NY Times..“No candidate in recent history — Democratic or Republican — has won the White House without winning the Ohio primary,” Mrs. Clinton, of New York, said at a rally in Columbus, Ohio. “We all know that if we want a Democratic president, we need a Democratic nominee who can win the battleground states, just like Ohio.”
So was Hillary confused ,rathering , or thinks JFK and FDR were not recent history?? Two candidates to win the presidency without Ohio were FDR and JFK..oh and I almost forgot Woodrow Wilson but he's probably ancient history in Hillary's mind.
-- Modified on 3/6/2008 8:43:13 PM
I guess it depends on what you regard as recent history. I certainly wouldn't consider the 1932 election as recent. The last candidate to win the Presidency without winning the Ohio primary was Nixon 40 years ago. Was that "recent?" I think you can make a case either way but I wouldn't call Senator Clinton's statement confused.
She just says what she thinks people want to hear , she does not care if it is true or not.
Thank You
2008=27
Bill Clinton wasn't bad, but he certainly wasn't great. Carter,Johnson, and FDR were abysmal. JFK wasn't great, he might have been immensely popular, but that doesn't equate to him being a great president.
noting most historians disagree wildly?
IOW, compare & contrast. We're not asking for somebody who AGREES with you, but somebody who was fairly successful in leading the nation in a positive direction - somebody that made a positive difference, that the nation would have been worse without.
When would you say there was a great Republican? Perhaps TR, Lincoln? I suspect that's about the list, and interesting that both came from mixed political backgrounds. Eisenhower was decent, but we all know that he was a closet Democrat. He wasn't into war enough. I guess he'd had enough of it, the little coward.
IOW, that knife cuts 2 ways. Bungling govt is not a good basis for the Republicans to claim all govt is as incompetent as they are. All you have to do is shift your priorities - pretend that the goal is not maximizing profits, but to balance that with adhering to the law as a negotiated consensus. Yes, I know it's a complicated idea, but TRY IT!
If you want to talk about Reps, my list is also very short. IMO Reagan was by far the best POTUS in my lifetime, I might be persuaded to go sa far and say he was great.I agree Ike was ok and TR wasn't bad.
My issue with FDR is socialism, I cannot call the biggest socialist in the history of this country a great president no regarless of his other accomplishments.
was instrumental in creating the two albatrosses around our neck today:
Afghanistan- Armed the Taliban in the name of defeating the Soviets which became Al-Queda and rest is known to every one on the planet.
Iraq - Supported Saddam during his eight year war with Iran by arming him and we had to fight against Saddam twice one in Kuwait and now. Well now is GW's brain dead move, but still Reagan created the monster over there.
Reagan was not so great after all. He looked great only because he came after Carter.
Bill on the other hand presided over the largest Economic expansion and balanced the budget inspite of the huge deficits Reagan ran and started paying it down.
Hey, I am independent so I can call it as it is and I can also vote for McCain if and when Hope-Change-Obama gets nominated without thinking even once.
It is great to be an independent today and tomorrow.
economics as facts instead.
There's a pretty good argument that FDR saved capitalism. But again, y'all need to forget the labels and look at the facts.
What FDR DID was act as a leader, instead of telling people (in the wake of a stick market bust) that their economy was their individual problem - it's pretty much accepted that an economy is a collective issue, and in fact was pretty much settled when the USA established a central bank back around Jackson's time.
His legislative package did nothing but accelerate the existing trend to administrative law, ie regulate issues like the airwaves. You may think that is socialism, but it doesn't much matter, because it allows higher productivity, which beats your principle every time. (REMEMBER - it's NOT the PRINCIPLE of the thing, it's the MONEY - or, restated, the MONEY IS THE PRINCIPLE!!)
There were 2 major issues in FDR's terms, the depression and the war. I think it's hard to contest that the war was fore-ordained as the result of an inconclusive WW1, except as the stock market crash may have aggravated it.
Now, in retrospect, monday am QBing, if you had been advising the govt and/or NYSE in the late 20s, what course would YOU advise? I don't think you can get away from the fact that there has to be some central banking control for the same reason that there has to be central military control in a nation - because if there is no regulation, the resulting weak nation will in fact be the subject of a hostile takeover by another more efficient nation.
Calling regulation socialism - as indeed it can be - is pointless yammering. The point is, what works? An unregulated stock market, at the time of a natural disaster (the dust bowl drought) nearly made the country implode. For the 1st and only time in history, the USA had net EMigration.
The real question is, what nation manages its affairs best? By that measure, Bush 2 is a fucking disaster, and FDR was a fucking genius. And that it by & large why most historians disagree with you.
So yeah, we don't want no fuckin socialists! No roads, no drafts, no taxes! Outlaw insurance! No cooperative enterprises like condos! No corporations, and this newfangled contract law is way too sissy for me! Let's get back to good old feudalism, where the compound bow was the secret weapon and the Black Death eliminated ugly people early - well, half of them.
he was a happy-time Hollywood guy who truly believed that perception was reality.
He lucked into Carter by comparison, and pretended that he had no responsibility for negotiating with the Iranians before he was in office (which is arguably treason, or a violation of other laws), and had no problem with the drugs for guns Iran-Contra deal.
