dayman

Ya I mean that'll be the slant clearly if it's her, which it will not be.

Are there dealings from Bain in the 3 years following '98 that are things significantly "worse" than before that Romney has to avoid explaining? I'm not some Bain expert but why is Romney so sensitive to these 3 years?

I see know I guess I missed this whole "story" haha. To me it's more Bain hardball. Romney is going to have to confront it politically, if apparently his name was on the SEC filings for 3 more years. I mean I think politically his base won't care but I guess some independents in some swing states want to know (at least that's the calculation both sides seem to take seriously since there's such a fight over this stuff). And apparently he said it was a leave of absence when he went to run for Governor of Mass to show he intended to return so he could run there (residency etc). Their using felony card to force him to admit he wasn't off the hook for some of the time where I guess they have some business decisions to exploit. It's hardball. Obviously nobody that supports Romney is going to like this stuff and you'll all just say I'm a partisan hack for saying this but that's not a big deal even though I know the other side will get defensive. It's just forcing the issue of Bain a bit more and not letting him dodge whatever they want to attack there. I live in Florida, I've seen worse than that on TV from both sides and the primaries haven't even hit. Obama gets hit hard in Florida almost every 3rd commercial break on the channels I watch. Hell a years ago in Florida we got a **** load actual TV ads LITERALLY calling our governor a felon who got rich defrauding the gov't, and then we elected him anyway lol.

LOL I forgot about that bilderberg thing. Haha that would be classic.

Is there an ad where Obama calls Romney a felon or is it all the media/surrogates? If ad can someone link it?

Bleh I'm drunk and sleepy for my Friday sleep in day (my birthday actually lol I know you all feel great for me)...but I got the video up and am watching it. it's Obama so it's an hour or course. Maybe I'll back to this tonight but in not then I will later and state my opinion on the speech.

Well the simplest way to put is it what did you mean initially? What counter attacks did McCain call off that bothered you?

Reagan shook his first publicly, negotiated well privately, and above all came to understand as his Presidency went on the Soviet situation and applied pressure to capitalize on their internal dysfunction. In the most simple and brief way possible (to avoid another book), those are my thoughts. In his dealings with the Soviets, he was successful through what he did at the time he did it. And that in no way marginalizes his accomplishment as I see it, to put it that way. In what ways do you feel President Obama has gone around the world apologizing for America? This is one thing I have never been able to understand, though recognizing some people really do feel this way.

Sad post. And while Romney will play hardball, no doubt, he has not and IMO probably will not do what I read this post as suggesting McCain should have done. That is, go Lee Atwater on crack. If that isn't what you meant, then I'm sorry and I just don't know what you mean.

It would depend on whether or not I thought the policies he would promote in the modern day would work. If they were the same ones as he employed in the 80s, I probably would not. And that does not mean simply cutting taxes or spending or anything like that. If he evaluated the modern situation, took in the evidence, and came to conclusions that seemed plausible and communicated them well I would certainly have faith he could carry them out as a leader. But lets be frank, it would depend on if the Democrats let it happen. And vis versa with the president today (and that isn't playing the blame game). I will say this though, I do think there is some truth when Jeb Bush says the modern GOP climate makes it difficult for anybody to do that ... be a pragmatist (publicly). I do believe, even though I do not support Mit Romney, that ultimately if he is elected president he will analyze the situation both foreign and domestic and make some decisions that he believes are the best way to go. And even though I know Obama is the devil to some people that is what I believe he has done. And that is what I believe Bush did even though a couple of those were clearly either the wrong choice or were executed badly. And so on...on...and on. It's one of the fundamental reasons I'm so pro-executive. It's not b/c I'm want a dictator. And I do love our form of government generally. But I want a strong president. When you consolidate power, and the real world weight of modern political decisions is staring you in the face...you are going to think twice about it. And the staunch ideology of your base, some stupid pledge you sign to some idiot lobbyist, all the dis tractors...on the big issues you have to do what you believe. The President is unlike any other position in Government. That sums up the basic "love the incumbent" sentiment (to put is pessimistically) that some of friends who I discuss this stuff with in person have labeled me with. I know I'll be blasted for suggesting this, but I've learned a lot about China recently. Absolutely no !@#$ing way am I suggesting China is in anyway preferable to us. I'm not a communist. I'm not a socialist. But there are aspects of the Chinese system of leadership that really do work very well. And those same aspect often create huge problems when they get things wrong. Which is why our system is preferable, but IMO with as strong a President as possible. (and of course...ya know...a bill of rights and emphasis on personal freedom in our private speech and whatnot etc) EDIT: And btw I'm not actually a "love the incumbent" guy that's a cheap shot my more "pure democracy" friends will throw my way when he dork out with beers and talk about this. Just for the record. I have no problem admitting that like a lot of other people I supported Bush though on some policies that backfired...but that's life. As I see it that is a false simplification of history. But I'm not God and that's just my understanding. One thing he was, was a strong President in his time. And I agree that is timeless. But why that ended up being the case...was more complicated than his shaking his fist and calling people evil. As was it simply uping the ante on spending. And yes...I'm not knocking him for it...but there were some factors out of his control that fell his way. And as I said before, he was a successful president on that front there is no argument.

