Posted on 10/24/2012 10:50:04 PM PDT by Beaten Valve
What kind of president would Mitt Romney be? And what should we expect from Barack Obama's second term? To answer these questions, I'll draw on the work of Yale political scientist Stephen Skowronek, who has argued that presidents' fortunes depend on how they establish their political legitimacy in the particular circumstances under which which they assume power.
In this essay, I'll discuss the prospects for a Romney presidency; in the next, I'll discuss the second term of an Obama presidency.
(Excerpt) Read more at theatlantic.com ...
“What I fear is four more years of Zero!”
Ditto!!
Articles like these will be increasing in the next two weeks. It’s one of the ways we know Romney is winning.
“In this essay, I’ll discuss the prospects for a Romney presidency; in the next, I’ll discuss the second term of an Obama presidency.”
...and I’m guessing that his article on a second Obama Presidency probably won’t be published until after the election.
Funny post
When Romney Obamas the GOP you may not be happy.
Well, I am assuming that the Democrats are keeping the Senate.
And unless some Democrats break free and vote to overturn it, it will remain the law of the land,
Republicans reduce Tax RATES, they do not lower Taxes. By the end of the Reagan Administration, Tax Revenue to the Federal Treasury doubled, even though the top Tax Rate was under 31%.
The same situation occurred with the G.W. Bush Tax RATE Cuts. Federal Tax Revenue increased 35% between 2003 (full implementation) and 2007.
No matter, the lies about the Bush Tax Cuts “for the rich” are never refuted. It's like Bush's name cannot be uttered by any Republican, except Fred Thompson.
As far as the other points, providing for the Common Defense is part of the Constitution and the “safety net” has become a Hammock.
I can accept that we are in a “Reaganite regime,” which followed a ~48 year reign of FDR’s New Deal regime. Ok, but you can see the author’s strong liberal in much unsubtle bs he spews. But the worse thing is the notion that Obama could be considered a reconstructionist president (starts a new regime like FDR & Reagan). The Obamaite regime? A new regime represents a profound change to something new, but clearly O is a throwback to the old, to the New Deal, the New Deal on Steroids. Remember that things like Obamacare were a dream of the New Dealers for decades. Unless the Obama Regime is full socialism, the complete collectivist reorganization of society, O is old hat.
Yet I think a new regime is in offing soon. But it will be a radical and conservative regime, modified Ron Paul actually. The conservative coalition will ultimately break up, as the Republican brand is tarnished (it’s seen as country club, not Joe the Plumber) and there are too many irreconcilable factions among the Repubs. There needs to be a new way to reach a majority of the population... a new majority. It’s not Ron Paul himself, but his (and Tea Party) ideas (though with a stronger but not neocon foreign policy, and a more moderate and pragmatic [and sometimes even progressive though still essentially libertarian] domestic policy), that will form a new regime. Reagan didn’t go far enough, he didn’t shed the heavy chains of the federal welfare and ponzi scheme entitlement state. But, in the new regime, we will understand that not only are there practical limits to idealism, but that innovative solutions involving some govt are not to be ruled out. Now, of course, we have to count on Romney to lead us out of the New Deal / Socialist mess O has wrought. My 2 cents.
The GOP, not so much. The TEA party? I think we have more than a little to fear of a Romney presidency. I hope I’m wrong. But I don;t think I will be. However it beats the alternative by a country mile.
I don't see that happening.
Wow.
About 2/3’s of the way through I figured the guy was just a pseudo intellectual Social Psychologist with a minor in Keynesian Economics and a concentration in Socialist Diversity Studies.
For each of the thousands of what pass for ideas in this weave, there is an infinite permutation of relationships contradictory to every single other version of what passes for an idea in this mesh.
And no president has ever defined his presidency by who he is (or isn’t) as a man, but is only a cog, passively defined by another endless criss crossing permutation of stages of sections of micro- and macro- cyclic historical socio-political pressures that resonate like a dull semi-echo of a badly detuned player piano sounding out a musical interpretation of Barack Obama’s domesto-foreign New Patriotic Economics in 27 Movements in C-flat-flat-diminished-thirteenth-sharp-eleven (Subdominant Minor) with Clarinet.
Then I come to read that he’s a Constitutional Law Professor with a moderate interest in technology.
Why is it that those who least understand elegantly simple nature of the Constitution are teaching it at the highest levels of education? I recently had to put of with 4 years of this species of thought from another esteemed professor of Constitutional Law.
This piece has just conveyed in 100 paragraphs an intricately complex and self-contradictory deconstruction of what a hung over 10th grader having read the Constitution’s preamble for the first time late last night would express perfectly in a half sentence while avoiding the logical errors.
I look forward to reviewing Part 2: An Obama Second First Term.
:-P
Yes and for sure. . .these stories diminishing Mitt; are counter productive. We can effect 'change' a whole lot easier and where necessary - with Mitt. We cannot do same 'without' him.
There will be no options, opportunities with Obama in charge; make that, complete charge; for the 'man who would be king'.
I'll grant the Senate races appear disappointing, but I suspect that's an illusion.
1. Recall that all the presidential polls have over-sampled Democrats -- understating the likely Romney vote. Many of the Senate polls are tantalizingly close -- just 1-2 pts. And I don't doubt the Senatorial polls are skewed in the same fashion.
2. Romney appears to be gathering momentum and could be on the verge of breaking out, on the cusp of a landslide. If that happens, his coattails will be sufficient to capture a majority of the Senate.
I'm guessing 53-54 seats -- not as many as I'd like, but better than the current pessimistic projections.
I like this position regarding the GOP:
Remove the Obama regime, and then we can argue...
Let's start with the more critical threat. No one; No Repub; can 'out Obama' - so to speak - when it comes to destroying our Country.
There is at hand; only one 'Best Bet', FOR America; and so it is; we all need to 'step up to the vote'. . .
Thanks for your earlier post, because I went to do some research to check out the Senate races, and I had assumed earlier than we weren’t as competitive, but we are actually very competitive to take back the Senate.
It isn’t a sure thing, but it looks very probable that it can happen.
My gut tells me that we are going to win, but by how much, I am not sure.
Thankyou!
We have a traitor we need to throw out of office. We might not like the tools available, but fight him and defeat him we must. This war is for the very survival of our nation. They need to get with the program or get the heck out of the way. They are like nasty, petulant children who need to grow the heck up.
Thank you. This article just cured my insomnia. Good night.
I’d much rather have to wrestle with my brother every day than fight with the home invasion gang bangers from across the tracks!
I have zeal, and relish the thought of ‘rats voting for 0zero, getting a Romney presidency, and having to wait till next year to have to see what is in it.
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.