Posted on 09/04/2012 4:37:54 AM PDT by Kaslin
Both the 20th and 21st centuries have seen failed presidencies.
William Howard Taft lost in 1912, though he might have retained office had not his old friend and former leader Theodore Roosevelt run as a third party Bull Moose candidate and won more votes than Taft.
Herbert Hoover failed through no fault of his own. The Crash of 1929 and the Great Depression were beyond his control, and every remedy he tried failed adequately to work.
Had the popular Cal Coolidge sought a second full term in 1928 instead of declaring, "I do not choose to run," he would have been in the White House when the crash came and cast by history in the role assigned to Hoover.
But, as one wag said, Silent Cal's career seems to have been a product of repeated celestial interventions.
By 1952, Harry Truman was a failed president. His approval rating was below 25 percent. Chiang Kai-shek's China had fallen to communism. Josef Stalin had stolen the secret of the atom bomb through espionage against the United States. Truman had fired Gen. Douglas MacArthur and was in the third year of a Korean War he could neither win nor end.
The administration had been exposed as shot through with corruption and treason in the persons of Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter White and the Rosenberg atomic spy ring, among others.
Rejected in New Hampshire, Harry wisely chose to pack it in.
Lyndon Johnson, his 44-state landslide in 1964 and Great Society notwithstanding, was by 1968 a failed president being repudiated in the primaries of his own party.
Truman and Johnson quit rather than run again and risk defeat.
But Jimmy Carter, whose poll numbers fell as low as Truman's and who was widely seen as a failed president, chose to fight Teddy Kennedy in the primaries and Ronald Reagan in the general election.
Carter had one signal achievement: the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty.
But by 1980, he was presiding over an economy with 21 percent interest rates, 13 percent inflation and zero growth. The Soviet Empire had annexed Afghanistan and was on the move in Africa, the Caribbean and Central America. Iran had fallen to the mullahs. Fifty American embassy personnel were being held hostage in Tehran.
What makes that 1980 election relevant is that it was the last national election and the only postwar election where a Democratic president widely perceived to have failed chose to run for re-election.
And what strategy did the Carter campaign adopt?
They sought to demonize Reagan as a tool of the rich, a cold-hearted wretch who would savage the safety net, a crazed anti-communist Cold Warrior whom it would be dangerous to entrust with nuclear weapons. Ronald Reagan was Barry Goldwater redux.
Yet, looking back, what else could Carter do? Looking forward, what else can Barack Obama do?
By 1984, Reagan could credibly run for re-election on the slogan, "Stay the Course." Let us continue on this path that is leading us to the sunny uplands of a new prosperity and a stronger, more respected America.
Carter could not do that in 1980. Hoover could not do that in 1932. And Obama cannot do that today.
With the nation believing Carter had failed by the fall of 1980, and prepared to remove and replace him, Carter had one lane left to victory. He and the liberal media had to define Reagan for the electorate as an uncaring extremist and dangerous man.
Lest we forget, this Carter strategy was working.
Not until the late debate with Carter did the electorate take a closer look at Reagan and decide that this genial, principled conservative was no threat, but an acceptable alternative and far preferable to four more years of Carter.
After that debate, the undecideds came down hard for Reagan, millions of Democrats switched to him, and he buried Carter.
Again, that election is relevant because it is the election most similar to this one. We have a Democratic president who has presided over a huge loss of jobs, four straight trillion-dollar deficits and 42 months of unemployment over 8 percent. With Obama's approval in the 40s, it is clear that America is ready for a change.
One difference between 2012 and 1980? President Obama retains a reservoir of goodwill President Carter never acquired.
If this analysis is correct, the Democratic convention and the next nine weeks will witness one sustained slander of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan as Ayn Randian agents of a plutocracy hell-bent on seeing its taxes reduced and the tax cuts paid for by eviscerating programs on which America's poor and the working and middle class depend for survival.
The one sure way Obama can win is to convince a nation ready for change -- to fear, loathe and recoil from the proposed agents of change.
Obama aides and media auxiliary have already painted the Republican convention in Tampa, Fla., as permeated with lies and dog whistles to racists.
Yet, one wonders: After such a campaign, how does Obama unite and lead the country should he win.
Obama has failed at everything he promised to accomplish...
Have you seen this? Obama and his promises:
http://www.conservativenationnews.com/2012/09/powerful-new-romney-campaign-ad-hits.html
. I hope enough Americans eyes have been opened to the hyper-partisan, lying media.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Romney could ‘debate’ an empty chair but with some of the hand picked ‘moderators’ and MSM, he would probably still be declared the loser.
