Posted on 11/11/2023 2:44:57 AM PST by Libloather
“Bronx voters didn’t pick Marmorato for her to immediately say she would work with the other side.”
That may be because in my lifetime, like most during that time, haven’t heard of any liberal saying they would work with the other side that actually did. Oh, they’d listen, that’s what they do. And then do what they want. We were 50 years at one point of a liberal controlled house. So nothing got done by a conservative for that time frame because if it wasn’t liberal, it didn’t get to the president.
That was why Trump got it done enough to start change. You can’t repair all the breakage like that in 4 years as fast as you can break it.
wy69
Taft was more or less following the policies that Roosevelt had laid down during his own term. It wasn’t Taft who changed. It was Roosevelt, who took up more radical causes after he left office. TR’s big ego was a big factor in his change. So were the many people who were willing to appeal to his big ego to get what they wanted. Probably more of the people who voted for Roosevelt when he ran in 1904 favored TR over Taft in 1912, but they weren’t part of the Republican Party machinery and hadn’t worked for the party over the years.
She should know that she won't get conservative bills passed and she won't block liberal bills from being passed, but she can voice the opposition. She can expose voters to the other point of view. She can point out the flaws in the bills being passed. She can show the voters of her district how the state is acting in the Democrat party's interests, and not the district's interests.
-PJ
“...but they weren’t part of the Republican Party machinery and hadn’t worked for the party over the years.”
And you’ll notice neither of the big two parties won the election It was about that time starting with F Roosevelt that the democrats started changing into the people of feelings and not political decisions. They learned from T Roosevelt that the people wanted to be assured that something was being done in their interest and not the politicians. So the democrats started lying through their teeth.
And thanks to good publicity (lies) and a bombardment of issues like the depression, the starting of WW II, followed by Korea, racial divide, followed by Vietnam, and so many other issues the democrats didn’t have answers to but they made you feel good about them, they have chased the republicans right out of business and unless you can sell someone on a project at the low levels, you can’t earn that over priced paycheck. Add that on to the playbook the democrats, now liberals, stole from Alinsky, and you have the entire game plan of the liberals in politics.
This is why the democrats have controlled at least one house of congress for so many years and blocked so many republican issues so even if there was a republican president, his hands were tied. And that didn’t change until Obama in his efforts, reinvented the executive order so Trump could use it as the first republican president to follow him. And they tried to underfund him in the house. It’s very simple, they have stopped being leaders and are now big brothers and sisters and know how to ring people bells like Pavlov, and make the people think they deserve them. And whoever is holding Biden’s ink pen hand is still doing the same thing and the conservatives are more interested in their job so they sink into their seats.
This was why Trump was so effective as he had no political garbage and even though they have persecuted him worse than any one in political history, the only thing they accomplished was giving members of the republican party an opportunity to bail on him and keep their jobs while they force the taxpayer, through tax increases and bad economy decisions, the opportunity to walk into the shredding machine. And they just replace them with new woke sheep so they can keep their jobs. We’ve come a long way from T Roosevelt winning as an independent party for the people to current politicians, the hired help, now in “power” handed to them by education in getting by and not using change for prosperous ideals this country bring people from all over the world to get. Now all they get is government assistance until the money runs out.
wy69
““It’s tough being a Republican in The Bronx,” she told The Post Wednesday. “I listened to people and they appreciated that.”
Did it mention in the article if she had any answers after she listened. I wonder if the name Custer means anything to her?
wy69
I’m not sure where you’re contesting what I said in my disputing your claim TR was a Conservative. If anything, you’re confirming exactly what I said.
Roosevelt deeply regretted his promise to not run again in 1908 and when Taft didn’t act like his puppet, he used that as an excuse to try to depose him in 1912 (which he still couldn’t do in-party. I’d say those statewide conventioneers recognized TR rightly as a menace in staying true to Taft). He could’ve played the statesman, withdrawn his candidacy, urged the party to stay united behind Taft in the 1912 general and to not split the party with the 3rd party Progressives for Congress and other downballot offices.
