|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
 Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 11:14 am Post subject: Krauthammer: the most worthy nominee ever to lose |
 |
|
Here
| Quote: |
We don't yet appreciate how unprecedented were the events of September and October. We have never had a full-fledged financial panic in the middle of a presidential campaign. Consider. If the S&P 500 were to close at the end of the year where it did on Election Day, it will have suffered this year its steepest drop since 1937. That is 71 years.
At the same time, the economy had suffered nine consecutive months of job losses. Considering the carnage to both capital and labor (which covers just about everybody), even a Ronald Reagan could not have survived. The fact that John McCain got 46 percent of the electorate when 75 percent said the country was going in the wrong direction is quite remarkable. |
Basically, I agree. Even though the McCain campaign was horribly run (as Krauthammer hints), the candidate himself may have been one of the best losers fielded in modern Presidential history. Better than some winning Presidents, although I still prefer Gore to McCain. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 11:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I think the electorate made the right choice. McCain is more effective in the Senate as a maverick than as commander in chief. His inability to motivate his whole party does not speak well of his leadership abilities. Sometimes it seems he's more popular outside his party than he is with the majority of his own party. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 11:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
I thought his concession speech was actually quite insightful, scholarly even.
| Quote: |
In a contest as long and difficult as this campaign has been, his success alone commands my respect for his ability and perseverance. But that he managed to do so by inspiring the hopes of so many millions of Americans who had once wrongly believed that they had little at stake or little influence in the election of an American president is something I deeply admire and commend him for achieving.
This is an historic election, and I recognize the special significance it has for African-Americans and for the special pride that must be theirs tonight.
I've always believed that America offers opportunities to all who have the industry and will to seize it. Senator Obama believes that, too.
|
| Quote: |
A century ago, President Theodore Roosevelt's invitation of Booker T. Washington to dine at the White House was taken as an outrage in many quarters.
America today is a world away from the cruel and frightful bigotry of that time. There is no better evidence of this than the election of an African-American to the presidency of the United States.
Let there be no reason now - let there be no reason now for any American to fail to cherish their citizenship in this, the greatest nation on Earth.
|
Still, nothing can erase the memory of what had to be the most godawful campaign ever run by a presidental aspirant. I think McCain really effed up when he decided to hire the same people who had attacked him(McCain) as a miscegnating bird-dog in the 2000 North Carolina primaries. Whatever they were selling then sure as hell didn't sell this time around.
And future historians will probably devote thousands upon thousands of pages to debating exactly what was going through his head when he picked Sarah Palin to be his running mate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
canuckistan
Mod Team
Joined: 17 Jun 2003
Location: Training future GS competitors.....
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 12:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think it's pretty telling McCain is doing zero to shut his campaign aides up about the "Hillbillies from Wasilla."
.....pallin' around with Republicans....... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 1:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| And future historians will probably devote thousands upon thousands of pages to... |
No. You can be sure of this: whatever it is that future historians concern themselves with, it will not be our issues. People use "future historians will say this or that" too much -- especially with respect to someone such as Governor S. Palin, whose political history remains more in today's future than today's past. This phrase seems like a conscious or unconscious move to assert today's interpretive power, politics, and positions into the indefinite future.
I note in any case that S. Palin remains central to this year's election in most discussions. How many times in American history has a vice-presidential candidate on the losing ticket remained on the front pages and in the spotlight like this? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
canuckistan
Mod Team
Joined: 17 Jun 2003
Location: Training future GS competitors.....
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 1:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I note in any case that S. Palin remains central to this year's election in most discussions. How many times in American history has a vice-presidential candidate on the losing ticket remained on the front pages and in the spotlight like this? |
Not many, and for all the wrong reasons--more clueless than a bag of hammers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 2:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It will be interesting to see if she can survive the shredding her fellow Republicans are giving her. It hasn't stopped just because the election is over.
Losing candidates seldom get much mention in the history books. Does anyone remember who Dewey was except that Truman holds up a newspaper in that iconic photograph? Losing VeeP candidates get even less. Bill Miller, anyone? If Palin has a political future outside Alaska then her role in this election will be studied and remembered. If not, not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 11:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| On the other hand wrote: |
| And future historians will probably devote thousands upon thousands of pages to... |
No. You can be sure of this: whatever it is that future historians concern themselves with, it will not be our issues. People use "future historians will say this or that" too much -- especially with respect to someone such as Governor S. Palin, whose political history remains more in today's future than today's past. This phrase seems like a conscious or unconscious move to assert today's interpretive power, politics, and positions into the indefinite future.
|
Well, okay.
"People who write about the 2008 presidential campaign will one day devote a considerable amount of space to discussion of John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin. Since that choice was, in my view, a pivotal turning point in the campaign". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 11:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Losing candidates seldom get much mention in the history books. Does anyone remember who Dewey was except that Truman holds up a newspaper in that iconic photograph? |
Well, I will grant you that there has probably not been a Schoolhouse Rock episode about Thomas Dewey. I would imagine, however, that among historians, political scientists, and journalists who have written about the 1948 campaign, Dewey gets a lot of ink. Even a middle-brow publication like Slate gave him an extended treatment a few months back...
http://tinyurl.com/6m2swc
Barry Goldwater is another losing candidate that I could point to as being well-known for the role he played in his opponent's victory.
| Quote: |
| Losing VeeP candidates get even less. Bill Miller, anyone? |
I admit to not knowing who Bill Miller was before today. I did, however, know who Thomas Eagleton was, and what his health problems were, probably because these things are talked about more as a result of having played a pivotal role in McGovern's campaign. (And no, I am not basing this on Hunter S. Thompson.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 11:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| "People who write about the 2008 presidential campaign will one day devote a considerable amount of space to discussion of John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin. Since that choice was, in my view, a pivotal turning point in the campaign". |
Very highly doubtful. Historians remain less and less concerned with individual political leaders and especially political-history narratives every day, On the Other Hand. You seem a decade or two behind the times on the historical profession and its concerns. Even nation-states are fading away. Given this trend, it remains highly doubtful any future historians will concern themselves with the losing vice-presidential candidate in the presidential elections 2008.