***Lyndon Johnson, his 44-state landslide in 1964 and Great Society notwithstanding,***
Remember 1964? Johnson won by proclaiming “I will not send American boys to fight in a war Asian boys should be fighting!”
Whereas Goldwater stated he would send troops if necessary.
Back in 1970, PLAYBOY magazine had an interview with JOHN WAYNE.
In the interview Wayne mentioned that after the politicians had made their statements about sending troops to VN, Goldwater talked with Johnson and said to him...”You know we will have to send troops to Vietnam!”
Johnson replied...”I know, but I am trying to win an election.”
Since that day,I have NEVER believed anything that comes out of the mouth of a Democrat.
I was told that if I voted for Goldwater, that we would have riots in the streets and get into a long unwinnable war, well I voted for Goldwater, and darned if they weren’t right.
FACT: ObamaCrimes.com http://obamacrimes.com
Poorly FORGED: Federal Document Dump Policy Changes After Obama Probe Begins.
Let’s go back to the post I responded to in the first place.
This is the comment at post #4 I responded to: “Another small difference is that Mitt Romney is no Ronald Reagan!”
I responded with this post: “Exactly! He’s far from a Ronald Reagan, and that’s worth a few worry wrinkles IMO.”
Later I responded to Post #6 which was nonsense about pissin’, and moanin’ not going to get us through the election, as though that was the discussion with this post: “You have a problem with a statement of fact?”
So, now that you know what the original discussion was all about perhaps you could clue me in as to what your comment means relative to that.
This is what I am pretty sure of what will happen, it won’t be a debate.
What I also don’t like is that I don’t see that killer instinct in Romney’s campaign, he’s playing nice like McCain.
I hope I am wrong, but I think that if this keeps up, the Marxist kenyan wins again.
Coolidge died on Jan. 5, 1933, so if he had been re-elected in 1928 he would have died in office. (He died of a coronary thrombosis--perhaps the stress of office would have killed him sooner if he had still been President.)
If Coolidge had run again in 1928 with the same running mate, at his death Charles Curtis would have become President. Curtis was part Indian.
Scratch that last sentence. Charles Curtis was Hoover’s Vice President. The man who would have become President if Coolidge had died in office was Charles Dawes.
Scratch that last sentence. Charles Curtis was Hoover’s Vice President. The man who would have become President if Coolidge had died in office was Charles Dawes.
The term "credibility gap" was first heard then, in relation to the Johnson administration.
It was as close as the already liberal media dared come to calling a Democrat politician "liar". But that's what it meant all the same.
Is that how the RNC taught you to tell conservatives "STFU"?
Very mannerly. Also very otiose: Mitt Romney is a wet noodle of a candidate. Supporting him is like standing up wet spaghetti. He's way too cool for you, for openers. He's all about the infamous 350,000 women in 10 battleground States. No time for you. No time for me. No time for anyone but the 350,000 women.
Bump. Yeah, it'll be a tag-team match: Triple H and The Undertaker versus the coxswain of the Harvard Fours.
Read it is self explanatory, Choice, Romney over Obama is all we need to make sure of, unless you would rather vote for a corrupt President like Obama.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftvbxSEFJM8
NOT what my post was addressing. Stick to the point. Don’t waste my time.
Romney isn’t my first choice, but I’m not stupid, and not voting for Obama, or taking other actions in Obama’s favor. I don’t understand what makes you, and other FReepers think anybody that doesn’t kiss Romney’s butt, and praise his coiffure isn’t going to vote for the SOB.
We who don’t kiss Romney’s butt, because we don’t like the mans Liberal track record don’t want Obama anymore than you do, so get off our butts, and go play with your toys.
BUMP
The suggestion that either candidate can unite and lead the country if they should win is naive. The acrimony is too deep. If Romney is elected then the Democrats will do exactly what the GOP has done; try and make sure Romney is a one term president. They will go to any lengths to block, filibuster, delay, and defeat anything Romney proposes. And should Obama get re-elected, then I don’t expect the GOP to do any different.
There in lies the difference. Congress will not reduce federal spending. Federal expenditures went down during two of Coolidge's budgets. That won't happen now.
I failed to notice the author of this piece, shock of shocks it’s Pat Buchanan. Guy is sure no fiscal conservative (or intelligent political commentator).
I wish Former Governor Frank Lowden of Ill. had excepted Coolidge’s VP offer in 1924 (he was nominated and declined, possibly the only time that has happened). Hoover was popular (he won the nomination easily over Lowden and others) but he might have stood a chance against him in 1928 as the sitting VP.
I don’t know what kind of Prez he would have been (he sounds good) but it could not possibly have turned out any worse.
It would have even been preferable to have Al Smith as President. At the least that would have meant no FDR in 1932. Possibly no anti-GOP backlash at all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.