hbo's "newsroom"

[3rdnlng]

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.

 

It's not inherently a knock? That's all you can grudgeonly say about him? C'mon, he had all of great qualities needed to be president, and was perfect for the time. He was the ultimate leader.

[Jim in Anchorage]

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.

It really had nothing to do with him being made for TV. Tom said leaders never look good on TV. I suggested Reagan was a good leader and was good on TV. Your post seemed more mocking of the leader part. What were you trying to get across?

[dayman]

It's not inherently a knock? That's all you can grudgeonly say about him? C'mon, he had all of great qualities needed to be president, and was perfect for the time. He was the ultimate leader.

 

3rd we were discussing presidents and TV, not Reagan the president. I said he was made for tv. That's being snarky?

 

It really had nothing to do with him being made for TV. Tom said leaders never look good on TV. I suggested Reagan was a good leader and was good on TV. Your post seemed more mocking of the leader part. What were you trying to get across?

 

 

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.

[3rdnlng]

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.

 

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but it did sound snarky. That may be because at the time of his presidency up until now people on the left like to characterize him as "all hat and no cattle". They'd make snarky remarks that he'd fall asleep in meetings, and leave the governing up to everybody else. The only thing they would admit to was that he was a good communicator. Your comment sort of fell in line with that. If it was unintentional, then all is good.

[dayman]

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but it did sound snarky. That may be because at the time of his presidency up until now people on the left like to characterize him as "all hat and no cattle". They'd make snarky remarks that he'd fall asleep in meetings, and leave the governing up to everybody else. The only thing they would admit to was that he was a good communicator. Your comment sort of fell in line with that. If it was unintentional, then all is good.

 

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.

[Jim in Anchorage]

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.

Still not coinciding the leader part. "leader" is just that, a real leader, not someone who happened to get elected. Tom said Americans don't like leaders because they look like s*** on TV. Lot's of good looking people out there, few leaders. Reagan was a real leader who happened to have a good presence.

[3rdnlng]

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.

 

Then Reagan must have held a Levi Johnson/Bishop Hedd type hold on you? Damn, you're probably too new for that reference, but I'll get laughs from other posters at your expense and I'm sure you'll pay me back. You have a free shot, as long as you acknowledge that is your get out of jail card at the time.

[dayman]

Still not coinciding the leader part. "leader" is just that, a real leader, not someone who happened to get elected. Tom said Americans don't like leaders because they look like s*** on TV. Lot's of good looking people out there, few leaders. Reagan was a real leader who happened to have a good presence.

 

 

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.

[Jim in Anchorage]

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.

I'm sure the Soviet Union gave up the arms race strictly on his charm

[3rdnlng]

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.

 

 

My reference to "all hat and no cattle" was to what the lefties tried to make him out to be at the time and also since. Simply put, he was a leader with charm and intelligence who didn't despoil his principles. The jackpot for this country would be to have another RWR in the White House.

[dayman]

I'm sure the Soviet Union gave up the arms race strictly on his charm

 

 

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?

[3rdnlng]

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?

 

Reagan knew his enemy/adversary or whatever. He and his staff analized their position and figured that they could bankrupt them. He faced them down. He called the shots. He didn't make his MO bowing to foreign leaders.

[dayman]

My reference to "all hat and no cattle" was to what the lefties tried to make him out to be at the time and also since. Simply put, he was a leader with charm and intelligence who didn't despoil his principles. The jackpot for this country would be to have another RWR in the White House.

 

 

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)

[3rdnlng]

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)

ow

 

The thing is, that I'm not saying we should do exactly what he did now in today's times. Reagan wouldn't do the same thing that he did in the 80's. He would do what was appropriate for today. The point is that he was a leader. with smarts.

[dayman]

Reagan knew his enemy/adversary or whatever. He and his staff analized their position and figured that they could bankrupt them. He faced them down. He called the shots. He didn't make his MO bowing to foreign leaders.

 

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.

 

 

 

ow

 

The thing is, that I'm not saying we should do exactly what he did now in today's times. Reagan wouldn't do the same thing that he did in the 80's. He would do what was appropriate for today. The point is that he was a leader. with smarts.

 

 

And I would agree with that then.

Edited July 13, 2012 by TheNewBills

[3rdnlng]

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

And I would agree with that then.

 

 

With that said, I guess you'd love him as president today? I mean the live one.

[Jim in Anchorage]

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)

That's like saying we should not admire Lincoln because the civil war is over. Some quality's are timeless. Fully grasping the situation and taking decisive steps are the mark of a leader. When Reagan came into office we were licking our wounds from Viet Nam and where in a state of detente With the USSR. Reagan said the hell with that, you are spending 50% of your GDP on weapons? We spend 3% and will up it to 5%. The Soviets folded because Reagan played his cards correctly. That's a leader, not someone who goes back on the campaign trail the day he was elected

Edited July 13, 2012 by Jim in Anchorage

[dayman]

With that said, I guess you'd love him as president today? I mean the live one.

 

 

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.

 

That's like saying we should not admire Lincoln because the civil war is over. Some quality's are timeless. Fully grasping the situation and taking decisive steps are the mark of a leader. When Reagan came into office we were licking our wounds from Viet Nam and where in a state of detente With the USSR. Reagan said the hell with that, you are spending 50% of your GNP on weapons? We spend 3% and will up it to 5%. The Soviets folded because Reagan played his cards correctly. That's a leader, not someone who goes back on the campaign trail the day he was elected

 

 

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.

Edited July 13, 2012 by TheNewBills

[Jim in Anchorage]

 

 

 

 

 

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.

Then give your thoughts. Reagan shook his fist? He explained to the USSR he had 4 aces [true] and said you want to raise the pot? Fold. Would someone else play the Strong hand or just apologize for America? [curent POTUS].

[dayman]

Then give your thoughts. Reagan shook his fist? He explained to the USSR he had 4 aces [true] and said you want to raise the pot? Fold. Would someone else play the Strong hand or just apologize for America? [curent POTUS].

 

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.