dayman

Well I agree we could use a president with a lot of Reagans qualities. The one thing I don't like is that people would point to him, or Clinton for that matter, or even FDR, or anyone else and say that we should replicate past policy b/c it worked at that time. Not matter how similar people can make today look to any given period of time in the past, it's no where near the same. And 30 years from now won't be the same. The economy is way different and we're at a different starting point. The geo-political landscape a completely different situation. Etc If there was a "correct" ideology it's difficult to see why we don't live in an eternal utopia. That's the thing that I don't get about the Reagan "worship" so to speak, is not that Reagan was stupid, or an evil destroyer of the middle class, or any of the knocks you hear from people who have problems with him will say...it's just the idea that we should just "do as Reagan did" or better yet "do as we would like to say Reagan did." Hell...it's pretty clear there have been great leaders in this country alone, and certainly around the globe, who were very different from each other. Thing is their time (or in the world view their place also) were all different. Staunch ideology is just boring and a dumb approach to any discussion about this stuff. Not to say we can't talk about history btw that would be absolute nonsense...but being too focused on the past to validate an ideology whether it's praising a person/policy or condemning in them just never seems ... "wise" (to sound as elite as possible haha)

Ok so lets stay with this then. I'm not trying to attack you I'm just trying to further illustrate what my point is. What did happen there as you see it?

Well whatever I've clarified that it was a humorous (or apparently not) remark. And in any event, I believe and I think most die-hard Reagan supporters would agree that his "good presence" was not merely incidental to Reagan the President. It was huge part of why he was able to lead. That's what it's all about in modern politics. Not completely unheard of but very difficult to lead anybody if people don't like/relate to you ... people won't follow. We would probably have more fat guys, or ugly guys, or women, or {insert anything else] in office if that were not true. You need to be attractive, not necessarily sexually but as a person somehow. Behind the scenes? Meh. But to the public? Absolutely. And the public is where you get the juice to be effective behind the scenes. None of this is rocket science or unknown. And it isn't calling Reagan "all hat and no cattle" to suggest that this is something he was good at. It's calling him a good politician. And nobody will be a good president unless they are a good politician.

LOL we were talking about the "hat" anyway. So the "cattle" wasn't even on the table. And as for the comment sounding snarky...doesn't matter if it's Reagan or any other man if I'm talking about how you are good looking for the women, smile good, and people love you, well...I'm not a homophobe but it deserves a smiley face after saying that even in the context of politics. Not something I typically go around saying about other men.

3rd we were discussing presidents and TV, not Reagan the president. I said he was made for tv. That's being snarky? Haha, I guess I see how you read it now. I think you have a pretty combative view of what you read from me to assume I was playing at the "leader" part in that context to me leader simply meant "elected official" or even "politician." What I was trying to get across was exactly what I said, the guy was good looking and friendly and woman loved him and men liked him. Hence, made for TV.

Do go on, you're selling me on it I'm sorry I'm supposed to pretend Bush doesn't exist? I'm talking VP picks, Bush had one that contradicts what I was talking about. Are you this up tight in all aspects of your life?

LOL back off guys, I wasn't trying to attack Reagan. I was being dead serious. The sexy part was goofy but seriously...yes Jim I read it and I was agreeing with you. Reagan was made for TV. That's not inherently a knock.

You can't be too young, too racially diverse, or too woman as a VP these days. After all nobody picks a VP based off an actual replacement for President anymore anyway. It's pure politics, the office is even more a joke now than it has been for the previous 200+ years. The Presidents attack dog/ticket-balancing-act who just so happens to do his bidding in the event of a vote tie in Senate. But I guess in the case of Bush it's Presidents personal "ask Jeeves."

Oooh that sexy Reagan with his dashing good looks and friendly public disposition.

My guess is only as good as the next mans, but I think it's been Rubio for months. Provided he came back clean which I'm sure he did.

No doubt Obama too. It would be nice if we had a truly great president, but we aren't going to get one any time soon and maybe never again. Hell maybe it's impossible to even be a great president these days. We certainly haven't even had any "serious contenders" as of late that would come close. There's no savior looming. There won't be one man. It will take a coalition of cooperative Americans willing to be level headed and somewhat moderate in their approach and expectations even if their perfect world result would be extreme...you can believe that a somewhat radical change is necessary but you can't throw a fit when reality kicks in and you have to work with other people who have different views. LOL I don't know whether or not that's "when it started" but he was certainly loud and obnoxious and blabbering away there. So I'll give him credit. Congratulations to that man. What a difference he's made.

