Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Agreed. Like Reagan, DeSantis is a superb, effective governor of a large state. Great background for POTUS.
Imagine if that governor was in a state with top education, quality of life, income, and productivity. I can only imagine how qualified somebody like Ned Lamont might be!
We live in such strange times. For decades, the Republicans have run on the assumption that government is the problem (I still remember Ronald Reagan saying that in his first inaugural speech), but it is a necessary evil of sorts, and now bigger problems than government arguably are emerging. We are seeing a concerted effort by a consortium of private concerns to restrict the basic constitutional rights of Americans, and government is either cooperating in this effort or impotent to stop it. So now we face a threat bigger than government, and I think the Republican Party needs to position itself correctly as defending basic rights. Clearly the Democrats will not do this, despite their professed love for "our democracy" because they are in collusion to restrict rights also. And they have a strange vision of "democracy" that doesn't seem to include more than one party being in power.
I think that in this era, the Republican Party needs to look to Theodore Roosevelt rather than Ronald Reagan for inspiration. In our current gilded age, we face some of the problems with monopoly corporations hat TR dealt with, and Reagan did not. In many ways, our current challenges are greater than those that Reagan faced. We can no longer pretend that corporations and big business are friends of the Republicans. They are not. Though there seems to be a split personality. I saw how much the stock market dropped today as a reaction to the fizzling of the expected Republican wave.
I think the Democrats have governed terribly, both in terms of policy and in terms of the effect on the unity of the country. And they have failed to address many of our most pressing problems, in fact adding to them. The other party will need to do better. We are in an epoch-changing time, and the old squabbles about abortion and what-not need to give way to a sober look at the world as it is and the threats - fiscal, national security, and honestly societal unity - that we face and a well-thought out approach to deal with all these issues. We have yet to see this from either party, and I think that the Democrats' fixation on toxic identity politics and silencing anybody who disagrees with them will preclude them from developing good policies. In this gilded age, we have been moving toward a feudal oligarchy and as always, California is leading the way. This poses a major threat to democracy in the west, much more than a few crazy "election deniers" (who of course exist in both parties, but you would never know that if you listen to corporate media).
Agree with most of this. Nice to see I'm not the only person who believes that the way Reagan ran things has run its course. Personally, I find him to be quite overrated. Certainly, he wasn't without his merits and he deserves credit for these, like appointing the first woman to the SCOTUS (and a good one at that), stopping runaway inflation, lowering unemployment and making America appear more assertive in the eyes of the world. All of these are undeniable positives. That said, let's not forget that this is the guy who believed the answer to so many of our problems was privatization, including our hospitals, our healthcare, our prisons. A new style of capitalism emerged under his watch, one that believed in capitalism without any moral or ethical considerations, and we've been with that ever since. This also filtered into other areas, including the environment, where he appointed James Watt to Interior secretary, and this man basically gave the finger to environmentalists and preservationists. We've finally seen many of the negative implications of this, and people have had it. That doesn't make them liberal. It was also the first time we saw an administration that was shaped unequivocally by lobbyists and special interest groups. Certainly, these were around well before Reagan, but he's the one who really open the floodgates to K Street, letting them do pretty much whatever they wanted, often ending in scandals. Anyone who thinks this is just liberal whining should remember that the Reagan administration had numerous scandals, resulting in the investigation, indictment or convictions of many of his officials, 138 in all. These are the reasons why I agree that it might be time to hark back to another type of Republican, like Teddy Roosevelt as you said. I'm not sure if today's GOP is ready to pivot towards someone like him, but I would regard it as a welcome change. I also wish they would consider the leadership styles of Nelson Rockefeller and Eisenhower. These two are largely forgotten in today's political climate, and IMO they shouldn't be.
Imagine if that governor was in a state with top education, quality of life, income, and productivity. I can only imagine how qualified somebody like Ned Lamont might be!
Are you drafting Ned Lamont to run for President? If so, he would be better than the current crop of Democratic contenders including the sitting president.
