Mike Huckabee Is Now The Front Runner In Iowa

[Mandark]

So who was Reagan so good at motivating, in your eyes?  Voters or pols?

Please show your work.

I was referring to his support among the American people, as well as the party; like all master politicians he was able to positively influence public opinion without much effort - that trust was there for whatever reason, just like Clinton more recently.

You're trying to speak for the zeitgeist of a period you didn't live through, without citing anything  to show why you'd think it.  This just reeks of received wisdom, and for the most part it's wrong.

Reagan's approval ratings were not anything special (not as good as Ike, JFK, Bush 1, or LBJ when taken as averages over their time in office), and he had one major domestic policy triumph, the tax cuts in 81.  He was re-elected easily, but the same is true for Nixon.  Like all politicians, they were very dependent on the general political climate of the time and of outside factors (get elected during a recession, re-elected during a boom).

Boo great man theory of history.  Hooray verifiable facts.

[Human Snorenado]

So who was Reagan so good at motivating, in your eyes?  Voters or pols?

Please show your work.

I was referring to his support among the American people, as well as the party; like all master politicians he was able to positively influence public opinion without much effort - that trust was there for whatever reason, just like Clinton more recently.

You're trying to speak for the zeitgeist of a period you didn't live through, without citing anything  to show why you'd think it.  This just reeks of received wisdom, and for the most part it's wrong.

Reagan's approval ratings were not anything special (not as good as Ike, JFK, Bush 1, or LBJ when taken as averages over their time in office), and he had one major domestic policy triumph, the tax cuts in 81.  He was re-elected easily, but the same is true for Nixon.  Like all politicians, they were very dependent on the general political climate of the time and of outside factors (get elected during a recession, re-elected during a boom).

Boo great man theory of history.  Hooray verifiable facts.

Bu-bu-bu-but if we name something IN EVERY COUNTY OF AMERICA after Ronald Reagan, people will think he's GREAT!  And we'll get him added to Rushmore!

[Phoenix Dark]

So who was Reagan so good at motivating, in your eyes?  Voters or pols?

Please show your work.

I was referring to his support among the American people, as well as the party; like all master politicians he was able to positively influence public opinion without much effort - that trust was there for whatever reason, just like Clinton more recently.

You're trying to speak for the zeitgeist of a period you didn't live through, without citing anything  to show why you'd think it.  This just reeks of received wisdom, and for the most part it's wrong.

Reagan's approval ratings were not anything special (not as good as Ike, JFK, Bush 1, or LBJ when taken as averages over their time in office), and he had one major domestic policy triumph, the tax cuts in 81.  He was re-elected easily, but the same is true for Nixon.  Like all politicians, they were very dependent on the general political climate of the time and of outside factors (get elected during a recession, re-elected during a boom).

Boo great man theory of history.  Hooray verifiable facts.

None of this applies to my point. I realize you're beyond partisan with respect to Reagan, but this is just weak. The Nixon comparison makes no sense to me given the circumstances of his re-election. The only president in recent history who left office with a higher approval rating than Reagan is Clinton. In office Kennedy, Eisenhower, and Bush had higher approval ratings but let's consider what was going on: Bush's ratings were helped by presiding over a huge military victory, Kennedy's were bolstered by a rather unique level of "magical" nationalism, and Eisenhower presided over a period of economic prosperity off the heels of WWII. Reagan entered office during a time of national crisis in terms of the country's identity and regained the American people's trust in the office of the president, which had been so badly harmed from tragedy (JFK), distrust (LBJ, Nixon), and perceived weakness (Carter). He recaptured the spirit of hope which had died with Kennedy, for many Americans.

Like Nixon, Reagan benefited from facing one of the weakest presidential candidates in his re-election. And while his second term was faced with a lot of controversy such as the Iran Contra conflict, but it is most remembered for the fall of Soviet Russia, which (right or wrong) solidified Reagan's place in history. That's what the American public remembers him for

[Mandark]

You say Reagan had a special ability to make people support him.  Okay.  Give some evidence.

Stop asserting a narrative that you can't support with either facts or personal experience.  Is this so hard to understand?

[Phoenix Dark]

You say Reagan had a special ability to make people support him.  Okay.  Give some evidence.

Stop asserting a narrative that you can't support with either facts or personal experience.  Is this so hard to understand?

My point has been quite clear for more than a page. Why we are arguing over whether Reagan had the ability to garner the support and trust of the American people during his presidency is beyond me - it's a historical point. It is reflected in his approval ratings, the vastly positive memory people have of his presidency, etc. That "narrative" is history, like it or not. It applies to Clinton as well, in many ways. He also was able to command the American people's trust, and never lost it. Reagan's approval may have dropped during the Iran Contra conflict, but there's a reason why it didn't hurt his presidency overall; people believed him. You are misreading my posts because you prefer to look at this from a policy position, in other words Reagan didn't get much accomplished, Iran Contra was a colossal failure, etc. I'm looking at it from a historical perspective, interested in the American people's perception of things. It's not hard to understand.

