Objective review of Republican candidates for President

[Florestan]

A blind faith that the government, or free enterprise, knows best and will naturally work for the greater good is dangerous. In that sense,I view progressives and Libertarians with a bit of caution, as both have a utopian world view that just doesn't line up with what seems (to me) to be reality.

Aye, both the guvmint and the free market benefit from good watchdogs.

Fully agree with you, gentlemen.

[kishnevi]

Just curious: does anyone here think that the US President, whoever he be, acts alone and on his own? That his theoretical ideas can be translated tale quale in the real world? That an uncompromisingly (is this a word?) principled approach to whatever, from social security to immigration to foreign policy and everything in between, works better than flip-floping (i.e, realism and pragmatism)?

Well, we've had realists and pragmatists for the last twenty years here in the US--Bush father and son, Clinton, and now Obama, and it's not like it's gotten us much return on the dollar, so to speak.

Reagan seems to be, among modern presidents (that is, in the last few decades), the most generally admired;  he was also the most ideologically minded (although of course he abandoned ideology a number of times).  People tend to admire someone who says, "Here I stand, i can do no other"--even if they then turn around and ask someone else to actually fix their problems.

Re Paul's rather slim legislative success--in modern DC, with it's atmosphere of perpetual partisanship, cronyism and refusal to deal with actual problems in any way that's oriented to reality, that's something that may be more a feature than a bug.

The President obviously can not do everything himself.  If he could,  the United States would be now be under the rule of al-Qaeda's Mexican branch, all government revenues would be going to politically correct and politically connected environuts, Mrs. Obama would be vetting every restaurant menu in the USA, Jeremiah Wright would be leading anti-imperialist struggle sessions on Wall Street with the help of Ayers, the US courts would be full of judges ready to approve every twelve year old girl's application for abortion without parental notice, and everyone would be forced to join a government employees union*

But the President has (reverting to seriousness) what we call the bully pulpit.  He has a unique power to draw people's attention to problems and to the solutions to those problems.  It's a power Obama has been curiously loath to wield until this year.

*The more familiar with Republican and American right political blogs, the more apparent will be the satire in that paragraph.

[jowcol]

Well, we've had realists and pragmatists for the last twenty years here in the US--Bush father and son, Clinton, and now Obama, and it's not like it's gotten us much return on the dollar, so to speak.

As far as Clinton goes-- the first two years of his term I don't think he was either realistic or pragmatic--  he tried to "solve" the health problem as well, and basically green lighted the "Democratic Agenda".  It wasn't until he lost the house that he demonstrated more pragmatism.  As far as getting the "return on the dollar"-- do you remember the economy and deficit as he left office?    (Not that I give him all that much credit...)  Taxes raised under his presidency, but the economy boomed.   Which means that the the simplistic "less taxes more growth" argument is something that needs to be addressed in more detalil

Bush Sr. was definitely pragmatic in my book, and his downfall was unfortunate--  he saw when taxes needed to be raised, and faced up to it.  Bush Jr.'s notion of fostering gov't change in the Middle East and retaining tax cuts while pursuing two wars does not strike me as all that pragmatic.  (Other than to secure reelection-- if that was the point you were trying to make)    I don't hold Bush Jr. fully responsible for the economy either (many external factors), but the impact of the tax cuts has been to increase the deficit more than what Obama as done.  (Although, Obama's unwillingness to let them expire, and his attempts to play class warfare on top of that demonstrates he's more worried about getting reelected than anything else. )


[quote author=Jeffrey Smith link=topic=19080.msg592043#msg592043 date=1326420300

Reagan seems to be, among modern presidents (that is, in the last few decades), the most generally admired;  he was also the most ideologically minded (although of course he abandoned ideology a number of times). 
[/quote] 

That's what made him effective.  But that makes him a pragmatist in my book.   I wouldn't confuse the public persona with the decisions that come out of that administration.   Also, the arms buildup under his leadership was definitely what I'd call big-government spending.

Re Paul's rather slim legislative success--in modern DC, with it's atmosphere of perpetual partisanship, cronyism and refusal to deal with actual problems in any way that's oriented to reality, that's something that may be more a feature than a bug.

The elephant in the room, if you ask me, is lobby and the money needed to get election. (Made worse with the role super PACs are now able to play.  The ability of both parties to act in the nation's interests are undermined by special interests.  If if the "american people" got smarter and more discerning, the candidates would lose the media war to get elected if they don't bow down before the special interests and lobbies. This fuels partisanship as well-- as each part is not allowed to address fixing problems that may cut the income of one of their special interests.

[/quote]

But the President has (reverting to seriousness) what we call the bully pulpit.  He has a unique power to draw people's attention to problems and to the solutions to those problems.  It's a power Obama has been curiously loath to wield until this year.

