Mitt Romney: Arab Spring Could've Been Avoided By Bush's 'Freedom Agenda'

13

Replies

  • TimDTimD Senior Member Posts: 906 Senior Member
    Simple, we have a tradition, which really rang true under Reagan, of confusing capitalism with democracy.

    Chris,

    I am not sure, Ronnie actually wondered out loud why America supported so many dictators in so many countries and said they should become democracies. This was before he described the Nicaraguan Contras as the moral equivalent of America's founding fathers. When Nicaragua had an election the US state department had all the parties, except the Sandinistas merge (I think there were 16 parties in total), and then funded them so they could win the election. Pretty slick tradition.

    Tim
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    Okay this is interesting. I saw somewhere and I think there is a great deal of truth to this, that the difference was that unlike Spanish America, we had not truly assimilated the indigenous people into our culture and the reason why Bolivar and San Martin did not form liberal democracies was the fear of sharing power with the natives. That in a sense we benefited from not having adopted universal suffrage at the beginning of our democracy and from pushing native populations further west.

    Interesting point. I wouldn't mind exploring this idea somewhat. Its at odds with your neocon inclinations :), but I think its probably correct.
    I think we got lucky in many ways because our first President was a man that did not desire personal power and set a great example for others to follow. If **** Cheney had been our First President, we would be living in a very different country.

    This however gets it exactly wrong. Leave aside the historical fallacy of assuming the founders all sat around quoting Cicero and that our contemporary politicians are poor examplars of how the Founder's saw politics. That's not true. For good or ill, Cheney had no political ambition and didn't desire power. That's why he did whatever he wanted. He simply was not concerned with appearances or elections. Because he didn't act with one eye on the polling booth, he was free to do as he wished.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,092 Senior Member
    Ahh yes but Cheney's view on executive power I think far exceeds what our founders intended and I do not believe would be in keeping with Washington's example.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,092 Senior Member
    TimD wrote: »
    Chris,

    I am not sure, Ronnie actually wondered out loud why America supported so many dictators in so many countries and said they should become democracies. This was before he described the Nicaraguan Contras as the moral equivalent of America's founding fathers. When Nicaragua had an election the US state department had all the parties, except the Sandinistas merge (I think there were 16 parties in total), and then funded them so they could win the election. Pretty slick tradition.

    Tim

    Try googling Reagan and death squads and you may get some interesting results. He was not a proponent of expanding democracy in Central America if it risked them choosing a socialist leader that would nationalize their resources.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • George KGeorge K Super Moderator Posts: 9,965 Senior Member
    Chris, I think the strong executive thing is correct, but not all South American countries assimilated the indigenous culture into the national culture. Argentina and Uruguay - two that I am familiar with - are 80-90% European in descent. In Argentina the "indian" and mestizo population is mostly in the poor northern provinces. The annihilation of "indians" in the pampas and Patagonia makes our westward expansion look almost like the Disney version. The old joke that an Argentine is an Italian who speaks Spanish and thinks he's English is rooted in demographic reality. Everywhere in South America skin tone is a very good estimator of position in the socioeconomic pecking order; although this is changing albeit at a very slow pace.
    Keep your stinkin' government hands off my Medicare.
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    You could say the same thing about Mexico.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,092 Senior Member
    I believe that the largest ethnic group in Mexico is Mestizo. Which to the pure Spanish of the time of the first revolution would be undesirable.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    I've been to Mexico City twice. The only beggars you see on the streets are Mestizos. It seemed the city subjugated them into jobs out of the view of the Gringos coming to spend money. Cleaning floors and rooms or vending stuff on the streets.
  • TimDTimD Senior Member Posts: 906 Senior Member
    Try googling Reagan and death squads and you may get some interesting results. He was not a proponent of expanding democracy in Central America if it risked them choosing a socialist leader that would nationalize their resources.

    Chris,

    In that way he is following a long line of presidents that believed in democracy if necessary - but not necessarily democracy. The part that runs true through history is that foreign policy is about holding power over a country, that was always more important than a country's self-determination or political freedom. It was always sold as making the world safe for democracy, and always bought as a good thing. Ask George, nobody really cared about the people of those countries it was about money and politics.

    Tim
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    George K wrote: »
    Aside from the "Segregation Forever" Dixiecrats I can't think of a nationally known post-WW II Democrat who would not feel comfortable, if perhaps not warmly welcome, in the current Party. If you can, I am open to persuasion that I am wrong about this.

    Cripes George. The Democratic vice-presidential candidate in 2000 was given the heave-ho by his party. It was Republicans that re-elected him.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,092 Senior Member
    So wait anybody that loses a primary is to be considered kicked out of the party?
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    I'm sure Joe had that warm welcomey feeling.

    When your vice-presidential candidate can't win a primary (a primary, we're talking a primary, not a real race, a primary) 8 years later because he's now too conservative, the "we haven't changed argument" goes right out the window.

    Are you really going to try and argue this?
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,092 Senior Member
    He was pro-Iraq war, most primary voters were opposed. That is a pretty significant policy difference. It was not that he was too conservative.

    How many anti-war Republicans won their primaries that year?

    How many moderate Republicans has your party kicked out in the last election?
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    Being against a pull out in Iraq and pro-surge was not Conservative? Do we want to look at videos with then candidate Obama telling us how it wouldn't work?

    And primary voters are the best indication of party-line.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,092 Senior Member
    It does not matter whether or not it was conservative or liberal. It was a significant policy difference that did not relate to an overall shift in his political position.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    It does not matter whether or not it was conservative or liberal. It was a significant policy difference that did not relate to an overall shift in his political position.

