Presidental Straw Poll

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
ZEB wrote:Bill Roberts
wroteZEB wrote:

Ronald Reagan was Governor of California before he was President and he wasn’t even a blip on the Presidential radar screen two and a half years out.

No: for example Reagan very nearly took the Republican nomination in 1976 (he had 1070 delegates, Ford had 1187).

That is 4 years out.
You’re right four years out, but not two and a half. Because of Reagan taking it to Ford many with in the republican party were blaming him for weakening Gerald Ford who later lost a very close election to Jimmy Carter. Hence, Reagan was thought of as being on the outs with the party and as I said, was not even a blip on the Presidential radar screen two and a half years out.

Well, anyone can have any opinion whatsoever but a claim that Reagan was big on the radar screen 4 years prior, but 2 1/2 years prior wasn’t a blip suggests to me that you weren’t around at the time.[/quote]

Before I say anything else I just want to thank you for this comment. If I were not around in 1980 that would mean that I am under 30 years old right now. I just want to savor that one.

Maybe you are the one that was not “around” in 1980. I voted for Reagan twice and remember very clearly how ticked off the republicans were at him after he literally harpooned Fords chances of defeating Carter. I spoke with my states conservative chairman over this exact issue in the late 70’s and he was mad at the republican state chairman as there was a conspiracy brewing to keep him (Reagan) far away from the nomination in 1980. On top of that Reagan himself thought that he would not have a chance as he blew his opportunity trying to unseat Ford. Furthermore, they thought age was going to be a factor and didn’t think that Reagan could overcome that disadvantage. The leading candidates 2 1/2 years out were former CIA director George Bush, Senate minority leader Howard Baker and former Gov. of Texas John Connally.

For these reasons Reagan was viewed as a non-candidate 2 1/2 years out from the 1980 Presidential race. I was there I saw it, I lived it and I remember it well.

[/quote]

Sorry, I was around then too and your idea that he was off the radar is wrong.

You’re extrapolating from individuals you knew and are assuming it was widely across the board.

There were many who considered Ford a poor candidate, by no means wanted him to be the candidate in 1980, and still thought Reagan was the man for 1980.

I will grant that you didn’t happen to know any. But there was no lack of this.

I’m surprised that you don’t grant that your terminology “not even a blip on the radar,” which you’ve used twice, was over-reaching.

If you wanted to say he wasn’t seen as the front-runner 2.5 years out, that might well be a true statement.

But claiming “not even a blip” makes your statement wrong.

Throughout the entire Carter presidency, Reagan was still considered very seriously by very many. Maybe not those you knew personally. But you have extrapolated way too far.[/quote]

Well, Bill I can’t really add much to what I’ve already posted. I am correct on this point. I never said Reagan was not eventually a serious candidate, obviously he was. My point is that 2 1/2 years out he was not considered as a serious candidate, and he wasn’t. There were several others who were, and I named them in my prior post. If you want to take me to task for saying he was not even a blip on the radar screen I suppose we could dissect that, but to what end? Are you more comfortable if I had said he was not a serious challenge? Or maybe he was not any where near the front of the pack? But in reality 2 1/2 years out he was not even in the pack, so I’ll stick with my radar analogy and you can like it, or not, I don’t mind. It will still be accurate either way.

62

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Who would you all vote for? Ron Paul vs Obama, or Mitt Romney vs Obama. No matter who goes up against Obama, the conservatives will unit and vote against Obama. Obama has shown his true colors. No person in the US will allow any red herring Obama throughs out to say he is not a liberal. Obama is going to try really hard to start making himself look like a middle of the road guy, but everyone knows he is not.[/quote]

To be honest if it was a choice between obama and Romney I would choose Obama. It is the devil you know kind of situation.

63

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Well, Bill I can’t really add much to what I’ve already posted. I am correct on this point. I never said Reagan was not eventually a serious candidate, obviously he was. My point is that 2 1/2 years out he was not considered as a serious candidate, and he wasn’t. There were several others who were, and I named them in my prior post. If you want to take me to task for saying he was not even a blip on the radar screen I suppose we could dissect that, but to what end? Are you more comfortable if I had said he was not a serious challenge? Or maybe he was not any where near the front of the pack? But in reality 2 1/2 years out he was not even in the pack, so I’ll stick with my radar analogy and you can like it, or not, I don’t mind. It will still be accurate either way.[/quote]

I think that cremaster saw the problem exactly: You are going by what “insiders” that you knew were saying.

