I’m mildly surprised that you are not aware that Hoover won world wide fame for his administration of humanitarian aid and famine relief during and after World War I. It was that, and not his performance as Commerce Secretary that won him the nomination of his party and the Presidency.
No, actually, I’m not surprised at all. Your knowledge of history is abysmal, as is reflected in all your posts that refer to more than a day or two ago.
(Hoover was, in my opinion, one of the two most decent and honorable men to serve as President of this country.)
Well, you know how it is – you’ll find plenty of agreement on that, but little agreement on what kind or direction of change. Elizabeth Warren and Ted Cruz both represent actual change.
Getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan, re-booting the economy and getting more people health care coverage was change. If further change means another go round of failed republican policies, then let’s have stasis from now on.
True, but there’s more to it than ideology. Ending the aspects of politics that involve deceiving the public would be nice. It would also help to do away with the basic immaturity associated with politics, where tough decisions are kicked down the road and rule of law is ignored for the sake of convenience.
If all people had wanted was Democratic policies, there was no rationale for Barack Obama to be chosen over Hillary Clinton. He was chosen because she represented the old politics of spin and deception, while Obama was a unifying figure who would transcend politics. Instead, he plays the same old games.
Yes, and that’s a huge, huge problem. We have these people elected to make decisions for us who know way too little about one of the most important things in our time. It’s like we have a House of Lords but no House of Commons.
Unfortunately, getting young people to vote on this stuff seems to be incredibly hard. So we just keep a Congress that no one really approves of.
Jeez, that’s just campaign nonsense, like “it’s morning again in America” or we’re “building a bridge to the 21st century.” There isn’t a person on the planet who could unite this country. As far as I’m concerned, the hopey, changey thing worked out just fine.
But you have to admit, we wouldn’t be in a different place with Hillary Clinton. Or Chris Dodd, or Joe Biden for that matter. Obama successfully marketed himself as a different kind of politician, which caused a lot of new voters to turn out and choose him over the “old news candidates”(the subject of this thread). But of course, that was just campaign spin.
Oh well, at least it won’t work for another candidate for a generation or so.
Most winning Presidents have “successfully marketed [themselves] as a different kind of politician”. W did, Clinton did, Bush I maybe didn’t, Reagan did, Carter did, etc. Obama ran great campaigns, but it wasn’t a particularly unique one in terms of style or substance.
Once again, I don’t believe you are able to separate your extreme personal hatred of this man from your analysis of him. It bleeds through nearly every time you post about him.
I expect Hillary would have given into republican intransigence, much like her husband did in the '90’s. What you see as arrogance, I see as principle. In reality, neither the republicans nor Obama were willing to really compromise. So be it. Sometimes the country is better off with gridlock. At least under Obama, we didn’t wind up with any atrocities like the Defense of Marriage Act.
Politicians often try to promise the voters change and something new, but they either do not or cannot deliver.
This isn’t a conservative or liberal thing; it’s simply something politicians say a lot.
Politicians often criticize specific aspects of the political game. Others, like Bill Clinton, promise “change” without specifics.
Obama attacked the political games played in the beltway very specifically and then did everything he criticized, from the inside deals, to the “gotcha” politics he decried as recently as his SOTU address, to the relentless spin and message control. No President has gotten as much media criticism about access and being control freaks.
Back on topic, I’d like Adlai Stevenson for president. Of course, he died in 1965 (yes I had to look it up, sue me), so there may be some technical difficulties.
That’s general hyperbole, not promises to change politics.
There was a reason that so many new voters turned out to support him. It was because they thought they finally had found someone worth voting for. Instead, they got a typical politician, which is why so many didn’t come out a second time for him.
Hey, did you guys hear about that Barack Obama dude in 2012? He only won the popular vote by a margin of five million and the electoral vote 332-206. Ha ha, what a loser.
Dodging the point. He won by a smaller margin in a lower turnout election. I understand why you might not be curious about what made so many voters not want to support him a second time. Hint: it’s the difference between idealistic voters and Democratic voters.
You may scoff at those few million votes now, but you’ll miss them if the election in 2016 is close. You certainly missed them in the midterms.
I thought that Gen. Colin Powell might be a good choice. He certainly had the military background but had the misfortune accept a job in the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfield presidency. I’m sure he regrets that decision.