Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« Sunday Morning | Main | Eric Holder Watch »

November 06, 2011

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b2aa69e20162fc2e1383970d

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Dogs Need To Learn From Cats:

Comments

peter

Here's Douhat's conclusion:
In place of reckless meritocrats, we don’t need feckless know-nothings. We need intelligent leaders with a sense of their own limits, experienced people whose lives have taught them caution. We still need the best and brightest, but we need them to have somehow learned humility along the way.

So he wants Obama to resign immediately, I take it.

peter

Clinton ran away from his party, but there's always a wink and a nod to the hard lefties, don't worry once I get in, we'll give you your due. With conservative candidates, they always go mushy after assuming office.

jimmyk

Well, Reagan didn't really, and the rest exhibited plenty of signs of mushiness during their campaigns (even W with his "compassionate conservatism"). I see Romney as essentially Bush 41.

hit and run

jimmyk:
I see Romney as essentially Bush 41.

"Read my lips" and all.

Cecil Turner

The real problem is that we don't have a Reagan to run . . . or we'd win it in a walk.

Porchlight

If GHWB had won in 1992 that would have been eight successive Republican terms - two two-term Presidents from the same party, back-to-back. Prior to Carter you had Nixon and then Nixon/Ford - so that would have been, more or less, three two-term Republican presidencies with a one-term Dem presidency sandwiched between them, spanning 28 years.

The odds against this happening were pretty high.

People were ready for a change in 1992, just as they were in 1976, 1980, 2000 and 2008. And 2012.

Brad Ervin

Or, maybe something different.

Republicans will spend the next year condemning the feckless Obama. Everything is his fault. He's inexperienced; he's lazy; he has no real ideas....

At the last minuet the Democrats, seeing their numbers in the tank, will make a sea change. Obama will channel LBJ and bow out "for the good of his nation." Maybe Mrs. Obama will stop being proud of her country again.

Enter, stage Left, Mrs Clinton. "The Republicans are right, Obama was inexperienced; he was foolish; he had no real ideas. I am not Mr. Obama. Do you all remember how wonderful the last Clinton years were? Elect me and those good years will return. I will balance the budget, AND give you all the things you want from government."

maryrose

Brad, I believe you are onto something which could really happen. Right now to be honest, it is my biggest fear. It's such a Dem move and I think there is a 50/50 chance it could happen!

Jane

Why on earth would anyone think Hillary would be a good president? Compared to Obama sure, but hardly adequate.

Stephanie

Why does everyone lament the fact that "there are no Reagan's" anywhere? Was Reagan "Reagan" in 1968 or 72 or 76? Would we have said here comes the best thing since sliced bread if he had been the eventual nominee at any of those points? Would the waters have parted and the seas stop rising? Reagan wasn't judged to be "Reagan" until the end of his time in office and could not have been foreseen to be as good as he ended up being at the start of his term. Conversely, a lot of people didn't figure Obama would be as bad. Most people vote hoping for basic competency and decent stewardship of the office. "First do no harm".

Quit judging candidates against a standard that even Reagan wasn't conceived to have met at the time he was elected.

glasater

I would bet that BOzo will have a meltdown of some kind before he exits "stage left".

maryrose

glasater:
I think he is on the edge of a breakdown as we speak. The more I observe him he appears to suffer not just from narcissism but also bi-polar disorder. He's either really high or very low and depressed. His self-centeredness is very disturbing. He even rivals Clinton in that regard. This election will either be very close-Obama still losing or a blow-out because dems underestimated how bad the American people feel and how disgusted they are with Obama.
Interesting discussion on tv show this morning about voter fraud. Even with uncontested proof in Indiana and Troy New York the dem kept saying on a couple of dozen cases. This is not acceptable and it is how Franken won in Minnesota.

jimmyk

Was Reagan "Reagan" in 1968 or 72 or 76?

Pretty much. The country may not have been ready for him, but he didn't change much (as in "I didn't leave the Democratic Party, they left me.")

Would we have said here comes the best thing since sliced bread if he had been the eventual nominee at any of those points?

Yes, but the contrast with the incumbent or the depths to which the country had sunk would not have been as dramatic.

Would the waters have parted and the seas stop rising? Reagan wasn't judged to be "Reagan" until the end of his time in office and could not have been foreseen to be as good as he ended up being at the start of his term.

I think it's more that we're so accustomed to be disappointed by presidents that when someone actually turns out almost as good as promised it seems like a surprise.

maryrose

should be only...

Ignatz

--Obama will channel LBJ and bow out "for the good of his nation."--

It would take Marlin Perkins, Jim Fowler and a tranquilizer dart sized for a rhino to remove Barry from the WH before his time.

narciso

Nixon was better than Humphrey, but he was a temporizer, in part because he listened too much to the Rockefeller wing, Kissinger's 'indecent interval' being just one of many
examples. But one is correct that infrastructure for a Reagan administration wasn't really around in '68. It took a baker's dozen of years, to make that possible.