Agree with most of this. Nice to see I'm not the only person who believes that the way Reagan ran things has run its course. Personally, I find him to be quite overrated. Certainly, he wasn't without his merits and he deserves credit for these, like appointing the first woman to the SCOTUS (and a good one at that), stopping runaway inflation, lowering unemployment and making America appear more assertive in the eyes of the world. All of these are undeniable positives. That said, let's not forget that this is the guy who believed the answer to so many of our problems was privatization, including our hospitals, our healthcare, our prisons. A new style of capitalism emerged under his watch, one that believed in capitalism without any moral or ethical considerations, and we've been with that ever since. This also filtered into other areas, including the environment, where he appointed James Watt to Interior secretary, and this man basically gave the finger to environmentalists and preservationists. We've finally seen many of the negative implications of this, and people have had it. That doesn't make them liberal. It was also the first time we saw an administration that was shaped unequivocally by lobbyists and special interest groups. Certainly, these were around well before Reagan, but he's the one who really open the floodgates to K Street, letting them do pretty much whatever they wanted, often ending in scandals. Anyone who thinks this is just liberal whining should remember that the Reagan administration had numerous scandals, resulting in the investigation, indictment or convictions of many of his officials, 138 in all. These are the reasons why I agree that it might be time to hark back to another type of Republican, like Teddy Roosevelt as you said. I'm not sure if today's GOP is ready to pivot towards someone like him, but I would regard it as a welcome change. I also wish they would consider the leadership styles of Nelson Rockefeller and Eisenhower. These two are largely forgotten in today's political climate, and IMO they shouldn't be.
I truly agree with what you and Dazzleman have stated. It's so refreshing to see some sane, centrist thinking on this board. I absolutely agree that we are in a new gilded age and the likes of Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, and Nelson Rockefeller are needed.
I think right now, the Republicans need to shed Trump and his toxic influence. The Republican leaders that were mentioned (TR, NR, and DE) all had to deal with the extremist wings of their party (Taft Republicans John Birchers, Goldwater conservatives, etc.) with a mixed record. As we know Teddy Roosevelt had to start the Bull Moose party and Nelson Rockefeller lost out to the Goldwater faction of the party. Eisenhower, due to a confluence of events (decorated General, post-WWII prosperity) was highly successful in tamping down the Birchers/extremists in the party. MAGA, Tea Party before that are the ideological progeny of the extreme conservative movements of the past.
If Republicans took a moderate approach, there would be countless undecideds, independents, and former disaffected Republicans who would be willing to vote for their candidates because the Democrats have been running extremely weak candidates with flawed policy positions that have not been working.
Bringing this back to CT, did anyone really expect Stefanowski to win? When he had already lost to Lamont in 2018 when it was an open field with an unpopular Democrat (Malloy) vacating the governorship? Similarly, Tom Foley ran against Malloy twice and lost. I don't understand why CT GOP supports these types of candidates that are perpetual losers. In Northeastern states, if you are running for statewide, elected office as a Republican, you already face long odds, without a coherent, moderate strategy that appeals to the wider electorate and promises to serve as a check against the (usually) Democrat-dominated legislature, you are destined for a loss.
I truly agree with what you and Dazzleman have stated. It's so refreshing to see some sane, centrist thinking on this board. I absolutely agree that we are in a new gilded age and the likes of Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, and Nelson Rockefeller are needed.
I think right now, the Republicans need to shed Trump and his toxic influence. The Republican leaders that were mentioned (TR, NR, and DE) all had to deal with the extremist wings of their party (Taft Republicans John Birchers, Goldwater conservatives, etc.) with a mixed record. As we know Teddy Roosevelt had to start the Bull Moose party and Nelson Rockefeller lost out to the Goldwater faction of the party. Eisenhower, due to a confluence of events (decorated General, post-WWII prosperity) was highly successful in tamping down the Birchers/extremists in the party. MAGA, Tea Party before that are the ideological progeny of the extreme conservative movements of the past.
If Republicans took a moderate approach, there would be countless undecideds, independents, and former disaffected Republicans who would be willing to vote for their candidates because the Democrats have been running extremely weak candidates with flawed policy positions that have not been working.
Bringing this back to CT, did anyone really expect Stefanowski to win? When he had already lost to Lamont in 2018 when it was an open field with an unpopular Democrat (Malloy) vacating the governorship? Similarly, Tom Foley ran against Malloy twice and lost. I don't understand why CT GOP supports these types of candidates that are perpetual losers. In Northeastern states, if you are running for statewide, elected office as a Republican, you already face long odds, without a coherent, moderate strategy that appeals to the wider electorate and promises to serve as a check against the (usually) Democrat-dominated legislature, you are destined for a loss.
I don't think it's a matter of conservative vs. moderate, because that still assumes the same political paradigm and alignment. I think a total change in focus is needed, and that policy focus should be pursued vigorously. I don't think we should go for a middle of the road compromise between two sets of policies, neither of which address our serious problems.
