR JFK Eisenhower Clinton Truman Reagan
Great list. I too would place LBJ at the bottom; that man did more damage to this country than any president in modern history, ranging from terrible economic and social policies (inner city crimes, destruction of the traditional black family, welfare state, can all be attributed to him) and terribly misguided foreign policy. Much of the economic woes of the 1970's are the results of LBJ's policies.
Your top 4 is identical to mine. I think Reagan restored American greatness after the failed liberal policies of LBJ, Nixon, Ford, and Carter. I shudder at where this country would be if Carter had won in 1980. Truman was a great man of principles who made some of the most difficult decisions of any president. His foreign policy laid the groundwork for the Cold War Era. Clinton is the man. One of the smartest presidents we ever had; he understood policy and the American people like no other. Damm, I wish he could run again. Ike is criminally underrated while JFK and FDR are overrated, imo.
On a whole I like Truman - but didn't he nationalize something like 90% of the steel industry? Can you imagine if that happened today.
Yeah, but you've got to keep context. I bet we'd disagree with half of George Washington's indivdual day-to-day domestic policy decisions. But great presidents are ranked by their big, long-lasting accomplishments or failures. For Truman it was ending WWII with the atomic bomb, the Marshall Plan to aid West Berlin, the Truman Doctrine and the defense of South Korea. As a Republican Party loyalist it pains me to love Truman so much because he was so left-wing in his domestic policies and he was hyper-partisan and HATED the Republican Party. Nevertheless, his foreign policy so far outshadows any domestic politics that he lives on as a lion in history.
You may have pinpointed the GOP's primary problem: loyalty to the party and their ideology has overstepped loyalty to the country and reality a long time ago. Obama winning should have been a good, hard slap in the face but the GOP didn't seem to 'get it' so I'll explain this in painful detail: Even the centrist voters, especially the centrist voters (you know, the ones that decide the elections) stare in disbelief at some of the ideas proposed in the last few years by the GOP. How else do you explain why they were beaten by a political rookie? I try very hard to be realistic and bounce from centrist to totally apolitical (active observer though) and my observation from this perspective is that the last generation of Republicans seem willing to do anything to win and/or uphold some vague notions with the attitude that 'everyone be damned for getting in their way'.
If someone wants to look at the world a certain way, far be it from me to try to change their mind, but the proposals so far range from blatantly self seving to flat out lunacy. Here's a few real winners: * end the FED? - past pols have tried this with disastrous results * Vote for me, vote for God. - no one's buying this at this point, not even Catholics * End abortion - probably the single most divisive issue, but it's not happening * guns guns guns - this actually bothers me b/c I LIKE GUNS, but good rules are needed, m'kay? * Gays are evil - they're not going away. Grow up and deal with it, we have bigger problems * flat tax - the bottom line is a massive tax cut for the rich and everyone knows this * Environment - I hate tree huggers. I also hate people that poison the air and water. Work on this * War/machismo - America will defend itself, but they've just taken it too far. We can't live like this * Law and order - Foster good citizens and you'll have less criminals...this is basic good governance * conspiriacies - SMH. Ok, for real, there is no secret liberal world government. Cut this crap out. * The N****R in office - this isn't openly stated, but a LOT of the GOP crowd simply hates him * Healthcare - a pound of prevention... This issue isn't going away and it will get worse. Wake up * Social programs - they need overhauls, definitely. But they're not going away. ** part two is this: running the programs into the ground so they can justify defunding them is total crap. This is a perfect example of how their belief system makes them DELIBERATELY suck at their job. It's almost beyond belief.
I'm not going to attack or defend the Dems because I don't particularly care about them at this moment, but don't worry, I'm an equal opportunity hater. [of politicians]
The bottom line is this: A lot of people don't like the president. No one said they had to. But turning to lunatics, hacks, and opportunists who will say anything to keep the conservative vote are really just half of the problem. I'll be honest: I'm calling the 2012 election in favor of Obama and this should mean one thing as far as the GOP is concerned: that's FIVE WHOLE YEARS to start building the soul of a new machine. Forget grabbing easy victories...the tea party screwed the GOP enough on that approach...I'm talking massive team building. The major strength of the GOP has been the ability to act as a bloc of voters, as a unit when it mattered most...and they've never been afraid of hard work. At this point, they're half willing to do this, but no one is sure what they're rallying around.
Is the GOP the party of globalism or isolationism? Of meritocracy or political clans and inherited wealth? (the Bushes and Kochs, for example) Liberty or enforced social rules? Fiscal responsibility or of telling business "do whatever the hell you want......we're on your side"?
Personally, I can't tell, and neither can the country. I'm not sure the GOP even knows what they are right now.
Win or lose, the next few years should challenge the GOP to formulate a REALISTIC and RELEVANT platform and then go out and get it done. I know they can, you know they can, THEY know they can. I don't want to hear excuses, it's time to get back on track and get back in the game.
One other thing: I won't post another long political rant. I promise.
Ranking past presidents on their level of suckage is useless. What good does it do us today?
That's an absurdly long post that's taken out of context. You quoted me without finishing my statement.
It pains me to like Truman because he was so liberal on domestic policy and he was a hater of all things Republican and was a huge fan of unions.
The GOP is in bad shape and I'd like to think they can do better...that's all I'm trying to say.
P.S. I'd love to work as a political strategist. This finance thing is cool, and maybe I'll end up rich [more likely, not], but I think I just realized that my primary interest is understanding politics and promoting good ideas that can actually happen.
I'm sorry I wasted your time. I do hope you read that last post and think about it. It's been on my mind for about fifteen years and I just can't humor anyone anymore.
Aut dolor eius ipsum ea sunt. Incidunt et iure vero iste et sunt aut voluptates. Quisquam praesentium ut quo et et.
Temporibus quis eligendi maxime sequi. Non accusamus modi qui praesentium.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Repudiandae laborum eum ullam possimus dolores qui iusto id. Quia est ad harum quia.
Et perspiciatis aut dignissimos perferendis autem molestiae et. Et nesciunt eos molestiae illo distinctio quia consequatur sapiente. Qui amet sit ea ut soluta. Eveniet aut ipsum sunt modi optio voluptate aut.
Autem ipsam veniam ipsum aut dolor. Magnam facere eius nesciunt quas. Officiis nam distinctio est molestiae eveniet.
Voluptates sint ipsam sed voluptas velit et voluptatum. Dolor minus enim ea earum rem voluptatibus. Aperiam maiores consequatur sunt tempora recusandae. Quo labore dolor est tempore saepe aut.