And he lucked into the Soviet implosion, which the CIA had the data for years, but the US establishment did not really believe that what goes up must come down, and that the Soviets would in fact implode.
IMHO it's true that he probably pricked the balloon, and deserves credit for that. OTOH, I can't believe he actually knew what he was doing. It could have been dynamite, for all he knew. As far as anybody can tell, he really did think in terms of movies - which I suppose is as good as many ideologies.
Which is fuckin scary.
Let me add that Reagan cannot IMHO be blamed for the mujahids in Afghanistan - any administration would have done that, *I* would have done that following VN; and it's entirely possible that support was enough to turn the tide against the USSR, which had some influence in its disintegration.
What you're looking for is *proximate* cause. You can't expect a President to make fundamentalist debtors like us, their degenerate dildo mfging creditors.
What you MIGHT expect them to do is make sure the FBI pays attention to field reports about people who don't want to land planes, or actually pay attention to CIA briefings, or maybe even consider how they should deal with the lessons of their own war-gaming.
IOW, I doubt the twin towers had to happen. Likewise, I doubt that we could have done much about muslim fundies. Meanwhile, we could elect leaders who have some class - who know to watch their mouth when the mike is on, and not fuck interns. Major French actresses are OK, but for chrissakes, don't embarrass us with a pudgy intern. I mean, we need some national pride.
-- Modified on 3/7/2008 1:32:09 PM
"Bill on the other hand presided over the largest Economic expansion and balanced the budget inspite of the huge deficits Reagan ran and started paying it down."
Actually Bill was controlled by Republicans and King Newt..Look it up as its easily fact checked..
shit yes, you got it right off Wikipedia, didn't you?
finished up a war that was all but done. Got us into another against the advice of the JCS, that still ties up a lot of the Army 60 years later.
Did let the Marshall Plan go, which probably saved a lot of Europe in more ways than one.
The verdict: sounded much better than his results.
No, what Hillary really meant to say was "I am desperate for a win, and I will pretend that losing 11 straight primaries in a row is meaningless. I'm also going to pretend that it doesn't matter that I'm going to get my butt kicked in nearly every primary after tonight."
Last month they were saying that Missouri is a "bellweather" state. The week before that, SC was a "bellweather" state. Newsflash, Obama won them both. So now we have to figure out if the mathematical principal of two negatives equalling a positive holds true in politics. If Candidate A wins 2 "bellweather" states, but loses 1, does that make Candidate B more or less likely to implode and have a nervous breakdown two weeks before the three ring circus the Dems have planned in Denver?
ever lived. Look it up.
Once upon a time I lived in his district. Glad I don't anymore.
Right wing nut cases have limited understanding because they are brain washed to think.
Huge entitlement programs are quite another, FDR and LBJ were for all intents and perposes socialists.
Government is not the solution to all problems, sometimes government is the problem. Business running amok without regulation is also not a good thing.
Government has its place. We need roads, we need defense, hell we need the garbage picked up. What we don't need are massive entitlement programs that are simply wealth reditribution programs that reward the lazy and punish the productive.Your hero, FDR was the creator of more of those prgrams than any president in history.
And I assume the "massive entitlement programs" you are talking about is social security?
Yes/no? What others?
Few people would disagree about many programs. Others get settled on split decisions, less than 1% of the vote.
Oh I forget. There is a connection in your thinking. By ranting about the former you allow yourself to forget about the latter.
and by ranting about his success, you can pretend to forget that his hypocrisy is a fraud on the public.
seeing as how it would involve conflict with his entire family and political base.
nursemaiding you drunks and wannabees.
Well, blame the Dems for sliding to the left as though the entire party stepped on a banana peel.
By today's standards, JFK was downright conservative. Truman and Teddy Roosevelt too for that matter.
Don't believe me? Tell me please how "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for you country" somehow evolved into "We are entitled to health care coverage at the government's expense because we refuse to give up our high interest credit cards, and new fangled gadgets that come out every week and because of that, we can't afford health coverage on our own". JFK surely rolls in his grave everytime the Dems talk about giving away healthcare at taxpayer expense.
and state.
So you see all this sliding, and you're sure who's doing it?
Because you pick out say JFK (early 60s) and Truman (late 40s and early 50s) and TR (turn of the century) and you say, things have changed?
Well, I'll be damned!! Imagine that!! We have some changes over the last century!! Shit, none of US have changed in the last century!
Now, you quote JFK, but then you paraphrase something that you credit to Dems as a basis for comparison.
How about we quote some other people, like say Nixon: "I am not a crook!" Maybe Reagan: "The bombing starts in 5 minutes." Or Bush 2: "OUr enemies never stop thinking of ways to destroy America, and neither do we." Or Cheney: "I had other priorities."
I like quotes, because they can be confirmed, and aren't a matter of anybody's opinion, so that ends any disagreement.
But I also like the irony of your complaining about "giving away healthcare at taxpayer expense." What, perhaps we should be paying for the health of corporations?
-- Modified on 3/8/2008 8:38:28 PM