I would have to agree.  For all of those who portray Obama as a power-crazed despot planning to install a new order-- I don't think he's going about it the right way .  He's one of the most "hands-off" presidents I've seen.   His inability to guide congress when his party had control was mind-boggling.   He seems to want to be the smooth consensus builder-- but he doesn't seem to realize that building a consensus means not being smooth some of the time.    People say he's angered his party, but he gave Reid and Pelosi full reign to run wild with Healthcare. I wish his "visions" were more concrete and limited in scope.  Getting back to the ACA ("Obamacare"-- sorry, it's what I do for a living )-- Kathryn Sibelius of the HHS said it contained very recommended fix by respected analysts to address health care costs.  That was the problem-- it was the kitchen sink, filled to some tasty leftovers, (and some not), but there was little though to how it would be managed.  I DO believe that the health care crisis requires action,  but the need to cram everything in one bill was silly, and will likely drag down several good ideas by making too big a mouthful to swallow. 

Getting back to the main theme-- I don't consider Obama as the most pragmatic at all-- he's shown more of that in his foreign policy.

[Karl Henning]

Chas Krauthammer: Ron Paul's achievement

[Todd]

However, a Gold Standard--from what I've read--seems to create price stability and limit/discourage risky financial behavior because of its natural limitations

Yet there were severe panics in 1873, 1893, 1907, and 1929.  (1920-21 was more directly related to a sharp decrease in war expenditures.)  Severe recessions/depressions and panics are less common now than before WWII.  Leaving the gold standard has not made the situation worse.  Your assertion doesn't square with history.

couldn't it be argued that the current meltdown was caused by a housing bubble that was, in many ways, created by the Fed's artifically low interest rates (along with GSE's and coercion through programs such as the Community Reinvestment Act and Equal Credit Opportunity Act)?

The Fed did pursue easy money for too long, and that did contribute to the meltdown.  Of course, whenever the Fed raises rates, politicians – right, left, and center – criticize the Fed.  Check news articles from 1994, when politicians of all stripes wanted Greenspan's head for jacking up rates.  The Fed is now, as it often has been in the past, a bogeyman for those looking for a politically convenient scapegoat.  Economic populism never dies.

As to the CRA, well, unfortunately for conservatives on their high horse about such matters, initial studies by the Fed show the CRA to be of minimal significance to the collapse.  Do you have any hard numbers to back up your implied assertion that it was significant in the collapse?  I'm not saying that the CRA is necessarily good policy, but there is precious little evidence that it was a major part of the 2008 collapse.  It was one more minor part.

Perhaps I'm wrong here, but I thought one of the major reasons we ridded ourselves of the Gold Standard in '71 was because of the mounting current account deficits. We simply couldn't repay all the money we owed in gold; hence the need for a fiat currency.

Yep, trade deficits and increases in the money supply to fund the Vietnam War led foreign countries to demand conversion of dollar holdings to gold.  Rather than allow (primarily) Europeans to deplete all gold reserves, Nixon nixed conversion.  A good move, I'd say.  His accompanying wage and price controls were not quite so good. 

You mention re-tooling fiscal policies, though; am interested which ones you would consider. Would you consider any changes to the Fed itself?

There are a whole host of fiscal policy changes I would like to see.  The overarching budget targets were described previously.  Broadly speaking, the changes I'd like to see include increasing revenue through eliminating various deductions and subsidies, then (and only then) raising top marginal rates and possibly marginal rates lower down the scale, and significant revamping of Social Security and Medicare.  Defense can and should be cut as well, with less devoted to Europe (which Obama is proposing and doing now, though not fast enough) and wasteful programs like the last remnants of missile defense getting the ax.  The Fed should be primarily focused on maintaining price stability rather than the conflicting goals Congress has in place now, and should publish more information to sate the desires of those consumed with the notion of Fed secrecy.  Other changes are possible, but the basic structure of an independent agency with governors appointed to long terms is essential, in my view.  Monetary policy should never be subject to election cycle whims.  It should also never be locked into an inherently inflexible system.  Or at least never again.

China is rising and our place in the world won't be as preeminent. Maybe our past policies have helped to create this situation?

Absolutely US policies have helped.  The US pushed to have China in the WTO, for instance.  The US has granted China MFN status for decades.  Boosting trade with China has been policy in the US for decades.

In addition, the US fiscal situation has worsened since the early '80s, when Reagan took office, requiring greater reliance on foreign investors.  Republicans have routinely touted irresponsible fiscal policies for decades, initially backed by the infamous and laughable Laffer Curve, and now backed by outright economic insanity.  Democrats are nearly as bad, with their insistence that social programs not be properly restructured or eliminated.  However, your question also points out a peculiar and arrogant American position: the US is somehow responsible for what happens everywhere, at least to a large extent.  The Chinese are pursuing a slate of policies specifically designed to become a more powerful nation.  US policies may contribute, but they are not the driving force behind the changes.

