Who WAS the last 'good' candidate to run for office? Forget his views. Someone who was actually capable of leading the country.
Putting political views aside, I'd say Gore, Clinton, and Bush Sr. were all capable leaders in recent memory. Arguably John McCain in 2000 (although not in 2008) had he made it past Bush to win the Republican nomination.
Reagan...I'm undecided. He had a ton of charisma and oozed charm, but I'm not sure how much "leading the country" he did compared to the people around him (I see him being very similar to Bush Jr. in that respect). IMO, Reagan more of an extremely charismatic figurehead rather than an actual leader, although I guess that itself can be seen as an element of effective leadership.
Out of your list, I question that Gore would have been a capable president, I doubt that he would have been an effective leader during the whole series of crisis' that hit the States.
I greatly respected Ronald Reagan. I think people greatly under estimated him due to his age, but there was never any doubt that he was decisive and he created a lot of fear in the enemies of the United States.
He also came into power when America was in its low point moral wise and did a good job of building the country back up.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
I would actually doubt Clinton. His timing was impeccable. I think any of the above could have been President during his tenure and been highly thought of. He just happened to take the reigns at the right time. What was the real legacy of the Clinton years? What legislation or progress was really attributed to him?
Reagan was and still is grossly underestimated. Carter was one of the worst Presidents ever and Ronnie took over when the country doubted itself and turned it around.
I would actually doubt Clinton. His timing was impeccable. I think any of the above could have been President during his tenure and been highly thought of. He just happened to take the reigns at the right time.
Domestically Clinton did a decent job. I thought that he was entirely week on the foreign front in dealing the rising problem with terrorism. The most damning indictment of his president is that he had a chance at Bin Laden when the Sudanese government wanted to turn him over to the States and Clinton didn't take advantage.
+ his taste in woman, dreadful.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Domestically Clinton did a decent job. I thought that he was entirely week on the foreign front in dealing the rising problem with terrorism. The most damning indictment of his president is that he had a chance at Bin Laden when the Sudanese government wanted to turn him over to the States and Clinton didn't take advantage.
+ his taste in woman, dreadful.
His foreign policy does leave a lot to be desired, but we're going into different positions politically now. I still think character wise he was someone a person could look up too and not be scared that he would screw things over at any minute.
Plus, he did manage to work with Republicans quite a bit in many of the things he did.
I would actually doubt Clinton. His timing was impeccable. I think any of the above could have been President during his tenure and been highly thought of. He just happened to take the reigns at the right time. What was the real legacy of the Clinton years? What legislation or progress was really attributed to him?
Reagan was and still is grossly underestimated. Carter was one of the worst Presidents ever and Ronnie took over when the country doubted itself and turned it around.
Clinton created job growth and a surplus budget
Reagan spent the crap out the coffers and ran an incredible deficit
Reagan is so overblown by the right it is ridiculous.
I would actually doubt Clinton. His timing was impeccable. I think any of the above could have been President during his tenure and been highly thought of. He just happened to take the reigns at the right time. What was the real legacy of the Clinton years? What legislation or progress was really attributed to him?
I don't think thats fair, although you do make a good point. He was President during a good time, but he could have screwed it up too.
Quote:
Reagan was and still is grossly underestimated. Carter was one of the worst Presidents ever and Ronnie took over when the country doubted itself and turned it around.
Agreed. Although I think history will judge Obama to be a worse President than Carter.
Reagan spent the crap out the coffers and ran an incredible deficit
Reagan is so overblown by the right it is ridiculous.
Reagan did spend a lot, but he was also in a spending war against the USSR.
Clinton created job growth and a surplus because he worked hand in hand with Congress to get things done. That is one of the main reasons I have always applauded him.
Reagan spent the crap out the coffers and ran an incredible deficit
Reagan is so overblown by the right it is ridiculous.
How did Clinton do that? Show me the legislation he got passed to get that going. As much as Reagan inherited crap Clinton inherited a rose and funny you should say that about Reagan, it was that spending that in large part created the environment and economy that Clinton enjoyed. Clinton was the first post cold war president. I will give him some credit for reducing the deficit but with the economy booming, tax coffers were full and since the Russians were no longer the threat they were military spending was greatly reduced. He was more a beneficiary of the time he lived than a creator of the environment.
And? The majority of people in the US have the same freedom.
Idea is to promote the ideas of freedom that people are always aware of the what is at stake, and that the government always knows its place.
If those were the only "ideas," I'd be okay with it, but if it were, the American version would be a lot different than it currently is. I wouldn't trust it to be free of religious ideology, considering the guy wanting to begin the "movement" up here is an admirer of the American Tea Party original. I don't like the idea of importing something like that into Canada. Name it something different (and less American), and go in a different direction with it -- that way you don't attract the wackos in the process.
__________________
"An adherent of homeopathy has no brain. They have skull water with the memory of a brain."
If those were the only "ideas," I'd be okay with it, but if it were, the American version would be a lot different than it currently is. I wouldn't trust it to be free of religious ideology, considering the guy wanting to begin the "movement" up here is an admirer of the American Tea Party original. I don't like the idea of importing something like that into Canada. Name it something different (and less American), and go in a different direction with it -- that way you don't attract the wackos in the process.