As for the ordinary folk who voted for Reagan in the '76 primaries, who numbered very nearly as many as who voted for Ford, your idea that they all or virtually all forgot about him and preferred Connolly, Baker, or Bush is not right.

Your insider pals may have, I don’t dispute that.

There are other persons who won a party nomination who were, to use your expression, not even a blip on the radar 2.5 years before – in terms of people in general, though probably not for example the Trilateral Commission – but Reagan was a wrong example. He was by no means dismissed among rank-and-file Republicans after the '76 election, by no means “not even a blip on the radar,” though apparently he was disliked by your insider friends.

However I have at least learned something from this: You are a person who cannot admit being wrong on even the smallest point, such as choice of phrase here that grossly overstated your general point. Even yet you defend “not a blip on the radar” though it was manifestly untrue.

That’s OK: there are some people who simply cannot yield even the tiniest point. And it’s helpful to know who those persons are, so at least something has been accomplished here.

65

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Well, Bill I can’t really add much to what I’ve already posted. I am correct on this point. I never said Reagan was not eventually a serious candidate, obviously he was. My point is that 2 1/2 years out he was not considered as a serious candidate, and he wasn’t. There were several others who were, and I named them in my prior post. If you want to take me to task for saying he was not even a blip on the radar screen I suppose we could dissect that, but to what end? Are you more comfortable if I had said he was not a serious challenge? Or maybe he was not any where near the front of the pack? But in reality 2 1/2 years out he was not even in the pack, so I’ll stick with my radar analogy and you can like it, or not, I don’t mind. It will still be accurate either way.

You are going by what “insiders” that you knew were saying.[/quote]

Yes, the insiders that I knew and also Newsweek, US News And World Report, the Wall Street Journal and every other piece of political information that I could get my hands on. I was very involved and was well aware of what was going on can you say the same?

Not being on the radar screen means that he was not being considered as a real threat 2 1/2 years out. Obviously, the people (including myself) loved him. He gained great momentum only after that time period however.

You should well know about people who cannot admit that they are wrong because you, my friend are at the very top of that particular list, at least here on T Nation. I can forgive that about you because frankly we usually fall on the same side of most political issues. But as far as being stubborn and unyielding even when wrong, you are the king.

Now about me being wrong. If you are going to prove such I suggest that you get your act together and demonstrate how I was wrong. I pointed out the three men who were leading the polls two and three years out. I also showed you why Reagan was not a favorite that far out. Your retort: “nuh uh, you’re wrong and hate to admit it”. Nice argument you have there.

One more point, you said you were around then too but I really don’t think that even a highly intelligent 4 or 5 year old (which I’m sure you were) would have the capacity to even remember what his favorite ice cream was at the time, much less the in’s and out’s of a political primary. If I’ve drastically misjudged your age I’m sorry, but from what I know of you I don’t think you’re much older than that. Now get busy and prove your point to me if you think it’s worth it. If you not, stop this nonsense as there are plenty of other pointless Internet debates that I must engage.

66

[quote]cremaster wrote:

and you are still too much of an insider to see that in 2012 the ‘Anti-Obama’ candidate will triumph. Romney (Obama-light)won’t cut it.
[/quote]

Romney? I am the one who said that the Republican Presidental candidate has not emerged yet. Are you confused?

67

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
ZEB wrote:Bill Roberts
wroteZEB wrote:

Ronald Reagan was Governor of California before he was President and he wasn’t even a blip on the Presidential radar screen two and a half years out.

No: for example Reagan very nearly took the Republican nomination in 1976 (he had 1070 delegates, Ford had 1187).

That is 4 years out.
You’re right four years out, but not two and a half. Because of Reagan taking it to Ford many with in the republican party were blaming him for weakening Gerald Ford who later lost a very close election to Jimmy Carter. Hence, Reagan was thought of as being on the outs with the party and as I said, was not even a blip on the Presidential radar screen two and a half years out.

Well, anyone can have any opinion whatsoever but a claim that Reagan was big on the radar screen 4 years prior, but 2 1/2 years prior wasn’t a blip suggests to me that you weren’t around at the time.[/quote]

Before I say anything else I just want to thank you for this comment. If I were not around in 1980 that would mean that I am under 30 years old right now. I just want to savor that one.