I'll save the prolonged point I was going to make there as a back-and-forth and just cut the chase. The critics of his public approach (even though from all I know his private approach while firm was quite different) said he was a radical McCarthiast who would bring nuclear war. If he was an unpleasant man, or a brooding booyman as Nixon was made to be publicly, he would never have been able to employ that strategy. History clearly shows he was successful with the Soviet Union on all fronts, behind the scenes and creating a public atmosphere (domestically and abroad) that allowed it all to happen in our best interest. But it was, as all foreign policy is, due to his political ability. It is inherently political, both domestic and foreign. He had to sell the people of America, and then execute. There is absolutely no way to do the later without the former. And it's important to note btw IMO when talking about this given the fact I know you and John are conservatives (generally speaking) that the rhetoric of campaigning and the tactics on the ground when you really have the ability to effect millions are two different things. Reagan himself ripped Kissinger on the campaign trail with regards to China and privately assured him that he would in fact continue on the ground work Kissinger laid and told Kissinger to relay that message to the Chinese. So I would caution (not that I assume you do) you to not just get caught up in the campaign riling speeches and assume it's actually in our best interest to walk around "yelling" at our geopolitical rivals. That isn't something I'm saying you all support, but it was a Republican theme in teh primaries. It all relates back to the point I was making, the "hat" is more than half the battle. In political leadership the "hat" is everything. And it's not a knock. Now obviously if you are "all hat and no cattle" (I'm driving this into the ground lol) that means you weren't successful in the end, and it's no excuse to say you had a good hat. But the hat has to be there either way. And contrary to popular belief Reagan did not merely threaten to crush the Soviets, or strong arm China, or anything like that. Reagan took an approach as any foreign policy success must take, which is engage in some sort of productive dialogue along with applying pressure in a way that is wise. Hell Gorbachev and Reagan were geopolitical rivals...but they actually became friends as well. This isn't b/c he was waiving his finger in his face and calling him evil. In summary, Reagans "hat" was key to his foreign policy. And I would agree with that then.

Well I agree we could use a president with a lot of Reagans qualities. The one thing I don't like is that people would point to him, or Clinton for that matter, or even FDR, or anyone else and say that we should replicate past policy b/c it worked at that time. Not matter how similar people can make today look to any given period of time in the past, it's no where near the same. And 30 years from now won't be the same. The economy is way different and we're at a different starting point. The geo-political landscape a completely different situation. Etc If there was a "correct" ideology it's difficult to see why we don't live in an eternal utopia. That's the thing that I don't get about the Reagan "worship" so to speak, is not that Reagan was stupid, or an evil destroyer of the middle class, or any of the knocks you hear from people who have problems with him will say...it's just the idea that we should just "do as Reagan did" or better yet "do as we would like to say Reagan did." Hell...it's pretty clear there have been great leaders in this country alone, and certainly around the globe, who were very different from each other. Thing is their time (or in the world view their place also) were all different. Staunch ideology is just boring and a dumb approach to any discussion about this stuff. Not to say we can't talk about history btw that would be absolute nonsense...but being too focused on the past to validate an ideology whether it's praising a person/policy or condemning in them just never seems ... "wise" (to sound as elite as possible haha)

Ok so lets stay with this then. I'm not trying to attack you I'm just trying to further illustrate what my point is. What did happen there as you see it?

Well whatever I've clarified that it was a humorous (or apparently not) remark. And in any event, I believe and I think most die-hard Reagan supporters would agree that his "good presence" was not merely incidental to Reagan the President. It was huge part of why he was able to lead. That's what it's all about in modern politics. Not completely unheard of but very difficult to lead anybody if people don't like/relate to you ... people won't follow. We would probably have more fat guys, or ugly guys, or women, or {insert anything else] in office if that were not true. You need to be attractive, not necessarily sexually but as a person somehow. Behind the scenes? Meh. But to the public? Absolutely. And the public is where you get the juice to be effective behind the scenes. None of this is rocket science or unknown. And it isn't calling Reagan "all hat and no cattle" to suggest that this is something he was good at. It's calling him a good politician. And nobody will be a good president unless they are a good politician.

LOL we were talking about the "hat" anyway. So the "cattle" wasn't even on the table. And as for the comment sounding snarky...doesn't matter if it's Reagan or any other man if I'm talking about how you are good looking for the women, smile good, and people love you, well...I'm not a homophobe but it deserves a smiley face after saying that even in the context of politics. Not something I typically go around saying about other men.

3rd we were discussing presidents and TV, not Reagan the president. I said he was made for tv. That's being snarky? Haha, I guess I see how you read it now. I think you have a pretty combative view of what you read from me to assume I was playing at the "leader" part in that context to me leader simply meant "elected official" or even "politician." What I was trying to get across was exactly what I said, the guy was good looking and friendly and woman loved him and men liked him. Hence, made for TV.

