[Today’s run: rest day]
In 1980 I was a high school senior at a small school in Des Moines. It was an election year and the Republican presidential nomination was in play. Jimmy Carter was the incumbent.
Our civics teacher somehow got a ticket to the debate. She made an assignment out of it. We were to write a question to be submitted at the debate. The question she liked best would be submitted and the student who wrote it went to the debate.
I remember my question was along the lines of: In a tight spot will you do what we want you to do, or will you do what you think is best?
Anyway, she selected my question as the best (!) and I went to the debate at the Des Moines Civic Center. I don’t actually remember much about the debate. It seems to me it was a lot about small issues that had arisen: how will you handle the increase in potash tariffs (or something).
The funny thing about the debate is that Ronald Reagan refused to participate. So I did not see him there. And he’s the one who eventually got the nomination and became president. George Bush the elder was there. He became Vice President and later President. So, I have been in the same room with a whole bunch of people and a some-day-to-be President.
I thought the debate was pretty dry and I don’t remember much else about it. Seems to me maybe Jack Kemp was there, I think they had something like 6-7 guys up there answering questions. (I’ll go look it up and give you the list. I’m sure you are dying to know. Here’s a quote from the Des Moines Register website:
The six GOP candidates were Phil Crane, Howard Baker, John Connally, Robert Dole, George Bush and John Anderson. A seventh candidate, Ronald Reagan, turned down the offer to debate.
Phil Crane? I don’t even remember that name. )
8 replies on “Me and presidential debate”
Many (all but Crane?) of those candidates would be considered moderates (Republicans brought us OSHA, EPA, etc.) and, I suspect, would not recognize the Republican party today.
I guess if you want the Republicans to move in a moderate
direction you should cheer on Romney. He was the
most moderate of the selection.
Somehow, it never seems to work that way 🙂
Indeed – there are two Romneys. The far right primary Romney and the moderate general election Romney. Which is the real Romney?
Isn’t that a hoot?
Obama was the great unknown during his campaign 4 years ago. There weren’t two Obama’s there were zero Obamas.
Now that we know a bit more about the guy, his folks use the
“Two Romneys” thing to try to be scary.
I’d vote for either of the “two Romneys” over the one Obama.
“A bit more about the guy” meaning his backing away from what he said before? Surely you agree that his statements are not consistent as he softens his stance to appeal to moderate voters in the general election?
I am not “his folks” – I look at his statements made during the primary and the statements made now. Republicans would call it flip-flopping.
Regardless, after Bush was re-elected after his failed policies (huge deficits after record tax cuts, personal savings rates going to zero for the first time in generations, lunatic foreign policy in the Mid-East that caused the needless death of tens of thousands and lead to a protracted civil war (juvenile jingoistic laughable carrier deck landing – mission accomplished?), (and shudder to think that his privatization of Social Security would have gone through – the calamity that would have followed!) I have no faith in the wisdom of the American electorate. If Romney won by a landslide I would not be surprised. Fool them twice shame on them.
All I’m saying is that Romney has more of a history to look at then Obama did four years ago. And what we have now for both shows Romney in a good light.
I don’t know how to pin personal savings rates on Bush, but you are the finance guy so I’ll leave that to you.
The choice now is Obama or Romney. I don’t think either choice is a “fool me” situation. Romney is Romney and Obama is Obama. Four more years of Obama will be a lot like the last two years with divided congress and Obama going his own way through executive fiat. (And the Supreme Court making the real decisions.) Four years of Romney will most likely be a more moderate version of the GWB administration with, hopefully, less distraction by international problems and a bit more insight into financial markets and economic progress.
Or the Iranians could bomb NYC and anything goes.
To get his party’s nomination he had to cater to the extreme right wing, which has the most influence in the primary contest. Now he must hope that, in the general election, voters either ignore or forget what he said even though in the Internet age it is readily available for all to see. He changes his stripes too easily for me – he is not a man of principle.
(Divided congress is owing to Republican intransigence and kicking the can down the road: the pending fiscal cliff, which causes uncertainty in the business and finance community, is a direct result of Republican congress in 2011.)
Have you been reading a lot of HuffingtonPost or something?