Cecil Turner

Was Reagan "Reagan" in 1968 or 72 or 76?

I posted this on the other thread, hopefully folks will excuse the repetition. It establishes fairly convincingly that Reagan was "Reagan" even in 1964: a clear thinking conservative with the ability to communicate (and govern, though we didn't find that out until 1967 or so).

jimmyk

It took a while for the middle 20% to realize just how bad things could get after decades of Democratic rule (remember both houses of Congress had been Democrat-controlled since the 50s, and that did stymie Nixon/Ford to some extent). It's taken much less time this time 'round because the Dems have been so much more awful.

I recognize there is no Reagan and we have to pick the best of the midgets we have. But that doesn't mean we should detract from Ronaldus Maximus.

(Another) Barbara

Excellent points, Stephanie. In fact, even at the end of his second term, Reagan wasn't quite "Reagan" yet; it's taken the intervening years for him to reach the pinnacle of regard in which he's held today. Thanks for reminding us.

Sara (Pal2Pal)

It's taken much less time this time 'round because the Dems have been so much more awful.

People are better informed thru the wonders of the Internet. I have my doubts that Reagan could have been elected or, at least reelected, if blogs, 24 hour news, Twitter, Facebook, and other ways of instant communication had been available.

Reagan was pilloried even at the time for his pro-abortion position until he flip flopped. He was pilloried for not attending church. Nancy's astrology stuff would have been blog fodder for years.

We liked Reagan because he brought pride back to military service, but I don't recall ever paying much attention to his other positions and we lived under his Calif. governorship as well. I have no memory of that time at all as far as politics was concerned.

I understand why he is held up as a standard by so many today, but to think he would have had that love and loyalty back then had communication been what it is today is wishful thinking.

glasater

And don't forget that the Reagan presidency ended on the dark note of Iran-Contra.
The Bork nomination -- as has been pointed out in past weeks -- showed the left's colors even then.

macphisto

"I think he is on the edge of a breakdown as we speak. The more I observe him he appears to suffer not just from narcissism but also bi-polar disorder. He's either really high or very low and depressed."

i keep on trying to tell you folks...he's on cocaine. he's a past user, and he's exhibiting the classic physical, psychological, and behavioral symptoms of a cocaine addict. what else other than drug abuse makes a man in his forties with a private chef and no apparent medical issues LOSE weight? everybody obsesses about all the stuff hidden behind the curtain, when the Big Story is walking right in front of them. the Emperor not only has no clothes, his nose is frozen.

Stephanie

Pretty much. The country may not have been ready for him, but he didn't change much (as in "I didn't leave the Democratic Party, they left me.")

Well by those lights, I should be a shoo in for the nomination. ;)

I wasn't referring to the 'conservatism' of the man, but the electability of him. Which in those time periods I referenced, I doubt many would have proclaimed him ready for the office. The establishment republicans went nuts at the initial thought of having him as the head of the ticket, even after his stewardship of California , because they didn't think he was, ahhmmm... electable.

Zombie Reagan could enter the race today, and most of the pragmatic crowd would probably proclaim him as unworthy of the 'Reagan-like' appellation and proclaim him unelectable, too.

You aren't until you are. And by that I mean electable OR "Reaganesque." It. Just. Happens.

narciso

The same crowd that still held on to Specter,
with an attempted save by Tom Ridge, with the proviso, he was living in Maryland and was a lobbyist for Albania,

jimmyk

I wasn't referring to the 'conservatism' of the man, but the electability of him.

Then I guess I don't understand your point. You wrote:

Quit judging candidates against a standard that even Reagan wasn't conceived to have met at the time he was elected.

So he wasn't "electable" at the time he was elected?

Sorry, but I'm virtually certain that none of the current crop of Repub candidates will ever become "Reagan," though one or more may certainly be electable. That's a pretty low standard, especially when the opponent is BHO.

Clarice

Macphisto, It's hard to imagine he could fool the doctors who give him his annual physical.

Stephanie

Jimmy. I'm just tired of the whinging for a "Reagan". He wasn't all that and a bag of chips t'il he was. Great men rise to the occasion. The occasion doesn't require a great man - it births them.

narciso

This piece in the LUN, ignore Buckley's own efforts for Mayor of New York as well as his brother's Senate run, the suggestion is he would have endorsed Nelson Rockefeller, humbug

jimmyk

Understood. Leave Reagan out of it. I think the whinging is just for a genuine principled conservative who can articulate what would seem to be a pretty straightforward set of core values (limited government, free markets, strong defense). The time is clearly right now (even more so than in 1980) for the person I've described, yet there's no birth in sight. I find that shocking and appalling.

macphisto

you don't have to fool doctors when you can buy them. remember, at first Elvis' death certificate said nothing about drugs.

macphisto

and there's a long-standing tradition of MDs concealing debilitating Presidential health conditions.