You do realize that the original idea of the American Tea Party was to protest the US government in its current form, and like any other party, a small select number of 'extremists' have promoted their religious idea, which you and everyone else chooses to focus on instead of realizing the original intent.
Canadians by and far aren't overly religious when it comes to a political message. Even our evil conservatives aren't overly religious.
The closest thing to the Tea Party in Canada would be the Wildrose Alliance, and while they WILL have fundamental views amongst their members, they are primarily a party based on a small government/fiscally responsible platform. But that won't stop people who think the right-wing is a bunch of fundamental wackos from trying to label them as a religious fundamentalists.
Reagan did spend a lot, but he was also in a spending war against the USSR.
Clinton created job growth and a surplus because he worked hand in hand with Congress to get things done. That is one of the main reasons I have always applauded him.
Reagan had a policy to willfully create deficits. He was basically a puppet for big business and did their bidding. Tying business and government even farther. Because of Regean the top 1% of the country started to attain more wealth at the expense of the middle class. Obviously, he was a more effective President than Carter, but his policies were terrible. I think he will come to be known as where it all started to go very wrong for the United States.
It's funny how Clinton is championed by progressives as a great liberal President. He is a reasonable politician, a rarity nowadays, but he wasn't very progressive and a lot of his policy decisions reinforced Regean's mistakes and led to the mess we are in today.
As for Obama, you are underestimating him. He is already a more effective President than Carter, dealing with a much worse state of affairs. He, unlike Carter, is also a master politician and campaigner. He is the best President at image control we have seen since Reagan. The only reason he is struggling right now is an economy that was handed to him in absolute shambles and has faltered since then. Economic recovery wouldn't have been attained no matter who was President.
Now, I don't think he's a particularly progressive or helpful President, but he's in the toughest spot since FDR. Any President of the last 40 years would have struggled mightily in this current economic and political climate.
__________________
As you can see, I'm completely ridiculous.
The Following User Says Thank You to Weiser Wonder For This Useful Post:
You do realize that the original idea of the American Tea Party was to protest the US government in its current form, and like any other party, a small select number of 'extremists' have promoted their religious idea, which you and everyone else chooses to focus on instead of realizing the original intent.
Canadians by and far aren't overly religious when it comes to a political message. Even our evil conservatives aren't overly religious.
The closest thing to the Tea Party in Canada would be the Wildrose Alliance, and while they WILL have fundamental views amongst their members, they are primarily a party based on a small government/fiscally responsible platform. But that won't stop people who think the right-wing is a bunch of fundamental wackos from trying to label them as a religious fundamentalists.
Why do you think I said I'd be okay with it if that's all it promoted? That's why I think he'd be better off naming it something different, breaking away from the current state of the American Tea Partiers, while keeping the same basic ideals. Original intent is good and all, but the current state of it is another thing. Otherwise, it's just going to attract some of the same wackos that are currently big-time supporters of the American version. I really don't want to hear Sarah Palin commenting on the successes/failures of the Canadian Tea Party as if they are somehow linked.
__________________
"An adherent of homeopathy has no brain. They have skull water with the memory of a brain."
As much as Reagan inherited crap Clinton inherited a rose
What? Clinton was elected during a recession. Some rose.
Anyway, I am wondering what this nut Beck is really up to. The footage I saw of this rally made it look like a religious revival. All conciliatory and how we should "look to god" and whatnot.
I wonder what his angle is on this one. Maybe he's going to start a church so he can get that sweet tax-free status. Either way, it looks like he's selling Jesus now.
How did Clinton do that? Show me the legislation he got passed to get that going. As much as Reagan inherited crap Clinton inherited a rose and funny you should say that about Reagan, it was that spending that in large part created the environment and economy that Clinton enjoyed. Clinton was the first post cold war president. I will give him some credit for reducing the deficit but with the economy booming, tax coffers were full and since the Russians were no longer the threat they were military spending was greatly reduced. He was more a beneficiary of the time he lived than a creator of the environment.
Sorry fella I really dont think you know what you are talking about.
You do know that Clinton started in a recession? I think you have some rose coloured glasses cause your facts reak of republican talking points.
One last thing that I've seen Stewart do is admit a mistake in his conclusions or reasoning. I've seen very few TV personalities do this. I doubt Beck has but since I'm not an avid follower, I may be wrong.
In discussing the 'ground zero' mosque, he said it's wrong to limit other people's free speech rights, freedom of religion, etc, etc. He took that opportunity to apologize for the stance he took several years ago when he said it was in poor taste for the NRA to hold their rally in Colorado shortly after the Columbine incident.
A lot of other TV personalities never seem to admit their mistakes in logic like this.... 'We've always been at war with Eastasia'
I have wondered if anybody on the left had remembered the treatment the NRA recieved for holding their convention there shortly after the murders.
The difference between the NRA and the builders of this mosque is that the NRA was stuck. They had everything booked and simple couldn't have changed location that late without it costing a fortune. The logistics would have been impossible. Just canceling wasn't an option either due to the organization's constitution.