I have said before that we need reform of the primary system. In effect, we have 25% of a small set of voters deciding on the candidates everybody else has to choose from. With crowded fields of candidates, and no requirement for any candidate to get 50% support, you end with a candidate who gets 25-30% of the vote "winning" the primary and becoming the choice available to the whole state. And the group voting is very small, just a relatively small percentage of the voters registered in each party, while the largest number of voters are unaffiliated and can't vote in either primary.
What I would do is (a) allow unaffiliated voters to vote in the primary that they choose (just one); and (b) require a runoff election if no candidate gets to 50% support. I think that would reduce the power of the fringes on each party who are effectively deciding what our general election choices will be.
As far as Eisenhower and Rockefeller go, we do need somebody with the style of an Eisenhower, or Gerald Ford. Policy-wise though, Eisenhower did not revolutionize things in the way that is required; he was a "ratifier" of previous changes made by the opposite party (as Clinton was) and he governed well and was a good steward. Today more than that is required, and that is why I mentioned Teddy Roosevelt, who completely changed the direction of the party and government policy in a way Eisenhower never did. Not sure where Rockefeller fits in with all of this. He was a liberal Republican in an era when there was more overlap between the parties in terms of policy and ideology, but as I said, I don't think the issue today is liberal vs. conservative or moderate so much as the need for a complete reorientation of policy goals and direction.
Are you drafting Ned Lamont to run for President? If so, he would be better than the current crop of Democratic contenders including the sitting president.
That isn't saying much. They're all beyond dreadful. But Lamont hasn't yet shown any indication of interest in politics beyond Connecticut.
Agree with most of this. Nice to see I'm not the only person who believes that the way Reagan ran things has run its course. Personally, I find him to be quite overrated. Certainly, he wasn't without his merits and he deserves credit for these, like appointing the first woman to the SCOTUS (and a good one at that), stopping runaway inflation, lowering unemployment and making America appear more assertive in the eyes of the world. All of these are undeniable positives. That said, let's not forget that this is the guy who believed the answer to so many of our problems was privatization, including our hospitals, our healthcare, our prisons. A new style of capitalism emerged under his watch, one that believed in capitalism without any moral or ethical considerations, and we've been with that ever since. This also filtered into other areas, including the environment, where he appointed James Watt to Interior secretary, and this man basically gave the finger to environmentalists and preservationists. We've finally seen many of the negative implications of this, and people have had it. That doesn't make them liberal. It was also the first time we saw an administration that was shaped unequivocally by lobbyists and special interest groups. Certainly, these were around well before Reagan, but he's the one who really open the floodgates to K Street, letting them do pretty much whatever they wanted, often ending in scandals. Anyone who thinks this is just liberal whining should remember that the Reagan administration had numerous scandals, resulting in the investigation, indictment or convictions of many of his officials, 138 in all. These are the reasons why I agree that it might be time to hark back to another type of Republican, like Teddy Roosevelt as you said. I'm not sure if today's GOP is ready to pivot towards someone like him, but I would regard it as a welcome change. I also wish they would consider the leadership styles of Nelson Rockefeller and Eisenhower. These two are largely forgotten in today's political climate, and IMO they shouldn't be.
Reagan like all presidents was a mixed bag, with his presidency producing many good effects and some bad ones. I do think he was above average despite some of the issues you mention because of the challenges he faced when he came to office, which were considerable. But I never deified him as many conservatives have done. The reason I say we need to move beyond Reagan is actually not any of the reasons you mentioned, but because the challenges we face today are radically different from the challenges that Reagan faced, and those his program was designed to address. The problems of the 1970s, once Watergate and Vietnam were done with, effectively dulled the ideological differences between the parties and made people more willing to move beyond their "tribe" and look at an alternative, even one that would have been considered radical just a few years earlier, as Reagan was. So he never faced the polarization we have today. He got significant support from Democrats in Congress for his program, in a way that is unimaginable today. While the Soviet Union was a formidable military power at the time, it was economically hapless and riven with ethnic division, while China today has combined totalitarian government with a much stronger capitalist economy. Our policies of the last 25 years have played into the problem, making us dependent on China for capital to finance our fiscal incontinence, to export the inflation our fiscal and monetary policies produce, and for many vital goods. We had no such issue with the Soviet Union, nor did we have an issue with supposedly American companies being subject to economic pressure that leads them to do things that should be unacceptable in our society. Reagan's America was also very patriotic in a way today's America is not, and in many ways, the ethnic divisions that identity politics seeks to exploit have greatly undermined the cohesion of our society and made us look more like the Soviet Union of the early 1980s than the America that Reagan governed. Reagan did not face highly monopolistic and powerful corporations that threaten our economic system and basic rights. While Reagan inherited a troubled economy, the "bones" of the system were much better than what we have today, looking at the landscape.