Maybe you are the one that was not “around” in 1980. I voted for Reagan twice and remember very clearly how ticked off the republicans were at him after he literally harpooned Fords chances of defeating Carter. I spoke with my states conservative chairman over this exact issue in the late 70’s and he was mad at the republican state chairman as there was a conspiracy brewing to keep him (Reagan) far away from the nomination in 1980. On top of that Reagan himself thought that he would not have a chance as he blew his opportunity trying to unseat Ford. Furthermore, they thought age was going to be a factor and didn’t think that Reagan could overcome that disadvantage. The leading candidates 2 1/2 years out were former CIA director George Bush, Senate minority leader Howard Baker and former Gov. of Texas John Connally.

For these reasons Reagan was viewed as a non-candidate 2 1/2 years out from the 1980 Presidential race. I was there I saw it, I lived it and I remember it well.

[/quote]

Sorry, I was around then too and your idea that he was off the radar is wrong.

You’re extrapolating from individuals you knew and are assuming it was widely across the board.

There were many who considered Ford a poor candidate, by no means wanted him to be the candidate in 1980, and still thought Reagan was the man for 1980.

I will grant that you didn’t happen to know any. But there was no lack of this.

I’m surprised that you don’t grant that your terminology “not even a blip on the radar,” which you’ve used twice, was over-reaching.

If you wanted to say he wasn’t seen as the front-runner 2.5 years out, that might well be a true statement.

But claiming “not even a blip” makes your statement wrong.

Throughout the entire Carter presidency, Reagan was still considered very seriously by very many. Maybe not those you knew personally. But you have extrapolated way too far.[/quote]

Well, Bill I can’t really add much to what I’ve already posted. I am correct on this point. I never said Reagan was not eventually a serious candidate, obviously he was. My point is that 2 1/2 years out he was not considered as a serious candidate, and he wasn’t. There were several others who were, and I named them in my prior post. If you want to take me to task for saying he was not even a blip on the radar screen I suppose we could dissect that, but to what end? Are you more comfortable if I had said he was not a serious challenge? Or maybe he was not any where near the front of the pack? But in reality 2 1/2 years out he was not even in the pack, so I’ll stick with my radar analogy and you can like it, or not, I don’t mind. It will still be accurate either way.

[/quote]

Nothing I have read indicates he was a dark horse or unknown. It seems to me he was climbing the republican ladder for a pretty long time and had a pretty large following within the party. He may have even been able to steal the nomination from Nixon if he would have been serious about the nomination a bit earlier. Nixon was certainly threatened by him and snubbed him a few times because of this.

Many in the republican party thought he would be a better candidate than Ford. Even Goldwater. They supported Ford because they thought it would demonstrate stability in the party after watergate. They supported him even though they thought he was a bit liberal and almost completely shut them out after Nixon resigned.

If Nixon wouldn’t have taken down Agnew, it would have been Ronnie and Agnew. I don’t even think anyone was talking about Ford. Hell, it could have been Rockafeller and Reagan if Nixon would have gone that way instead of Ford. My point it that the party was going to support who ever was in the VP spot. Nixon knew this and is why he did what he did to get Agnew out. Reagan was far from an underdog. Just a victim of circumstance.

None of this is from personal memory. Probably mostly from Goldwater’s journal entries in Pure Goldwater. Just read Buckley’s The Reagan I Knew. Maybe some of it from that as well.

Edit - I am talking about party support. Fund raising, support from other politicians in the party, etc. No idea about public support as no first hand knowledge, but inside support would have certainly influenced this. Had the rank and file in the party not supported Ford for the reason I mention above, I don’t believe it would have been very close.

68

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Watching Romney now and I must give him credit for pointing out that universal health care in Mass. was/is how it should be IF health care is to be handled by government, namely the states NOT the fed should be doing it.[/quote]

Yeah, but here’s what I also wished he would have said:

“Well, as DeTocqueville argued, our federated system allows for each state to try out policies to see how they work, in a kind of ‘laboratory of Democracy.’ I’m afraid we’ve found it didn’t work out very well; in fact, it’s failing. And Obamacare is going to be even worse.”