By doing so, TR could’ve preserved his viability for becoming the GOP nominee in 1916. Nope, his ego wouldn’t let him do it, and so we got the disastrous Wilson as a result.
“You may want to look up Trump’s economy swing and check to see how he did it.”
I was talking about President Harding. It was not a dig at President Trump, nor even at Reagan. Harding and his Treasury Secretary, Andrew Mellon (arguably the greatest Treasury Secretary) was the last President who cut the size of the government, taxes, and spending across the board. Reagan couldn’t, because he had a Democrat House that wouldn’t allow him to do so. Trump similarly was not able to do all 3 (he wasn’t helped by a RINO Speaker & Senate Majority Leader). Both Reagan and Trump were still successful with stimulating economic growth, BUT not actually cutting the government itself is what has been the problem now for almost a century. Why the base has been enraged by promises from Republicans to “cut/cut/cut” since the 1930s that were never carried out.
In 2025, President Trump is going to need to be Harding-Mellon on steroids. Ruthless and merciless government cuts, not decreases in the increase in gov’t spending, actual trillions in cuts in spending, elimination of departments, a full-scale nuking of the heart of the Derp State bureaucracy. Scatter the agencies to small towns across America. Make it absolutely miserable for people to commit to any more than a short period of time in gov’t service. It should be a sacrifice, not a way to get a lifetime sinecure and perks and social standing in Georgetown.
“He could’ve played the statesman, withdrawn his candidacy, urged the party to stay united behind Taft in the 1912 general and to not split the party with the 3rd party Progressives for Congress and other downballot offices.”
I don’t base success of a politician based upon the party he/she prefers. My comfort is with the needs he/she provides to the majority of the people he/she serves. You seem so intent upon the party needs that do not always go in the direction of the people. I prefer a leadership that will challenge the registered party to do something in the best interest rather than this is how we always have done it. And that’s what made T Roosevelt and D Trump, and many times R Reagan, different. That’s what made them successful and follow the path of prosperity that the people actually wanted while the party was comfortable with getting by.
They were presidents that stand out because they were leaders in a direction of the people, not of the party. And that point I made clear. T Roosevelt was so willing to back the people he left the party he was in to do for them. So he was elected as a walk on. And that takes people, not party. Reagan was willing to go after Russia until he broke them into almost just being a land mass full of hungry people to protect our people. And Trump staged the greatest come back of a failing country in history economically, and protection wise, even though that old party got in his way at ever turn (and I’m talking about both). And he’s still paying the price for thinking of us rather than his party paycheck.
I can’t make it any clearer. These men, and a few more I didn’t mention, were leaders, not followers. And they are the leaders of change and success, the difference in today’s world between prosperity and survival. Right now we are in survival and losing. And the numbers show that with polls for 2024 candidates. In this world, if you don’t prosper, you die. They want prosperity back. And Biden is not the answer. Trump is the only choice to step forward and not back. And that course was set by T Roosevelt because he got the attention of the people and not the paymaster. Trump has made a show of giving away his paycheck, donating his salary to the National Park Service, the Department of Education, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Small Business Administration, the Surgeon General’s office and the Department of Agriculture. He understood that there’s no end to rich unless the rich set the limit. Our current politicians have no end to giving away your money. Way too much of it. And too much of that stops at their pockets on the way forward.
wy69
The answer to this is not to stop third or more party participation. The answer is to require a majority to win an election. Greater than 50%. So that somebody who gets 30 or 40% of the vote against the will of 60% of the people. You keep running the election over and over till somebody gets greater than 50%. Some states already do this.
“Greater than 50%.”