So we face a completely different set of conditions and problems from what Reagan faced, and need a different approach.
Disney deserved to be attacked. There is nothing wrong with a law (which is broadly supported in Florida) that prevents schools from introducing sexual topics to children in the lower grades. Disney didn't support the community you listed as much as they jumped on a bandwagon pushing an agenda sexualizing children, which is a sick thing in my opinion. I'd be livid if my I had a small child who was being indoctrinated with the lies about gender that that whole "movement" is putting out. They are the vicious bullies and too many people just jump on the bandwagon of whatever they put out because they feel they have to support that community (I don't use the initials because I can't keep up with the constant additions they make to them, and I also reject the connection between gay/lesbian and transgender,, which are two COMPLETELY different things).
As far as The View goes, if you can watch that, more power to you. I would gouge out my eyes before watching that hatefest. I am sick of tired of people who preach tolerance and practice hate. The attacks one of those dreadful harridans made on Nikki Haley were absolutely reprehensible.
Disney’s CEO was supporting their LBGTQ+ employees with his comments. He has a right to agree or disagree with the law. Isn’t that a right given under the First Amendment?
Because DeSantis has such a big ego and can’t stand being disagreed with, it’s likely going to cost taxpayers millions, if not hundreds of millions of dollars. The dissolution of the Reedy Creek Improvement District places billions of dollars in debt for infrastructure on the backs of taxpayers rather than Disney. It eliminates a long standing agreement that brought hundreds of billions of dollars in development to central Florida and made the area the No. 1 tourist destination in the world. Yeah, that makes sense.
Floridas “Don’t Say Gay” law goes too far and is based on religious prejudice. It eliminates peoples rights to speak the truth, and to me that’s wrong. Whether people like it or not, your kids can’t and shouldn’t be raised in a bubble. A teacher, already restricted in the state, can’t tell a student the reason another kid has two dads or moms. I’d certainly rather a teacher tell my kids the truth rather than be lied to or be ignored. We raised our kids by telling them the truth whether it be why Uncle Bob had a boyfriend or Auntie lives with another auntie. It was treated as normal because it should be normal instead of some deep dark sin against god. It’s certainly not the way the man that Christian religions are descended from, would handle it. Shame on those that don’t realize it. Jay
Moderator’s Comment: I know this is going way off topic and I’m going to be lenient about this for as long as possible. I just ask people be respectful of others. JayCT, Moderator
Reagan like all presidents was a mixed bag, with his presidency producing many good effects and some bad ones. I do think he was above average despite some of the issues you mention because of the challenges he faced when he came to office, which were considerable. But I never deified him as many conservatives have done. The reason I say we need to move beyond Reagan is actually not any of the reasons you mentioned, but because the challenges we face today are radically different from the challenges that Reagan faced, and those his program was designed to address. The problems of the 1970s, once Watergate and Vietnam were done with, effectively dulled the ideological differences between the parties and made people more willing to move beyond their "tribe" and look at an alternative, even one that would have been considered radical just a few years earlier, as Reagan was. So he never faced the polarization we have today. He got significant support from Democrats in Congress for his program, in a way that is unimaginable today. While the Soviet Union was a formidable military power at the time, it was economically hapless and riven with ethnic division, while China today has combined totalitarian government with a much stronger capitalist economy. Our policies of the last 25 years have played into the problem, making us dependent on China for capital to finance our fiscal incontinence, to export the inflation our fiscal and monetary policies produce, and for many vital goods. We had no such issue with the Soviet Union, nor did we have an issue with supposedly American companies being subject to economic pressure that leads them to do things that should be unacceptable in our society. Reagan's America was also very patriotic in a way today's America is not, and in many ways, the ethnic divisions that identity politics seeks to exploit have greatly undermined the cohesion of our society and made us look more like the Soviet Union of the early 1980s than the America that Reagan governed. Reagan did not face highly monopolistic and powerful corporations that threaten our economic system and basic rights. While Reagan inherited a troubled economy, the "bones" of the system were much better than what we have today, looking at the landscape.
So we face a completely different set of conditions and problems from what Reagan faced, and need a different approach.
Boy, do I agree with this. Jay
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