69

[quote]ZEB wrote:

You should well know about people who cannot admit that they are wrong because you, my friend are at the very top of that particular list, at least here on T Nation. I can forgive that about you because frankly we usually fall on the same side of most political issues. But as far as being stubborn and unyielding even when wrong, you are the king.[/quote]

You, sir, are a fool, projecting onto others what is true of yourself (an all-too-common psychological flaw.) That is the only explanation for your above accusation.

Many times I have granted error on my part where that has been pointed out.

As for demonstrating you are wrong: You have a choice of calling me a liar or not. I am speaking of my own testimony of what people I knew were saying. Reagan had not disappeared off the radar to not even being a blip. Simply not true.

But clearly personal testimony means nothing to you: you “know” that Reagan dropped off the radar to being “not even a blip” and it wouldn’t matter how many people told you that among the people they knew that wasn’t the case at all.

There is no point in corresponding further with you on this, clearly.

70

[quote]Vegita wrote:
Listen to me when I say this, if the GOP puts someone in who the Tea Partiers don’t fully endorse as a small government conservative, this country will get another 4 years of Obama.
V[/quote]

^THAT is what worries me. And yet, as much as I like Paul, I too really wonder if he’s broadly electable.

Let me throw this out there: I know Gingrich has many problems (personal issues + some of his political stances I’m not so hot on), but look: he’s pretty much 90% true small gov Conservative; he really believes in the Constitution, is extremely knowlegeable, highly intelligent, quick on his feet, tons of experience, and is well-known.

72

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
ZEB wrote:

You, sir, are a fool, [/quote]

Huh, a personal attack and on the Internet no less. I’m shocked.

Yes, of course that’s the only thing it could be because you know that you can’t be wr…wro…WRONG. Ouch sorry I had to type that.

I never said that you’re a liar, you are the one who has resorted to personal insults not me. But I do think that you are mistaken. You keep omitting those pesky little things called facts. And we both know that you were too young to remember anything from that era and have not read enough to know in detail regarding that era, otherwise we all would have read it by now. Isn’t that right?

I’ve given you my personal testimony and some facts as well and they mean nothing to you. Hey are you projecting?

I have a set of facts and have also lived through that era. I have not read anything that has logically contradicted what I lived through and saw, up close and personal. You certainly bring nothing to the argument that has any substance.

[quote]There is no point in corresponding further with you on this, clearly.
[/quote]

Since you’ve added nothing but one personal attack over your past four posts I would have to agree with you.

73

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]Vegita wrote:
Listen to me when I say this, if the GOP puts someone in who the Tea Partiers don’t fully endorse as a small government conservative, this country will get another 4 years of Obama.
V[/quote]

^THAT is what worries me. And yet, as much as I like Paul, I too really wonder if he’s broadly electable.

Let me throw this out there: I know Gingrich has many problems (personal issues + some of his political stances I’m not so hot on), but look: he’s pretty much 90% true small gov Conservative; he really believes in the Constitution, is extremely knowlegeable, highly intelligent, quick on his feet, tons of experience, and is well-known. [/quote]

Do really think that he is that much more electable than Ron Paul?

74

You guys remember that episode of Seinfeld when Kramer runs to be President of Del Boca Vista, with Mr. Seinfeld pulling the strings behind the scenes? That’s what the tea party needs. A young gun who can talk the talk with RP walking the walk behind the scenes.

75

[quote]ZEB wrote:

I never said that you’re a liar, you are the one who has resorted to personal insults not me. But I do think that you are mistaken. You keep omitting those pesky little things called facts. And we both know that you were too young to remember anything from that era and have not read enough to know in detail regarding that era, otherwise we all would have read it by now. Isn’t that right?

… I have a set of facts and have also lived through that era. I have not read anything that has logically contradicted what I lived through and saw, up close and personal. You certainly bring nothing to the argument that has any substance.[/quote]

Yeah, I’m “mistaken” that among people I knew very many remained vocal Reagan supporters, he had by no means dropped off of their radar to being not even a blip, and my saying that this was the case doesn’t qualify as presenting a fact that this was true. You also claim we “both know” that I was too young at the time to be able to know what I said that I know from that time.

Yet you’re not calling me a liar. Right.

Go back to reading your Newsweeks and telling yourself that you know how it really was, and keep on congratulating yourself how you knew the inside people who knew so much (but proved dead wrong.)