Sara (Pal2Pal)

(limited government, free markets, strong defense)

Every Republican candidate, with the exception of Ron Paul on defense, constantly espouses these values. The problem is that no one here wants to believe any of them.

Sara (Pal2Pal)

you don't have to fool doctors when you can buy them. remember, at first Elvis' death certificate said nothing about drugs.

Prescription medications prescribed by a licensed physician were not considered "DRUGS." And those receiving the prescriptions weren't worried about "DRUGS" or getting addicted, since the doctor prescribed them. It was a different time. If anything, the circumstances surrounding Elvis' death brought the problem to the public's and the medical community's attention.

Stephanie

I think the whinging is just for a genuine principled conservative who can articulate what would seem to be a pretty straightforward set of core values (limited government, free markets, strong defense). The time is clearly right now (even more so than in 1980) for the person I've described, yet there's no birth in sight.

Except for those who are claiming that a 'true conservative' like Reagan won't appeal to the muddle, so we must elect a Romney. For them, a "Reagan" as defined by you isn't 'electable.' Yet he was, so go figure.

That is what I'm driving at. The next republican president (who surpasses Reagan and gets our nuts out of this fire) could time travel back and many republicans would dismiss him out of hand. You generally don't see greatness except in hindsight.

I don't know how anyone running can be fairly judged against 'Reagan' post tenure, when they are pre tenure. They haven't had the 'occasion' to become post tenure awesome.

Reagan was a good governor, but he was not appreciably better than many other R governors, so there was no indication that he would be such a great president. The current crop of candidates should be judged accordingly.

jimmyk

Every Republican candidate, with the exception of Ron Paul on defense, constantly espouses these values. The problem is that no one here wants to believe any of them.

There's a subtle difference (in my mind, anyway) between "articulate" and "espouse." The latter can be a matter of lip service; the former requires sincerity and communication skills. At least that's what I meant. But maybe we're saying the same thing--I don't believe them. Well, I kind of believe Bachman and Santorum, but they have other weaknesses, so it would seem.

macphisto

Sara, my point wasn't that he got the drugs; it's that the death certificate didn't reflect e.g., the massive amounts of drugs in his system when he died, but rather claimed a heart problem killed him.

Sara (Pal2Pal)

Shouldn't you be blaming the coroner then?

macphisto

the point is that influence makes official observers un-see things like obvious drug use on the part of celebrities and members of the nomenklatura. remember all of JFK's ailments that none of us civilians knew about until after he was dead? if one is predisposed as many JOMO are to believe that Obama and his claque are willing to lie about, e.g., the circumstances of his birth or the alleged/apparent criminality of his administration, how is it implausible that they couldn't be hiding a President with the 70's-generation equivalent of Teddy Kennedy's alcoholism?

Sara (Pal2Pal)

I'm not saying they couldn't be hiding it. I don't think any weight loss is cocaine. More like having to eat the crap Michelle is making them cook for him.

I've know a few cocaine addicts and Obama is way way too laid back to match cocaine addiction symptoms. If anything, he's smoking a doobie now and then.

Porchlight

I'm with you, macphisto. If Obama has health and/or addiction issues, there's no way in hell we're going to be allowed to know about it.

That doesn't mean he does have issues. It just means that the absence of such information is meaningless.

macphisto

i'm not disputing what you've seen, Sara; however, in the 80s/90s my two best friends became long-term cocaine addicts and i later found out that my (now long since ex-) wife was using, so i'm also basing my hypotheses on personal observation.

Clarice

I think amphetamine usage could explain this just as well and is both easier to get and easier to avoid detection.

rse

clarice-

Have sent you an email at initials and location.

narciso

Occam's razor, would indicate his level of incomprehension has finally been breached;


http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-11-07/transcanada-pipeline-s-opponents-urge-obama-to-buck-oil-power-.html

Dennis D

Reagan would be trashed as a RINO today by the far right for his positions on Amnesty and Social Security and spending. Stop looking for a pure conservative because they do not exist.

DebinNC

I think the fat kid taunts in Indonesia permanently scarred BO, and he'll do whatever it takes..smoking, obsessively exercising, bulimia, etc. to keep his weight below average. He probably revels in being described as skinny. A large part of MO's fitness obsession is due to the contempt he privately expresses for fatties imo.

narciso

Jon Stewart would call this 'our moment of zen' I'd dub it, early facepalm;

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2011/11/07/mika-i-dont-get-why-republicans-dont-dig-huntsman

The comments to this entry are closed.

Amazon





Traffic

Wilson/Plame