Bravo! You get it. The will of the people and not the baby sitting of the party. And it means the people making their choice. So the only thing that could get in the way is graft. And that starts at the ground level in the states. If they can be controlled, the people will be the deciding factor, with more than what the party puts on the hook. Imagine, no pork , correct budgeting to get close to what is needed and then figure it out, laws on the books the people want and not just the politicians, protection of the borders to prevent crime and overcrowding, education requirements that actually do and are supervised under the parent, not the politicians from 2k miles way with threatening holding the funds... My God the possibilities. Good on ya.
wy69
Again, the problem here is that TR wasn't serving the people. He was serving his own unbridled ego. The enemy in 1912 was Socialism. Did he work to stop it ? No. He sabotaged a sitting Conservative President, created a third party around his ego designed explicitly to sabotage the Republican party, and allow the Democrats to win by a plurality - for which only a minority of Americans supported.
The Democrats had already been taken over by the Socialists in 1896 with its purge of the centrist Bourbons led by President Grover Cleveland. Cleveland remains to this day the last non-leftist Democrat elected President. Every Democrat since has been a Socialist, Communist or worse. I can't celebrate TR as a positive leader, especially when he willfully inflicted damage to this nation and sent us down the wrong path. Add to that his warmongering agenda, which has also been the cause of incalculable damage to humanity throughout the 20th century to today. It was only when one of his beloved sons was killed in WW1 when he finally began to realize that perhaps war was not all it was cracked up to be, especially when your dearest blood doesn't return home.
This remains a stark contrast here: TR took something in 1912 that WASN'T broken, and broke it. Reagan and Trump, conversely, were/are addressing problems with this nation that WERE broken (which again, could be traced back partly to TR) and also within the party itself, which had become corrupted. Putting the three of them together as a great triumvirate of leaders is an offense. Two wanted to save America, another was mad he had limited himself to two terms and wanted to get back in again, and was doing whatever was necessary to suit his ego. Huge difference.
The enemy in 1912 was Socialism.
If the enemy was socialism, and the democrats were overwhelmed with it, and it appears you feel he was egotistical and could have joined them with their like attitude, then why did he go to another party that wasn’t even named yet and why could he take a third party to victory with no other assistance than his deeds?
This wasn’t a party issue for him, it was the people. That’s what got Reagan in and that’s what got Trump in. The only difference between Roosevelt and them is that Reagan and Trump did it without a political reputation. When Roosevelt left the GOP he did the same thing. They ran for the people, not for the party.
TR took something in 1912 that WASN’T broken
A lot of that is because he had previously fixed a lot of it. During his seven years on office, Roosevelt embraced the era of reform that was dawning in the United States. He took on the corporate trusts, challenging them in the courts and breaking up many monopolies that held sway over the U.S. economy, including the banking trusts, the oil trusts, the railroad trusts, even the sugar trusts that were under control of those socialists you mentioned.
There were many more accomplishments. Roosevelt initiated the building of the Panama Canal, and he negotiated an end to the Russo-Japanese War, which earned him the Nobel Peace Prize. Notice earned unlike Obama.
Roosevelt also helped transform the United States in to a major naval power, ushering in what became known as the American Century. These accomplishments earned Roosevelt a spot on Mount Rushmore representing the development of the United States. For a lot of things not broken, they sure got invented so they wouldn’t be. He was a man of the people and not the parties. And the voters recognized that and chose him over the parties like Reagan or Trump. The people voted for them, not for the regular party platforms.
wy69
It was.
"and the democrats were overwhelmed with it,"
They officially captured the party in 1896, going from the centrist Grover Cleveland in favor of the radical Socialist William Jennings Bryan. In the almost 128 years since, only on one occasion, in 1924, was a non-leftist nominated for President: John W. Davis (though Davis, as Solicitor-General, had served a left-wing regime, that being the Wilson Administration).
"and it appears you feel he was egotistical"
TR was the epitome of ego. Almost like a madman. What kind of a person gets shot - as he did - and insists on delivering a political speech until he finishes, and then decides to have it treated ? This is not someone playing with a full deck.
"and could have joined them with their like attitude, then why did he go to another party that wasn’t even named yet and why could he take a third party to victory with no other assistance than his deeds?"
Pure arrogance and ego. He thought "the people" (at least some of them) would follow him to the gates of hell.
"This wasn’t a party issue for him, it was the people."