Too focused on today's politics, On the Other Hand. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Milwaukiedave
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Location: Goseong
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 11:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| McCain was quite different in 2000 and well respected then for being more of a "maverick" on issues. It's too bad Bush and his smear squad took him out. He quite possibly could have won and been president. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 11:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| On the other hand wrote: |
| "People who write about the 2008 presidential campaign will one day devote a considerable amount of space to discussion of John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin. Since that choice was, in my view, a pivotal turning point in the campaign". |
Very highly doubtful. Historians remain less and less concerned with individual political leaders and especially political-history narratives every day, On the Other Hand. You seem a decade or two behind the times on the historical profession and its concerns. Even nation-states are fading away. Given this trend, it remains highly doubtful any future historians will concern themselves with the losing vice-presidential candidate in the presidential elections 2008.
Too focused on today's politics, On the Other Hand. |
Gopher:
Just so we're clear, I do not literally mean historians to the exculsion of every other profession. Go back and read what I wrote in the post you just repsonded to...
| Quote: |
| People who write about the 2008 presidential campaign will one day devote a considerable amount of space to discussion of John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin. Since that choice was, in my view, a pivotal turning point in the campaign. |
Now, people who write about the 1964 campaign still talk about one TV commerical that aired one time. Why? Because, depending on your perspective, it either played a pivotal role in the public's perception of Barry Goldwater, or has come to symbolize the public's perception of that man. I don't think it's too much to suggest that an actual flesh-and-blood vice-presidential candidate could have the same status.
So, yes. When people write about the 2008 campaign, be they historians, journalists, political scientists, whatever, Sarah Palin will get a lot of attention, or at least way more attention than is usually given to vice-preidential candidates. Just like LBJ's girl-picking-daisies gets more attention than most other campaign ads. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 11:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Still, you are missing my point. You seem to presuppose that future historians, or as modified, future writers, will deem this election of comparable significance to an election such as LBJ's landslide in 1964 -- related as it is to the Vietnam War and the Great Society.
Perhaps they will, B. Obama's representing the first African-American president and all. Perhaps B. Obama will become involved in something ominous in foreign relations. But what if he bemes a J. Carter and not an LBJ? What if he wins two terms and is spectacular? And who says that S. Palin will figure into those discussions, or that those future thinkers will accept our evaluation of this election -- or some people's evaluation in the present-day, at least -- that S. Palin explains why J. McCain lost? I doubt it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 12:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Still, you are missing my point. |
Actually, Gopher, I think you are changing your point mid-game. Earlier you seemed to be suggesting that few people would pay attention to Sarah Palin because the Great Man theory is on the way out...
| Quote: |
| Historians remain less and less concerned with individual political leaders and especially political-history narratives every day, On the Other Hand. You seem a decade or two behind the times on the historical profession and its concerns. |
But in your most recent post, you seem to be suggesting that few people would pay attention to Sarah Palin because the election itself wasn't that significant...
| Quote: |
You seem to presuppose that future historians, or as modified, future writers, will deem this election of comparable significance to an election such as LBJ's landslide in 1964 -- related as it is to the Vietnam War and the Great Society.
|
So, to modify my point again:
To the extent that the 2008 election is a topic of discussion among historians, journalists, political scientists, etc, the role played by Sarah Palin will be a prominent topic.
| Quote: |
| Perhaps they will, B. Obama's representing the first African-American president and all. Perhaps B. Obama will become involved in something ominous in foreign relations. But what if he bemes a J. Carter and not an LBJ? What if he wins two terms and is spectacular? And who says that S. Palin will figure into those discussions, or that those future thinkers will accept our evaluation of this election -- or some people's evaluation that S. Palin explains why J. McCain lost? I doubt it. |
My own guess is that, in terms of governance, Obama will turn out to be either Carter II or Clinton II. I do think that the election, given that it involved the elevation of a man of Obama's particular background in post-911 America, will be viewed as cultually significant, much in the same way that Al Smith's defeat during prohibition is viewed as such(the difference being that Smith lost, thus demonstrating the continuing endurance of anti-Catholic prejudice, whereas Obama's victory would seem to demonstrate an opposite trend). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 12:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
Not changing my position, On the Other Hand, but expanding it.
You are talking about the future and its concerns as if you knew. What are you talking about, by the way -- 25 years, 50 years, 100 years into the future? Anything can happen and we do not know what people, of whatever profession, will think about B. Obama's election to the presidency, and especially S. Palin, in 2008.
For all you know, she could succeed him in the Oval Office or become a Republican Senate majority leader. In either one of those particular futures, likely or not, I imagine people would view this campaign somewhat differently. Alternatively, she could drift into total obscurity, as, for example, B. Goldwater's runningmate seems to have done... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