Do go on, you're selling me on it I'm sorry I'm supposed to pretend Bush doesn't exist? I'm talking VP picks, Bush had one that contradicts what I was talking about. Are you this up tight in all aspects of your life?

LOL back off guys, I wasn't trying to attack Reagan. I was being dead serious. The sexy part was goofy but seriously...yes Jim I read it and I was agreeing with you. Reagan was made for TV. That's not inherently a knock.

You can't be too young, too racially diverse, or too woman as a VP these days. After all nobody picks a VP based off an actual replacement for President anymore anyway. It's pure politics, the office is even more a joke now than it has been for the previous 200+ years. The Presidents attack dog/ticket-balancing-act who just so happens to do his bidding in the event of a vote tie in Senate. But I guess in the case of Bush it's Presidents personal "ask Jeeves."

Oooh that sexy Reagan with his dashing good looks and friendly public disposition.

My guess is only as good as the next mans, but I think it's been Rubio for months. Provided he came back clean which I'm sure he did.

No doubt Obama too. It would be nice if we had a truly great president, but we aren't going to get one any time soon and maybe never again. Hell maybe it's impossible to even be a great president these days. We certainly haven't even had any "serious contenders" as of late that would come close. There's no savior looming. There won't be one man. It will take a coalition of cooperative Americans willing to be level headed and somewhat moderate in their approach and expectations even if their perfect world result would be extreme...you can believe that a somewhat radical change is necessary but you can't throw a fit when reality kicks in and you have to work with other people who have different views. LOL I don't know whether or not that's "when it started" but he was certainly loud and obnoxious and blabbering away there. So I'll give him credit. Congratulations to that man. What a difference he's made.

And to comment on this so as not to brush it off. Absolutely fair point. By no means is the letf not a contributing factor, and in need of some better leadership. It absolutely swings both ways I'm not pointing my finger at one side or the other exclusively. But I am pointing my finger at extremists making it impossible to get anywhere and the most active and influential extremists in politics today are the "tea party" and/or the "far right"...ostrasize them and the country can get working at finding some sense of balance. Which would include the damn Democrats compromising some of the issues they resist compromise with.

1) Yes sort of 2) Not entirely ... even the completely retarded "far right" (as distinguished from "the right") think they're helping. And the personal gain aspect while obviously true in some circumstances is overblown IMO. 3) Of course it's a problem 4) Nobody in Washington ignores the debt. Different ideas on how to address it. You deny characterizations of something that you don't ...uh...even know what it is supposed to be? Why don't you just talk straight for a change and quite waiving in the wind. The "tea party" is not the victim of some unholy and ungodly media attack. Hell the tea party was in large part propelled by the media in the first place to help it take off once it got started. I've hated the Tea Party long before it became popular to do so, b/c I hate idiots waiving around a Constitution (who don't have a clue what is in it or what it means as interpreted by the courts) and I hate extremists. So yes, there are people who straight up dislike the Tea Party...not b/c of the "media." Just b/c people talk badly of it, doesn't mean there is a conspiracy. In many instances, it just means they deserve it. Which they do. Elect better leaders, maybe they'll catch a break. The bottom line is you SHOULD be disgusted at the way Washington is running and you should condemn any rhetoric or candidate who is going to continue a firm "my way or the highway" attitude. As I said over and over, THAT'S the unifying theme to the Tea Party. Attitude. And it produces a bunch of idiots in Congress, and then a sentiment that pulls the ENTIRE GOP closer to the fringe and further away from the TRUE American people...people somewhere near the middle whether leaning right or left. Simply put, the Tea Party has scared people like John McCain, like the old John Boehner, etc...they're neutered. And the fact is to address our issues we are going to have to reach across the isle. And they can't, if they try the'll just get the boot (they should just do it anyway btw). China's leaders are looking at us in awe that we aren't coming together in a time where it's more necessary than ever. We're a joke b/c we can't work things out and the most contributing factor to that is extremist right wing ideals. That is just the way it is.

We would kill for the '95 Congress. Did things come to a head? Yes. Did things get worked out? Yes. Compare that to today. And this whole % of Congress thing is getting old. I'm basically being polite by focusing on the Tea Party in this discussion b/c I don't want to turn this into a partisan **** throwing contest. I want to focus on the aspect of the GOP that I think is counter productive and not the GOP generally. But we all know the real issue is not the most extreme of the GOP...but the hold their sentiment has over the "active core GOP base" and thus what used to be "reasonable Republican Congressman." It's about the Tea Party's role in radicalizing the rest of the GOP to the point of nonsense b/c they have to play along ... and the lack of stones one time reasonable GOP members have (for example John Boehner) to stand up and tell them "Yes, I hear you, but we're going to behave and you are going to participate and we're going to speak with the other side in order to legitimately compromise a deal to move us forward." And I like how at the end you, like everybody I've even met, deny self-identifying with them. You defend them, you agree with them and think they are great, but you aren't one of them. "No no, not me. I'm not a Tea Party guy." LOL...is there a reason nobody associates with them including you?