I'm not saying Reagan was the greatest president of the last 40 years: I am saying that he was a master politician, and one of the best.

[Mandark]

He was a master politician, like Clinton. He knew who to motivate and when

I don't think anything you've said has indicated that he made savvy choices in which people to motivate, or when to do so.

I'll concede that Reagan has an uncanny skill for being well-remembered two decades after the fact, but that's not quite the same thing.

Who did he choose to motivate?  When did he do it?

[brawndolicious]

wait, you think LBJ was a great president?  the only reason he signed the civil rights bill was because he had nothing to gain from vetoing it.  the country was mostly for civil rights and russia and the rest of the world were shocked at the racism in the US.  LBJ also pushed a 1956 or 57 civil rights bill when he was a senator and that had all the things of the 65 one but since there was no civil rights movement, the northern senators had nothing to gain from pissing off the southern senators and so LBJ had to cut out everything important from it and voila, the south was still segregated for another decade.

I mean I'm sure LBJ had a COLOSSAL approval rating but he was not a great president.

[Phoenix Dark]

He was a master politician, like Clinton. He knew who to motivate and when

I don't think anything you've said has indicated that he made savvy choices in which people to motivate, or when to do so.

I'll concede that Reagan has an uncanny skill for being well-remembered two decades after the fact, but that's not quite the same thing.

Who did he choose to motivate?  When did he do it?

An example of Reagan "motivating" would be him jacking the religious right from Carter and getting them to support him in mass, despite not being a religious man (especially when compared to Carter). This is where Bush W reminds me of Reagan: both never seemed particularly interested in catering to the religious right outside of necessity (pandering), yet they're viewed as deeply religious presidents. Reagan knew they were an important ally for him, and knew when to pander to them. There are stories that Reagan was not really a pro-choice guy, and the same has been said W. At least Bush had someone to re-create his image into this god fearing defender of all things holy.

[Phoenix Dark]

wait, you think LBJ was a great president?  the only reason he signed the civil rights bill was because he had nothing to gain from vetoing it.  the country was mostly for civil rights and russia and the rest of the world were shocked at the racism in the US.  LBJ also pushed a 1956 or 57 civil rights bill when he was a senator and that had all the things of the 65 one but since there was no civil rights movement, the northern senators had nothing to gain from pissing off the southern senators and so LBJ had to cut out everything important from it and voila, the south was still segregated for another decade.

I mean I'm sure LBJ had a COLOSSAL approval rating but he was not a great president.

Reading comprehension: where did I suggest he was a great president? Your take on his feelings about the civil rights bill are not historically based either; Johnson firmly believed in the bill and was greatly depressed that many blacks credited Kennedy for it.

To me LBJ is a tragic figure. There's so much I love about him, but I can never forgive him for Vietnam, specifically the Gulf of Tonkin fiasco

[brawndolicious]

it would have probably done more good to postpone the 57 bill until he could get enough support (civil rights movement was just beginning at that time) but he still pushed for it.

it reminds me of the sexuality rights bill recently where it's being withdrawn because the only way that it could pass was if transsexuals/transvestites weren't included because the voters wouldn't like the idea of their kid's teacher being woman one year and a man the next.  since the reps or senators that pushed it couldn't get it to pas as they wanted, they withdrew it because they wanted EVERY ONE included, kind of like how LBJ should have wanted EVERY RIGHT included.

[Mandark]

A Republican pandering to culturally reactionary white people in 1980 wasn't a masterstroke.  It was business as usual.

[Phoenix Dark]

A Republican pandering to culturally reactionary white people in 1980 wasn't a masterstroke.  It was business as usual.

...what?

It's clear you aren't even attempting to comprehend my points, so what's the point? You rag on FoC for failing reading comprehension yet seem to have taken his reigns here. And I say that out of respect and disappointment, because I know you're very smart. But as I've said on GAF many times, partisanship does nothing but blind people.

[Mandark]

Oh, I'm getting your points.  You're just making bad ones.

If you think of the Christian right as a movement that spawned in a vacuum, largely because Reagan decided to take the evangelicals away from Carter, then it was a genius move on his part.

I don't, though.  The leaders of the movement had been operating for years, and there was a rich history of people voting against the new, morally permissive culture that was tearing down old norms and sources of authority.  If you wanted, you could trace it back a century before Reagan.  Amnesty, Acid, and Abortion in 1972.  Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion in 1884.

The people involved in the Moral Majority were the ones who composed Nixon's silent majority.  They had pushed back against the civil rights movement, fought the ratification of the EPA, decried Roe v. Wade, and generally hated hippies.  This happened before Reagan, and right-wing politicians had been capitalizing on those sentiments for years when 1980 rolled around.

Reagan didn't buck conventional wisdom or pull off something very few other politicians could have.  He put together roughly the same coalition that last elected a Republican president, on issues that had already been at the forefront of popular debate.

If you can't make a real argument, then don't fall back on accusations of bad faith.  It's not a good look.

[Gay Boy]

the only reason he signed the civil rights bill was because he had nothing to gain from vetoing it. 

He had A LOT to gain from veteoing it. And he did his all to get it signed. He went down the senate and roughed up senators, swearing at them and grabbing them by their collars to force them to vote for it. He put his all into getting that bill passed.

Signing the civil rights bill killed the Democratic Party in the south. It lead to the death of the dixiecrat. As he said when signing the bill, they have lost the south to the republican party forever. He would have been able to keep the south democrat if he vetoed it.

[Human Snorenado]

Pee Dee, why oh why can't you remember the controlling maxim at play in any discussion-

YOU. DON'T. KNOW. SHIT. ABOUT. SHIT.

[FlameOfCallandor]

He had A LOT to gain from veteoing it. And he did his all to get it signed. He went down the senate and roughed up senators, swearing at them and grabbing them by their collars to force them to vote for it. He put his all into getting that bill passed.

Sounds like a great president. 

[Gay Boy]

He had A LOT to gain from veteoing it. And he did his all to get it signed. He went down the senate and roughed up senators, swearing at them and grabbing them by their collars to force them to vote for it. He put his all into getting that bill passed.

Sounds like a great president. 

It WAS great, I wouldn't call him a great president due to Vietnam but those rough actions he took during the civil rights bill lead up was great leadership. He rough-housed senators who didn't want to pass a bill to give civil rights, he used any means necessary to get that bill passed and America is better off because of it.

And history backs that up. His tough actions in congress are looked upon as something admirable in that time period because it was done to get something passed that changed america forever.

Can you imagine Bush or Clinton going down to congress on their own and cornering senators in hallways and get them to do what they want? Of course not. LBJ was a badass, at least in domestic policy. His foreign policy was a complete blunder of course.

[Phoenix Dark]

Oh, I'm getting your points.  You're just making bad ones.

If you think of the Christian right as a movement that spawned in a vacuum, largely because Reagan decided to take the evangelicals away from Carter, then it was a genius move on his part.

I don't, though.  The leaders of the movement had been operating for years, and there was a rich history of people voting against the new, morally permissive culture that was tearing down old norms and sources of authority.  If you wanted, you could trace it back a century before Reagan.  Amnesty, Acid, and Abortion in 1972.  Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion in 1884.

The people involved in the Moral Majority were the ones who composed Nixon's silent majority.  They had pushed back against the civil rights movement, fought the ratification of the EPA, decried Roe v. Wade, and generally hated hippies.  This happened before Reagan, and right-wing politicians had been capitalizing on those sentiments for years when 1980 rolled around.

Reagan didn't buck conventional wisdom or pull off something very few other politicians could have.  He put together roughly the same coalition that last elected a Republican president, on issues that had already been at the forefront of popular debate.

If you can't make a real argument, then don't fall back on accusations of bad faith.  It's not a good look.

It's hilarious that you're so stuck on this one point, which you've failed you even address. With respect to it being a "genius" move I never suggested that. But you've proven for more than a page that you're not interested in reading comprehension.

Cheebs: I agree. His tactics probably wouldn't fly in today's society lol.

[Gay Boy]

Cheebs: I agree. His tactics probably wouldn't fly in today's society lol.

They wouldn't but they got the fucking job done. And when the goal is something as nobel as civil rights history is willing to "allow" the roughness of his tactics.

[Human Snorenado]

Cheebs: I agree. His tactics probably wouldn't fly in today's society lol.

They wouldn't but they got the fucking job done. And when the goal is something as nobel as civil rights history is willing to "allow" the roughness of his tactics.

Bu-bu-but THE CONSTITUTION!  Bu-bu-but STATES RIGHTS!

[FlameOfCallandor]

So if I grabbed Gay boy by his collar and told him to vote a certain way because its noble, or I will hurt him I should be considered a great politician.

[FlameOfCallandor]

Bu-bu-but THE CONSTITUTION!  Bu-bu-but STATES RIGHTS!

You realize that the states created the federal government and not the other way around right?

[Gay Boy]

England created our founding fathers by that logic we should give them control.

[FlameOfCallandor]

England created our founding fathers by that logic we should give them control.

Except for that pesky thing called the revolutionary war, where we created a new form of government.