And to comment on this so as not to brush it off. Absolutely fair point. By no means is the letf not a contributing factor, and in need of some better leadership. It absolutely swings both ways I'm not pointing my finger at one side or the other exclusively. But I am pointing my finger at extremists making it impossible to get anywhere and the most active and influential extremists in politics today are the "tea party" and/or the "far right"...ostrasize them and the country can get working at finding some sense of balance. Which would include the damn Democrats compromising some of the issues they resist compromise with.

1) Yes sort of 2) Not entirely ... even the completely retarded "far right" (as distinguished from "the right") think they're helping. And the personal gain aspect while obviously true in some circumstances is overblown IMO. 3) Of course it's a problem 4) Nobody in Washington ignores the debt. Different ideas on how to address it. You deny characterizations of something that you don't ...uh...even know what it is supposed to be? Why don't you just talk straight for a change and quite waiving in the wind. The "tea party" is not the victim of some unholy and ungodly media attack. Hell the tea party was in large part propelled by the media in the first place to help it take off once it got started. I've hated the Tea Party long before it became popular to do so, b/c I hate idiots waiving around a Constitution (who don't have a clue what is in it or what it means as interpreted by the courts) and I hate extremists. So yes, there are people who straight up dislike the Tea Party...not b/c of the "media." Just b/c people talk badly of it, doesn't mean there is a conspiracy. In many instances, it just means they deserve it. Which they do. Elect better leaders, maybe they'll catch a break. The bottom line is you SHOULD be disgusted at the way Washington is running and you should condemn any rhetoric or candidate who is going to continue a firm "my way or the highway" attitude. As I said over and over, THAT'S the unifying theme to the Tea Party. Attitude. And it produces a bunch of idiots in Congress, and then a sentiment that pulls the ENTIRE GOP closer to the fringe and further away from the TRUE American people...people somewhere near the middle whether leaning right or left. Simply put, the Tea Party has scared people like John McCain, like the old John Boehner, etc...they're neutered. And the fact is to address our issues we are going to have to reach across the isle. And they can't, if they try the'll just get the boot (they should just do it anyway btw). China's leaders are looking at us in awe that we aren't coming together in a time where it's more necessary than ever. We're a joke b/c we can't work things out and the most contributing factor to that is extremist right wing ideals. That is just the way it is.

We would kill for the '95 Congress. Did things come to a head? Yes. Did things get worked out? Yes. Compare that to today. And this whole % of Congress thing is getting old. I'm basically being polite by focusing on the Tea Party in this discussion b/c I don't want to turn this into a partisan **** throwing contest. I want to focus on the aspect of the GOP that I think is counter productive and not the GOP generally. But we all know the real issue is not the most extreme of the GOP...but the hold their sentiment has over the "active core GOP base" and thus what used to be "reasonable Republican Congressman." It's about the Tea Party's role in radicalizing the rest of the GOP to the point of nonsense b/c they have to play along ... and the lack of stones one time reasonable GOP members have (for example John Boehner) to stand up and tell them "Yes, I hear you, but we're going to behave and you are going to participate and we're going to speak with the other side in order to legitimately compromise a deal to move us forward." And I like how at the end you, like everybody I've even met, deny self-identifying with them. You defend them, you agree with them and think they are great, but you aren't one of them. "No no, not me. I'm not a Tea Party guy." LOL...is there a reason nobody associates with them including you?

To quote a good mini-series "I'm an extreme moderate, Mr. KD. I believe anybody not in favor of moderation and compromise ought to be castrated.". The Tea Party is a force against that sentiment. It's infected the GOP led house and that's the main reason that it's become more dysfunctional than it has ever been in any of our lifetimes ("broken" is what many reasonable politicians on both sides call it). People want their elected officials to work together even when they have different opinions/philosophies, they must learn to actually do work. Not grandstand for their idiot base. Not be a retarded ideologue. Be a cooperative pragmatist with core beliefs. We should all demand this of our elected officials no matter what side. Bi-partisan compromise is basically a badge of corruption to the Tea Party. People got thrown out in 2010 for compromising issues with the other side. That's a !@#$ing joke. If you really cared about any of the "ideas" you attribute to your tea party then you would encourage the politicians you support/that ride that wave to actually represent/sell those ideas through methods of cooperation and debate (read: functional government). If the movement wants to improve the first thing they can do is drop the diva attitude, sense of righteousness, and learn to act like adults. But of course, that "attitude" is what the Tea Party is really all about anyway...they can't drop that b/c it's all basically just attitude. Good for riling people up, terrible for doing anything productive in government.