It wasn't anything other than arrogance and ego. He couldn't get the GOP nomination over President Taft, so he was going to go the third party route, nation be damned. He didn't care about the people. TR cared about TR.
"That’s what got Reagan in and that’s what got Trump in."
Nope, that's not the same. Neither burned the GOP to the ground as TR did in 1912. Reagan could've gone full scorched earth in 1976 after narrowly losing to President Ford. He didn't. He dutifully endorsed Ford and bided his time for 1980. The complete opposite of what TR did. Trump never had to do that, the party base was so hungry for his leadership in 2016, he easily prevailed. Your comparisons above are completely inaccurate. TR/Reagan/Trump were different individuals with different agendas.
"The only difference between Roosevelt and them is that Reagan and Trump did it without a political reputation. When Roosevelt left the GOP he did the same thing. They ran for the people, not for the party."
Without political reputation ? What ? Reagan and Trump both ran for party and people. TR ran for sheer ego. He had already served as President for two terms. His attempting to seek a third (or fourth) term was in contradiction to the Founding Fathers. They'd have rightly found him to be an egotistical, arrogant, warmongering menace. If TR had been around in place of Washington, he'd have easily accepted the title of King for the remainder of his life. He was an unapologetic imperialist.
"A lot of that is because he had previously fixed a lot of it. During his seven years on office, Roosevelt embraced the era of reform that was dawning in the United States. He took on the corporate trusts, challenging them in the courts and breaking up many monopolies that held sway over the U.S. economy, including the banking trusts, the oil trusts, the railroad trusts, even the sugar trusts that were under control of those socialists you mentioned."
"Fixing" is a relative term. What's fixed for one person may be destroyed for another. Drastically increasing the power of the federal government over the private sector was certainly no virtue.
"Roosevelt also helped transform the United States in to a major naval power, ushering in what became known as the American Century."
Coming from someone who considered warmongering a high moral virtue, there is a reason for that. He would've personally charged the Americans into WW1 had he been in office from 1913-1917. That "American Century" you describe has resulted in countless millions of needless deaths in endless warfare. That is nothing to be proud of.
"These accomplishments earned Roosevelt a spot on Mount Rushmore representing the development of the United States."
Ask the Lakota Sioux how they feel about having four politicians carved into a mountain on their sacred land.
"For a lot of things not broken, they sure got invented so they wouldn’t be. He was a man of the people and not the parties."
Endless warfare is something that should never have been invented in the 20th century. As for being a man not of the parties, it's possible he might never have progressed beyond being Governor of New York had he not been picked as McKinley's second VP. He certainly wouldn't have become President when he did without McKinley's having been assassinated. So, again, it was most certainly "the party" (GOP) that was responsible for promoting him, not "the people."
"And the voters recognized that and chose him over the parties like Reagan or Trump. The people voted for them, not for the regular party platforms."
Roosevelt never faced the people nationally until 1904 after he'd been President for over 3 years. So he was the incumbent officeholder. The people chose Reagan and Trump in 1980 and 2016 AS the Republican nominees.
“He thought “the people” (at least some of them) would follow him to the gates of hell.”
Enough of him to get him elected were willing. Not only by the party he walked away from but the party not of the people at the time, just like now. This fixation of party in the country has formed a fence between information and knowledge, concern and compassion, and has brought the halting of discussion on how to best handle the people’s problems and not trying to get a paycheck getting by.
“He couldn’t get the GOP nomination over President Taft, so he was going to go the third party route, nation be damned. He didn’t care about the people. TR cared about TR.”
In the 1908 presidential election, Roosevelt helped ensure that he would be succeeded by Secretary of War Taft. Although Taft entered office determined to advance Roosevelt’s Square Deal domestic agenda, he stumbled badly during the Payne–Aldrich Tariff Act debate and the Pinchot–Ballinger controversy. The political fallout of these events divided the Republican Party and alienated Roosevelt from his former friend.
Progressive Republican leader Robert M. La Follette had already announced a challenge to Taft for the 1912 Republican nomination, but many of his supporters shifted to Roosevelt after the former president decided to seek a third presidential term, which was permissible under the Constitution prior to the ratification of the Twenty-second Amendment. At the 1912 Republican National Convention, Taft narrowly defeated Roosevelt for the party’s presidential nomination. You’ll notice the “party’s nomination.” Just like what happened to Trump, lack of support. And that continues today. In Reagan’s case, he made a deal not to put a muzzle on the liberals in congress and gave them some leeway in spending in the house. But they lied to him and went ahead with their agenda and the republicans sat on the lips and let Reagan take the hit for a bad economy. And that keeps repeating today.
Now, as for ego, there is no way you can tell me T Roosevelt, who represented the people with his square deal policies, was anywhere near as arrogant as Clinton and especially Obama. They both literally challenged the GOP through their control of party affiliation. Every major discussion was tossed not based upon the facts of the need, but the determination of the party platform. That has lead to huge inflation, illegal alien entries, threats from other nations that before wee scared to death of us, and the growth of hundreds of terrorist organizations that have infiltrated us, some right out in the open like the Reedley incident. Sound like they were trying to be concerned with the people? That’s what got people like Roosevelt, Reagan, and Trump elected. The need was more important than the platform.
“What kind of a person gets shot - as he did - and insists on delivering a political speech until he finishes, and then decides to have it treated? This is not someone playing with a full deck.”
I know a number of them. They belong to the US military and had determined for themselves they are going to complete the mission that in their case was protecting people. And the books are full of them many receiving the Congressional. This was the military T Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan, and Donald Trump supported. Crazy? Need more of them.
wy69
We’re simply not going to agree on TR at all. My favorite President of the 20th century is likely to remain Warren Harding. He wasn’t angling for wars. He wasn’t angling to “help” America with massive spending and government programs. He knew the enemy of America WAS the government. He cut it, cut taxes, spending and the actual size of government. He got out of the way to let America prosper. For that reason, he’s hated by the intellectual elite. The Harding Model remains one of the best of any President.
“My favorite President”
I guess I don’t understand what your problem is with T Roosevelt. You seem to feel that his main problem was his ego. I base my decision of his success by his deeds and his popularity with the voters. He didn’t do anything different from other politicians during his era and in one way, transparency, was better than most.
Harding did a fair job while in office. But even he had his share of questionable problems like the Teapot Dome Incident. Before the Watergate scandal, Teapot Dome was regarded as the “greatest and most sensational scandal in the history of American politics”. It permanently damaged the reputation of the Harding administration, already severely diminished by its handling of the Great Railroad Strike of 1922 and Harding’s 1922 veto of the Bonus Bill. This led to the passing of legislation, which remains in effect today, granting Congress subpoena power over tax records of any U.S. citizen, regardless of position. These laws are also considered to have empowered Congress generally and affords the opportunity to legally delve into the personal records of common citizens also. Harding was also caught in an extramarital affair with Nan Briton while he was in the senate and fathered a daughter, Elizabeth during that affair. So he is not a lot different from most of the presidents we have had in our history. Hardin was an SOP president. Good, but had his problems not a lot different from Clinton, Nixon, Kennedy and Trump of today.
My whole premise on the success of a president is based upon his deeds and his popularity. If I was to rate a president by his ego, we wouldn’t have any. And the most successful president I feel was Trump with the turn round of our economy and the placing of the US back on the pentacle we had reached in earlier days. His ego is massive, but it works for him.
wy69
Frankly, having a big ego is the only thing that allows people to put up with all the crap that comes with being a politician.
“Frankly, having a big ego is the only thing that allows people to put up with all the crap that comes with being a politician.”
Agree in a a lot of ways. But if the crap they hand politicians is unwarranted it would be a shock. You and I have talked before and I think we both might agree that, like the bible, you reap what you sow.
I think there is a problem with the interaction of both the people with the politicians and what they deem required and the politicians with themselves on the same topic from the opposite direction. I also think we would agree that you can’t please all the people all the time.