[APF]

It wasn't England who endowed all men with certain unalienable rights; that doesn't mean our laws are dictated--or our lives should be governed--by that creator.

[FlameOfCallandor]

It wasn't England who endowed all men with certain unalienable rights; that doesn't mean our laws are dictated--or our lives should be governed--by that creator.

 

[FlameOfCallandor]

[youtube=425,350]-tDSoipCSHE[/youtube]


This guy REALLY loves Ron Paul! 

[brawndolicious]

He had A LOT to gain from veteoing it. And he did his all to get it signed. He went down the senate and roughed up senators, swearing at them and grabbing them by their collars to force them to vote for it. He put his all into getting that bill passed.
Signing the civil rights bill killed the Democratic Party in the south. It lead to the death of the dixiecrat. As he said when signing the bill, they have lost the south to the republican party forever. He would have been able to keep the south democrat if he vetoed it.

He would have been MORE successful (read: got a real civil rights bill passed sooner) if he withdrew his first one instead of cutting everything out of it.  Since that civil rights bill was passed, southern segregationists could say they were being fair because they following the civil rights bill's laws.  it's not that hard to understand.

and foc, you fucked a girl AFTER you slept with her so you have to understand that we may doubt your foresight.  don't take this thread any more off-topic.  you have a shitheap depository for you.

[FlameOfCallandor]

and foc, you fucked a girl AFTER you slept with her so you have to understand that we may doubt your foresight. 

[Gay Boy]

FoC this is not your topic for Ron Paul youtube videos, bump the ron paul topic.

Edit: thanks nintenho

[Human Snorenado]

Cheebs, you should lock this topic so FoC will bump his shitheap. 

[FlameOfCallandor]

Cheebs, you should lock this topic so FoC will bump his shitheap. 

You are such a dumb ass and hours too late.

[Mandark]

It's hilarious that you're so stuck on this one point, which you've failed you even address. With respect to it being a "genius" move I never suggested that. But you've proven for more than a page that you're not interested in reading comprehension.

Cheebs: I agree. His tactics probably wouldn't fly in today's society lol.

You're the one who asserted that Reagan was a "master politician" who "knew who to motivate and when" and "he was able to positively influence public opinion without much effort".

You keep acting like I'm arguing against him as a good president.  I'm not.  I'm arguing against him as an exceptional politician.

His approval ratings were good, but behind several other presidents.

He did not bring any groups into his coalition that had not already been successfully targeted by Republicans.

He could not garner enough support or trust from the nation to make any major policy changes besides a tax cut.

Remember how you argued that we couldn't compare his ratings with those of other presidents, because they had benefited from external factors?  Well, the same goes for Reagan.  Same goes for Clinton.  It goes for all of them.  The primacy of those factors is my point.

If I'm wrong, show me.  Try to focus on history wie es eigentlich gewesen.

[Ichirou]

PD, stop making general statements based on how the media is portraying Reagan nowadays and give us some legit sources and hard info to back up what you're saying, please.

[brawndolicious]

actually it's only fox news that worships reagan.

[Mandark]

The meme of Reagan as a great politician is pretty well spread.  Plenty of liberals I know like to believe in Reagan's transcendent personal appeal, because they don't want to admit that a lot of people actually agreed with his worldview.

[Gay Boy]

If I am not mistaken, taken over the course of the 8 years werent Clinton's approval ratings generally higher than Reagans?

And the republican candidates obsession with Reagan has little to do with Reagan policy. It's mostly because Reagan is the only republican president since Ike that the public doesn't respond negatively to.

Nixon: need I say anything?
Ford: unmemorable half term president
Bush Sr: unmemorable 1 term president with a fuck up of a domestic policy
Bush Jr: lol

Democrats in 10 years will pull the same thing and call themselves the next Bill Clinton, it all goes in cycles.

[Phoenix Dark]

PD, stop making general statements based on how the media is portraying Reagan nowadays and give us some legit sources and hard info to back up what you're saying, please.

Everything I've said about Reagan is history. Should I also have to explain why FDR received so much love during his presidency, or why Lincoln was initially met with a lot of hesitation from north and south? Or why Clinton is a master politician? jeez

[Ichirou]

Please cite your sources, you're making really vague statements that smack of conventional wisdom.  That's all I'm saying.

[Mandark]

PD's certainly listed some historical factoids.  He just hasn't arranged them into anything like a coherent argument.

Now he's all defensive and credential-waving.  Boogie 2.0

[Boogie]

PD's certainly listed some historical factoids.  He just hasn't arranged them into anything like a coherent argument.

Now he's all defensive and credential-waving.  Boogie 2.0

Ouch, baby.  Very ouch. 

[bagofeyes]

 

[Mandark]

hahaha

But I'd totally defer to Boogie in all matters Ghost Wars-related.