At least I’ve gotten to learn who you are as a person, so not an entire waste of time. 'Bye.

(EDIT: I used overly strong language for which I apologize: ZEB did not deserve that.)

76

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]Vegita wrote:
Listen to me when I say this, if the GOP puts someone in who the Tea Partiers don’t fully endorse as a small government conservative, this country will get another 4 years of Obama.
V[/quote]

^THAT is what worries me. And yet, as much as I like Paul, I too really wonder if he’s broadly electable.

Let me throw this out there: I know Gingrich has many problems (personal issues + some of his political stances I’m not so hot on), but look: he’s pretty much 90% true small gov Conservative; he really believes in the Constitution, is extremely knowlegeable, highly intelligent, quick on his feet, tons of experience, and is well-known. [/quote]
Gingrich would literally brutalize Obama in a debate too. I mean mop bucket and stretcher, but I don’t know how electable he is either. Paul has no chance. Nada zip zilch zero. Believe it. Forgetting every other potential issue he brings to the table he is TOO DAMN OLD. That matters.

77

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]Vegita wrote:
Listen to me when I say this, if the GOP puts someone in who the Tea Partiers don’t fully endorse as a small government conservative, this country will get another 4 years of Obama.
V[/quote]

^THAT is what worries me. And yet, as much as I like Paul, I too really wonder if he’s broadly electable.

Let me throw this out there: I know Gingrich has many problems (personal issues + some of his political stances I’m not so hot on), but look: he’s pretty much 90% true small gov Conservative; he really believes in the Constitution, is extremely knowlegeable, highly intelligent, quick on his feet, tons of experience, and is well-known. [/quote]
Gingrich would literally brutalize Obama in a debate too. I mean mop bucket and stretcher, but I don’t know how electable he is either. Paul has no chance. Nada zip zilch zero. Believe it. Forgetting every other potential issue he brings to the table he is TOO DAMN OLD. That matters.[/quote]

He is not too old. If Ron Paul isn’t the person they are bringing to the table then Obama has 1 vote he can count on, I would much rather have the devil I know then some big government civil right abusing won’t repeal one peace of legislation Republican.

78

[quote]John S. wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]Vegita wrote:
Listen to me when I say this, if the GOP puts someone in who the Tea Partiers don’t fully endorse as a small government conservative, this country will get another 4 years of Obama.
V[/quote]

^THAT is what worries me. And yet, as much as I like Paul, I too really wonder if he’s broadly electable.

Let me throw this out there: I know Gingrich has many problems (personal issues + some of his political stances I’m not so hot on), but look: he’s pretty much 90% true small gov Conservative; he really believes in the Constitution, is extremely knowlegeable, highly intelligent, quick on his feet, tons of experience, and is well-known. [/quote]
Gingrich would literally brutalize Obama in a debate too. I mean mop bucket and stretcher, but I don’t know how electable he is either. Paul has no chance. Nada zip zilch zero. Believe it. Forgetting every other potential issue he brings to the table he is TOO DAMN OLD. That matters.[/quote]

He is not too old. If Ron Paul isn’t the person they are bringing to the table then Obama has 1 vote he can count on, I would much rather have the devil I know then some big government civil right abusing won’t repeal one peace of legislation Republican.[/quote]
Do you have any idea how dangerous it is for you to stake your future and that of this nation on one man? One man who is pretty much in the average lifespan range right now?

You are displaying for Ron Paul the very same personality cult symptoms that Obama’s fanatics are suffering from. I hate to see you doing this to yourself man.

79

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

Do you have any idea how dangerous it is for you to stake your future and that of this nation on one man? One man who is pretty much in the average lifespan range right now?

You are displaying for Ron Paul the very same personality cult symptoms that Obama’s fanatics are suffering from. I hate to see you doing this to yourself man.[/quote]

And your solution is to put it in the hands of the very same people who gave us medicare part D?

Ron Paul is in great health, looks like he is on the campaign trail, is liked by people on both sides of the isle. That is who I will be supporting(now if he gives his support to another candidate then I will vote for them). I need someone with honesty and Gingrich isn’t that guy.

80

[quote]John S. wrote:
<<< (now if he gives his support to another candidate then I will vote for them) >>>[/quote]
Listen to yourself brother. You have surrendered your mind and your will to Ron Paul. This has nothing to do with him and everything to do with you.