The main two parties, closer to one than one might think, don’t want to agree because it might display a chance of being overpowered by the other side and not the people. Politicians don’t fear the people, they only fear each other. And that’s where the problem starts and unfortunately stops. We need more voter enhancement and less being dictated to. But both parties seem to ignore us. Soooo, they all have big egos and the people have none because they don’t want to. And the politicians have the big paychecks or fortune and glory or both. Kinda leaves us out in the cold, doesn’t it?
wy69
I thought I outlined why. What triggered our debate in this thread was your calling TR a "Conservative." I stated he was the antithesis of that, and also the antithesis of the kind of individual the Founding Fathers wanted to serve as President. An arrogant imperialist, a warmonger. He set the template for left-wing Presidents from then onwards, most egregiously, his distant cousin, FDR. You brought up another point: popularity with the voters. Doing the right thing, the Constitutional thing and doing what may be popular are often completely different things. FDR was massively popular, but he did almost everything wrong from a Constitutional standpoint, and inflicted maximum damage to the nation as a result, damage for which we have not recovered.
"Harding did a fair job while in office. But even he had his share of questionable problems like the Teapot Dome Incident. Before the Watergate scandal, Teapot Dome was regarded as the “greatest and most sensational scandal in the history of American politics”. It permanently damaged the reputation of the Harding administration, already severely diminished by its handling of the Great Railroad Strike of 1922 and Harding’s 1922 veto of the Bonus Bill. This led to the passing of legislation, which remains in effect today, granting Congress subpoena power over tax records of any U.S. citizen, regardless of position. These laws are also considered to have empowered Congress generally and affords the opportunity to legally delve into the personal records of common citizens also."
Harding did more than a fair job, he did an excellent job, and in under a year. Resolving the recession at the end of the Wilson Administration in record time. No massive government expenditures, but cutting the government. No massive taxes, but cuts. Teapot Dome was due to some Cabinet members engaged in nefarious deeds, nothing was due to Harding himself. If anything, when the corruption came to light, it broke his heart, and was responsible for his early death, not even 3 years into his term. Compared to corruption in future administrations, it was nothing. They weren't actively selling out the nation to foreign interests that were seeking to destroy America.
"Harding was also caught in an extramarital affair with Nan Briton while he was in the senate and fathered a daughter, Elizabeth during that affair. So he is not a lot different from most of the presidents we have had in our history. Hardin was an SOP president. Good, but had his problems not a lot different from Clinton, Nixon, Kennedy and Trump of today."
His affair didn't cause any harm to the nation, in contrast to others. It's unfortunate Nixon didn't follow the Harding-Mellon model. As a Keynesian, he believed in an economic model completely in opposition to what would've unleashed unprecedented economic prosperity. JFK's policies (implemented under LBJ) cut the obscene tax rate, but it was still far too high. Sadly, Eisenhower also similarly failed to follow the 1920s model, which was why 1950s prosperity was a mile wide and an inch deep, leading to the disastrous situation by the end of the decades and the Depression-level decimation of the Republican party that took 40 years to recover from.
"My whole premise on the success of a president is based upon his deeds and his popularity. If I was to rate a president by his ego, we wouldn’t have any. And the most successful president I feel was Trump with the turn round of our economy and the placing of the US back on the pentacle we had reached in earlier days. His ego is massive, but it works for him."
My premise is not based on popularity, but on the rightness and soundness (Constitutionally-speaking) of the policies. Did they reign in the size of the government ? Every President from Hoover onwards has mostly failed in that regard. A President's excellence should be based in how they get out of the way of the people to let them be their very best. Harding was almost unmatched in that regard. Reagan tried, although he was unable to fully do so, and his selection of the Bush family horror to carry on his policies was an unheralded disaster. Trump is the only one since who has also tried to follow that model, only to be hit with a level of criminal obstruction no mere mortal individual serving as President could hope to be able to contend with. Virtually the entire weight of a corrupt bipartisan regime that has been growing out of control since the 1920s. Bringing this evil to its knees will be his premier concern starting in January 2025.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.