My problem is I'm talking to a Tea Party nut as if it's worth it.

LOL. They can't be talked with, let it go. They can't really point to anybody as a good member/leader b/c nobody in government associated with the movement has done anything positive. Also if they did they would then have to live up to certain policies, ya know things that are real, as opposed to ideas or philosophies.

I don't think you understand good sir. And in any event, I'd like to see a response form anybody on the bulk of the post up there.

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/politics/assets_c/2010/04/Tea%20partiers%20Gallup-thumb-380x660-24176.jpg I mean it looks from that poll like they're just like everyone else in almost every category including wage,(w/ more men maybe). So are half not paying any federal income tax in the "taxed enough already movement?" We to reduce rates and broaden the base (caused many if not most Tea Party people to pay more) to fix this? IN the Taxed Enough Already Party? They're actually chanting to be taxed by the government?

My question is what has the Tea Party brought to Washington? What leaders has the movement sent to actually lead in government for whatever their purpose is and what have they done to be proud of? The idea that there is nobody to target (I believe there are but I guess the movement will deny them all since it's the political equivalent to anonymous now ) doesn't mean a thing. And there is not even a coherent set of policies within the movement. The Tea Party turned into a wave that a bunch of nobodies rode to create the worst Congress in my lifetime. And that was the point of last episode...the elected officials who rode that wave in 2010....hell it shed some good light on some more cooperative Repbulicans who ya know...do their job in office. Are there some principles some people can attribute to the "idea"...sure. But that doesn't mean anything...that I can make sense of anyway as far as being ... ya know... meaningful ... and the tea party is no more grass roots than anything else. Grass roots for grass roots sake means nothing anyway. Grass roots is Paulbot libertarians (as much as I disagree and agree w/ them at the same time). That's a movement. The Tea Party is just a mess that birthed a bunch of nonsense attitude into the house of representative and hurt the country as a result. The bottom line I want to know is do tea party people here think it is unfair to label this congress the tea party congress? Do Tea Party people understand compromising issues in a way that advocates your position w/ out compromising yourself and then moving forward is what being in government is all about? Is there anyone in government of any note that has done anything on behalf of this "party" that anyone can say that about?

Oh God Potbelly why won't you expand to my home region...forgot about Potbelly... broccoli cheddar heaven.

It seems sensible to me to talk to the NAACP the same way you talk to everybody else. So I don't think you are wrong.

Just catching up with this story. No problems here that's one of Romney and the GOP's main issues. He would be a hypocrite to not mention it. And all in all the NAACP clapped a lot. As I see it, there is nothing to see here. He did at one point say he was best for the gay community as well as blacks which was awkward but all in all we all know he just means in general he thinks his policies will help the pocket book.

We'll have to wait and see. I doubt they'll do anything like the hand of god they just dropped on the tea party but I would hope they attack the left in some areas in the future as well. If they don't they'll lose some credibility...whatever credibility they have And anyway it is a tv show I read in an interview not every episode will track real news stories from the past they will have made up news stories and as they latest episode set the ground work for the show will have more than just news focus I'm sure it will evolve into a more character driven show as it gets its feet set as well as exploring "the news industry" more...all that is good (although some of the developing character archs are cringe worthy in their Sorkin dialogue and cliche cheesiness). In any event the third episode should have been the second. The second episode was a disaster should have been cut.

There's actually some pretty back and forth and interesting literature on estate/inheritance tax and it's place in society generally ... the bottom line though is estate planning can do wonders and anyone with that millions at the time of their death has probably done themselves right. I'll say this though ... as a somewhat left of center guy ... 1M at death isn't that much and $250K yearly income while a lot isn't all the money in the world ... bleh