    That's my point Chris. His political position didn't shift. The position of Liberals shifted. And yes it was a significant policy difference that wenf from consensus to bipartisan. And by the way, I misspoke, it was 6 years.

    Meanwhile, Joe's own words about the Democratic Party:

    "I'm disappointed not just because I lost but because the old politics of partisan polarization won today. For the sake of our state, our country and my party, I cannot and will not let that result stand."
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,092 Senior Member
    No their stance on a war that was started for no apparent good reason shifted. They did not become more liberal.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    The vice presidential candidate of the Democratic Party is no longer a Democrat because of a leftward shift of the party. He lost a highly charged primary election. Unless, you're going to tell me that only domestic policies count, it fits George's description.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,092 Senior Member
    No he is no longer a Democrat because he couldn't stand losing. Which is his right. But it was because he supported a war that was costing thousands of lives, not because of a shift in tax policy.

    Again how many anti-war Republicans could have won that election even if they had been a true blue conservative on every other issue? How many Republicans have been kicked out by the Tea Party? Your tent is still smaller than ours.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    He. Lost. The. Primary.
    He left the party because his views were no longer tolerated. This is not the definition of a "warm welcome" in any language. This was an incumbent Senator.

    As for your second question. None would have been elected. But support for the Iraq war was the Republican standpoint from the start. Meanwhile, the point isn't whether the Republican tent is smaller. I never claimed it wasn't. Your deflection gets a fail.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,092 Senior Member
    His view, one view, was no longer tolerated. If he changed is position on the war, everything else would have been hunky dory and he would have won by a landslide.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    His view, was the Democratic view about three years earlier.

    I'd remind you what George wrote:

    "I can't think of a nationally known post-WW II Democrat who would not feel comfortable, if perhaps not warmly welcome, in the current Party."

    A) Joe Lieberman was a nationally known post-WWII Democrat.
    B) He lost his own, Democratic Party, primary.
    C) He endorsed McCain, not Obama

    Tell me again how he doesn't fit George's description?
  • George KGeorge K Super Moderator Posts: 9,965 Senior Member
    Steven wrote: »
    His view, was the Democratic view about three years earlier.

    I'd remind you what George wrote:

    "I can't think of a nationally known post-WW II Democrat who would not feel comfortable, if perhaps not warmly welcome, in the current Party."

    A) Joe Lieberman was a nationally known post-WWII Democrat.
    B) He lost his own, Democratic Party, primary.
    C) He endorsed McCain, not Obama

    Tell me again how he doesn't fit George's description?

    Point of order: Lieberman lost in CT, he still fits quite well in the national Democratic Party.

    ...During his re-election bid in 2006, he lost the Democratic Party primary election but won re-election in the general election as a third party candidate under the party label "Connecticut for Lieberman". Lieberman himself is not a member of the Connecticut for Lieberman party; he is a registered Democrat.[3]

    Lieberman was officially listed in Senate records for the 110th and 111th Congresses as an "Independent Democrat"[4] and sits as part of the Senate Democratic Caucus. But since his speech at the 2008 Republican National Convention in which he endorsed John McCain for president, Lieberman no longer attends Democratic Caucus leadership strategy meetings or policy lunches.[5] On November 5, 2008, Lieberman met with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to discuss his future role with the Democratic Party. Ultimately, the Senate Democratic Caucus voted to allow Lieberman to keep chairmanship of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Subsequently, Lieberman announced that he will continue to caucus with the Democrats...


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Lieberman
    Keep your stinkin' government hands off my Medicare.
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    Lieberman started his own party, Connecticut for Lieberman. Democratic leaders asked him not to run against Lamont.

    Lieberman (who has announced his retirement) was no longer warmly welcomed.

    C'mon, be honest. You forgot about him, didn't you?
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,092 Senior Member
    Steven wrote: »
    His view, was the Democratic view about three years earlier.

    I'd remind you what George wrote:

    "I can't think of a nationally known post-WW II Democrat who would not feel comfortable, if perhaps not warmly welcome, in the current Party."

    A) Joe Lieberman was a nationally known post-WWII Democrat.
    B) He lost his own, Democratic Party, primary.
    C) He endorsed McCain, not Obama

    Tell me again how he doesn't fit George's description?

    Again losing a primary is not being kicked out of the party or being unwelcome in the party. The party simply found a more attractive candidate.

    He left the party they did not leave him.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    Dear Joe,

    You're warmly welcomed here, but not enough to re-elect you. It's not you, we've just found a better candidate. So please don't run against him (because you might win :)).

    Thxkbye,

    The Democratic Party
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,092 Senior Member
    Isn't that pretty much how elections work everywhere?

    BTW it was the CT Democratic party that supported the challenger. And as was pointed out before completely defecting he kept all his chair seats and was allowed to caucus with the Democrats. If he was truly unwelcome, they would have taken his seats away.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    No. That isn't how it works. You want to guess how many incumbent Senators lost their primaries in the last 60 years? Less than 3 dozen.

    They allowed him to caucus with them? Not quite. They needed him to caucus with him. The price was his chairmanships which he wouldn't have been able to keep had he switched parties.

    You're playing with semantics here. Saying, "hang around if you want," isn't what George meant.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 24,092 Senior Member
    So 35 in 12 elections?

    Again a war WAR, not a shift to the right.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • JulietJuliet Posts: 0
    A shift to the left. On the issue of the war. Unless war's aren't included, that was a shift to the left.

    Are you going to say that a shift on the Vietnam War was not a shift to the left?

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction.

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Fly Fisherman stories delivered right to your inbox.