Remembering a Comment on the Occasion of Carter's Loss to Reagan

Freep | 04/04/2016 | Charles O'Connell

[5th MEB]

There ya go; I always said I could support either of these guys without having to hold my nose in the voting booth.
Last election I got to do that was Reagan; this time no senile viagra junky (vote for Bob Dole because I'm Bob Dole), no backstabbing psychopath (McQueeg), or surrender monkey (Myth Romney).
Trump was not my first choice but he is an acceptable choice; would have preferred Cruz, but even while supporting him I didn't think he could win in the general election.

[DoughtyOne]

I do not see Reagan as being as crass as Trump.

None the less, Trump has succeeded at least in part because he has been open and crass. Folks know he doesn’t hold back.

They see him as genuine and honest. He talks like many of us do.

Could Reagan survive in this environment? With the right policies I think he could.

Reagan was a likeable person. Likeable people who are good communicators draw support.

[MeganC]

I think Trump can win in November given that Bernie Sanders keeps demonstrating how weak Clinton is with Democrats.

If Hillary gets the nomination then a boatload of Democrats are going to stay home in November.

I also think a lot of disaffected Bernie supporters will cross the aisle to vote for Trump.

[Kommodor]

“I was not a Christian back then, but was attending a private Baptist college. The on campus hysterical enthusiasm for Jimmy Carter as a fellow Baptist was amazing. Carter’s morality compared to the evil overlordness of Richard Nixon would make all the bad things go away, forever and ever, amen. My contempt was absolute.

Long, long ago. So much has changed.”

Replace with:

The on campus hysterical enthusiasm for Bernie Sanders as a fellow socialist is amazing. Bernie’s proletarianism compared to the evil capitalism of Donald Trump will make all the bad things go away.

Nothing has changed.

[CatoRenasci]

I remember the 1976 election clearly - I was in the Army at the time, stationed in Oklahoma. Although I’ve always been a Christian, I have never considered myself an evangelical or fundamentalist. I found Carter’s running pretty much on his religion off-putting. What really surprised and troubled me, however, were the reports I was getting from lots of other young officers from fundmentalist and/or evangelical backgrounds about how strongly their pastors and denominations were pushing Carter as “one of us”.

I started out with Walker this cycle, though I thought well of Cruz and supported him once Walker dropped out. The more I saw of Cruz and his religious backers and (at least) fellow travelers, the less comfortable I became. The dominionism of Ted’s father is outside even the mainstream of evangelicalism or fundamentalism. The language of Beck and many of Cruz’s other supporters is troublingly apocalyptic, even unhinged. Ultimately, we’re better off not running Cruz.

[Psalm 144]

I can’t say you are wrong.

There is a circularity there to be sure.

[HotHunt]

Cruz is a constitutional conservative. He is a master debater. And they say, the most intelligent person in any room. But he is not a people person. Co-workers don't speak kindly of him. So what kind of job really fits him?

Because Cruz has never managed anything, I don't think he has the skill set to be the president, a job of constant decision-making. Cruz is used to studying, talking and debating. There is no decision-making required on a daily basis in the Senate.

And that's why Trump is more suited for job as president. He has made himself successful and wealthy making executive decisions in his companies. He knows that part very well. As George W. Bush once said, "I'm the Decider-in-Chief."

But I think the perfect job for Cruz has a "Help Wanted" sign in the window right now. President Trump's first act in Oval Office should be to nominate Cruz to fill the Supreme Court seat vacated by Scalia's passing. This scenario would be a win-win-win solution for everyone.

Trump would be seen as magnanimous in selecting his fiercest opponent in the primaries to such an important position. Cruz would be in a lifelong position, not requiring reelection where he can put all of his positive skills and attributes to good use. Speaking somewhat tongue-in-cheek, I'm sure the Senate would gladly give their consent quickly, knowing that the burr in their saddles, Mr. Cruz, will no longer be their constant irritant on the floor of the Senate and they'd be rid of him. The conservatives would get their justice to replace Scalia.

But what do I know.......

[usurper]

President Trump's first act in Oval Office should be to nominate Cruz to fill the Supreme Court seat vacated by Scalia's passing.

I agree with everything you said I would love to see Cruz on the Court but I just don't see how he could be confirmed.

Not a single Dem will vote for him and most of the GOPe can't stand him. Agreed they may begrudgingly vote to kick him out of the Senate but there are a number who will never vote for him.

Will Trump want to start out with a nomination and run the risk of loosing in his first fight?

If he wins in a landslide he may just want to put everyone on notice that he is in charge. His unpredictability is one of his strengths.

[HotHunt]

You may be right, but if Trump does wins in a landslide (I think he will myself) he might use some of his new-found political capital to get Cruz jammed through. It would go a long way in uniting the Republican party and salvaging most of the Cruz voters who are now feeling disenfranchised because their guy lost.

But this a perfect scenario and those perfect moments in life seldom happen.