I've recently been interviewing for a job in the United Kingdom. Would I pledge my allegiance to David Cameron? That's iffy. Where the hell is one-eyed Gordon Brown when you actually need him?Originally Posted by BedellBrave
Full-disclosure: I may have a portrait of Margaret Thatcher hanging in my office.
Otherwise, I would definitely pick any of the Scandinavian countries.
I don't know if Mitt Romney is better for the Republicans or not, but given his recent statements about Jeb, it appears that Mitt is all in on another run for the Big Chair and won't that just be a humorous little battle of the giant-headed, great-haired, middle-aged white guys (I have a 7 1/2 and I'm middle-aged, but have terrible hair, although I am still happy to have a full head of hair). I don't know if that's a recipe for Republican success or not.
I actually think if Hillary is the nominee, she'll likely win. She's able and there is the "first" factor she has going for her. Left-of-center though I may be (and firmly so), I'd almost rather vote for Rand Paul than Hillary. The country seems firmly stuck in a kind of terminal centrism where there is a massive disconnect between what people want and what they are willing to pay for. I think all an establishment candidate of either party accomplishes is pushing that disconnect down the road.
I wonder though if folks - left and right though - are just so sick of Hillary (and Romney) and this constant narrative of the establishments of the parties, the big business interests behind it all and their media lackeys - for her to really go. This whole presumptive-entitled narrative is nauseating, and I think I'd say that if she were a Republican too - at least I hope I would.
At least Reagan and Obama were something of outsiders (at least initially) to the Corporatists (Bush-Clinton-Dole-McCain-Romneys of the world). Almost makes one a conspiracy nut...
That's a good one too. I liked socialist Spain when I visited a year ago. Might have to see it one more time to add it to the potential list though. But Ireland and the Czech Republic would be on the list.
I'm sure things will certainly change with either of these at helm.
You know as much fun as I have poking fun at Fauxahontas Warren, I do some what respect her. But, she still comes across as batty. Sanders is a nut in the same league as old man Paul. Cruz infuriates me. Why can't we have some sane non-establishment types?? All the present crop being mentioned in this thread are goof-balls.
Oh right... I forgot Ron Paul was a nut-job. Thanks for the reminder
Oh, you're not a conspiracy nut. The monied interests have more often than not run the country, it's just been more blatant at some times. I think it says something when guys like Reagan and Obama are considered outsiders, because I don't see either one of them as being outsiders at all. Their proposals were more aggressive than many of the people who preceded or succeeded them, but they really didn't veer radically away from the national consensus (however tenuous the consensus may be post-Eisenhower). I think where they were similar is that they both were the non-establishment candidate when compared to their main opponents (Ford for Reagan, Hillary for Obama).
I think people are extremely tired of the Bushes and the Clintons, but Hillary (whose intellect I greatly respect) has the "first" advantage going for her. I think that will resonate with a lot of women who are unattached politically and there will be somewhat of a groundswell for her because of that. That's nebulous (and there will certainly be a hard-core element that will fight her every step of the way) and I've been in politics long enough to know that the nebulous is extremely hard to quantify, but she would get an uptick because of it. Enough to put here over the top? Call me in early-November of 2016. One thing she has going for her with the mainstream of America is that she's probably going to be the most hawkish candidate of either party (unless McCain runs again).
Don't mean to unnecessarily offend - but that's how he comes across - as does Cruz, Warren, Johnson, et al.
They come across to a general public that will need to be won, as wild-eyed crazy old aunts and uncles or pot-heads (Johnson). And in our visually-vain age that doesn't help.
That's my opinion, and I freely admit, I could be wrong...
But I'm talking perception, not substance.
Last edited by BedellBrave; 12-17-2014 at 01:56 PM.
I have a ton of respect for Elizabeth Warren, but she's just too doggone earnest for me. Loved her anti-Citibank speech on the floor of the Senate though.
While I wouldn't vote for Sanders or Paul, they're idealists who stick to their guns, that deserves some praise.
And you won't find sane non-establishment types cause they're painted as insane by the establishment.
Stockholm, more densely populated than NYC - sturg
Sure they'll be painted that way. I just wished they didn't have their own paintbrushes in hand. I mean come on - look at the bunch we are talking about! Ain't hard to paint the picture. I mean if I were at a party with them in the same room, let's just say I wouldn't be gravitating towards them...
As I've aged and reflect on all these years I've been in political hackery and policy wonkery, I've formed an opinion that arch-conservatives believe people are stupid and ultra-liberals believe people are helpless. It's become a very tiresome debate.
bravesnumberone (12-22-2014)
Gary Johnson is hardly insnae. He gets painted that way because his beliefs are radical to most.
Stockholm, more densely populated than NYC - sturg
They're not radical
Johnson held an executive position and succeeded (and left office with strong approval ratings after two terms in a Democratic state, IIRC). IMO, that should count for something when comparing him to the rest of the "crazies."
I agree that they are not really radical, but they are deemed "unsafe" to a populace that is becoming scared of its own shadow (and both sides do a great job of scaring the crap out of the public with faux boogeymen on a regular basis).
Another one of the cornball cracker barrel axioms I have developed over my career is that knowledge rests with the elites (as they are more well educated), but wisdom more often than not resides in the collective people as a whole. We've allowed the elites in this country (and I have worked among and for the political elite--at least at the AAA level--so I guess I'm somewhat to blame) to cloud the collective wisdom with idiosyncratic rubbish and complicate the simple truths that underpin a strong and vibrant society. People have become utterly petrified of change, yet call for it consistently.
I agree.
But for bedell to suggest someone is radical, because they believe in balancing the budget, not starting wars, and legalizing a safe drug un locking the millions of people out of jail, is radical... well then we are lost.
But hey, I'm sure Jeb will make a difference
This... an argument can be made that he was the most successful governor in the union in the last 2 decades.
But... he's radical
Speaking as someone who lived in New Mexico, I don't believe that being governor there is anywhere as taxing as being governor of a real state.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote