tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13589532.post4889906743145575619..comments2023-10-09T04:11:47.358-07:00Comments on Not A Potted Plant: 1865 - 2007Burt Likkohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16060980744675990412noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13589532.post-3975081169394709652007-04-10T07:21:00.000-07:002007-04-10T07:21:00.000-07:00...And despite losing big at the Presidential leve......And despite losing big at the Presidential level, Democrats held the House and eventually re-took the Senate during this same period of time. So it's not like they were quiescent or passive or lacked some measure of popular support.<BR/><BR/>Ronald Reagan was an unusually talented politician and an exceptional leader; the Carter-Mondale team was exceptionally weak in those respects. While Carter was an exceptionally moral man with the very best of intentions at all times, he would have never been President had he run in any election cycle but the one following Richard Nixon's disgrace. It's hardly surprising that Reagan won election and then re-election by such large margins against such weak opponents.<BR/><BR/>And don't forget, a lot of <B><I>Democrats</B></I> voted for Reagan, too; Reagan was able to reach across the aisle and assure them that their concerns would be addressed in his Administration. Voters were able to see beyond the "R" after Reagan's name and realize that he was the better choice.<BR/><BR/>My concern is that such a thing would not happen today -- very few Democrats are willing to look past the "D" and very few Republicans are willing to look past the "R", and no one is willing to consider the substance of a policy idea or take the real measure of a person. <BR/><BR/>"My side is right and your side is evil, so shut your stupid yap" is how what passes for public discourse is conducted these days. It's not margins of victory that bother me, it's substitution of sneering contempt for civil disagreement. To give one example: there are a lot of people who seem to think that electing Hillary Clinton to be the next President would be equivalent to laying down the welcome mat for al-Qaeda to come and attack us again. They're wrong; an honest assessment of Clinton's stance reveals that she is very much a hawk, as much as any of the Republicans currently in the running (including Duncan Hunter).Burt Likkohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16060980744675990412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13589532.post-66386849690796027222007-04-09T23:56:00.000-07:002007-04-09T23:56:00.000-07:00"...we are polarizing more now than we have even s..."...we are polarizing more now than we have even since the 1980's,"<BR/><BR/>Sure you don't mean now! Not during the 80s . . .<BR/><BR/>1980<BR/>Reagan beat Carter by almost ten percent. The electoral college vote was a landslide, with 489 votes (representing 44 states) for Reagan and 49 for Carter.<BR/><BR/>1984<BR/>Reagan received 58.8% of the popular vote to Mondale's 40.6%. Mondale lost the electoral vote in every state in the union except for his home state, Minnesota.zzihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09933063994246150989noreply@blogger.com