It's the competing in competing currency; citizens can opt for a currency potentially more stable and valuable instead of the ever inflating dollar.

Yes, but how would this help average Americans?  You have not shown this

Well, gold (and silver!) have been used historically, for various reasons which I'm sure you know, Todd. Civilizations have valued it in monetary matters because it has been seen as a lasting and stable source of wealth and value--unlike paper money. Of course it has its limitations; debasement and fraud can occur with gold just like paper money can get counterfitted (or inflated).

Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that it is an arbitrary selection.  It also doesn't change the fact that other items have been used as money throughout history.  Gold and silver are falsely assigned near-magical properties.  (And it's hard to believe any Republican would want silver to back money.  Too many shades of Bryan.)

[Szykneij]

I would certainly hope no one thinks that. 

Seeing this reminds me of one of Truman's quips about Eisenhower before the '52 election: He'll issue orders and then nothing will happen.  (I can't remember the exact quote, but that's the gist of it.)

"He'll sit here," Truman would remark (tapping his desk for emphasis), "and he'll say, 'Do this! Do that!' And nothing will happen. Poor Ike-it won't be a bit like the Army. He'll find it very frustrating."
- from Richard Neustadt's "Presidential Power and the Modern President"

Generals never seem to make good presidents.

Truman also called Douglas MacArthur a "dumb son-of-a-bitch", but my favorite quote of his is "never kick a fresh turd on a hot day."

[Todd]

Generals never seem to make good presidents.

Truman also called Douglas MacArthur a "dumb son-of-a-bitch", but my favorite quote of his is "never kick a fresh turd on a hot day."

Washington wasn't too bad.  Jackson had and has his share of admirers.  And Eisenhower was actually pretty good.  That's a 25% success rate.  Not particularly inspiring.

I don't think I'd say MacArthur was dumb at all.  Supremely arrogant and insubordinate, maybe, but not dumb.  I think FDR was closer to the mark when he called MacArthur one of the most dangerous men in America - before sending him to the Philippines.

[jowcol]

Well, gold (and silver!)

GOLD AND SILVER!
SILVER AND GOLD!



(Sorry, I'm getting flashbacks from my childhood.)

[Superhorn]

   I'd vote for Vermin Supreme any day over any of the Repugnican candidates.  This guy has more brains and savvy in one cell of his body than all of them combined.

    Vermin Supreme forever !!!!!!!  Yay Vermin Supreme !!!!!!!!

[Karl Henning]

You mean, you don't like even Rick Santorum?

[Karl Henning]

31. What are the two major political parties in the United States?

Oh, I was tempted to hit the American and Bull-Moose option for a lark, sure . . . .

[Karl Henning]

Romney also said he's made money from speaker fees, "but not very much." Last year, "not very much" was $374,000. Which raises the question of what "very much" is. I look at that number and I think: Wow, that would pay my college tuition bill for several semesters.

Romney has his profoundly tone-deaf moments, though, don't he?

[Todd]

Romney has his profoundly tone-deaf moments, though, don't he?

He's an Average Joe.

[jowcol]

Oh, I was tempted to hit the American and Bull-Moose option for a lark, sure . . . .

It's pretty clear from recent events that the "Know Nothings" are VERY active, and have infiltrated both major parties.

[jowcol]

   I'd vote for Vermin Supreme any day over any of the Repugnican candidates.  This guy has more brains and savvy in one cell of his body than all of them combined.

    Vermin Supreme forever !!!!!!!  Yay Vermin Supreme !!!!!!!!

He's the only one so far who makes sense.  AND he will give me a pony. 

I'm Squrimin' for Vermin!

[Karl Henning]

Hm, the options for question 72. are particularly entertaining, I thought:

72. What was one important thing that Abraham Lincoln did?

a. saved (or preserved) the Union

b. established the United Nations

c. declared war on Great Britain

d. purchased Alaska

[Karl Henning]

Cool! Maybe Romney isn't really the front-runner after all:

The Des Moines Register reports today that Rick Santorum beat the former Massachusetts governor by 34 votes. Reversal is muddled by the fact that results from eight precincts "are missing."

RTWT here.

[Karl Henning]

Of course, in that event, phut goes Romney's historic one-two, Iowa-NH biathlon.

[Karl Henning]

Surgically done: ". . . flat-earthism in the economic realm."

RTWT here.

[Karl Henning]

Breaking news: “Rick Perry to drop out . . . .”