patrick.net

edvard2 says

I'm not the only one to notice that Romney most definitely made a dramatic "change" in his rhetoric on stage last week during the debates

Romney comes from the Business world where change is very common..

Heck even veggie eating liberal maggot like Steve Jobs sounded like a conservative when he spoke to Obama stating govt regulation is killing US mfg/industries and Unions have crippled education system.

Jobs to Obama:

“You’re headed for a one-term presidency,” he told Obama at the start of their meeting, insisting that the administration needed to be more business-friendly. As an example, Jobs described the ease with which companies can build factories in China compared to the United States, where “regulations and unnecessary costs” make it difficult for them.

Jobs also criticized America’s education system, saying it was “crippled by union work rules,” noted Isaacson. “Until the teachers’ unions were broken, there was almost no hope for education reform.” Jobs proposed allowing principals to hire and fire teachers based on merit, that schools stay open until 6 p.m. and that they be open 11 months a year.

Well... the question of the post was to gauge how some of those who vote Republican would feel if in fact Romney was actually a moderate and not the more right-leaning person he has seemingly portrayed himself on the campaign trail? What if all of that was fluff as a means to attract the base?

edvard2 says

Putting "Liberals against Conservatives" and vice-versa aside for a second, what would the reactions be from those who were perhaps hoping for a super conservative President and instead got a moderate one instead?

Perhaps put Liberals and Conservatives aside and get the USA back to business to being growing economy.

edvard2 says

Romney was actually a moderate and not the more right-leaning person he has seemingly portrayed himself on the campaign trail?

Isnt his background working as GOP Gov in otherwise 90% Liberal Massachusetts.
Makes you wonder why the liberals voted him in to begin with.

Its all about getting the job done!

Romney made no such move. This is a pipe dream comment borne from the evidence that Obama is vulnerable after losing the first debate so badly.

xrpb11a says

Romney made no such move. This is a pipe dream comment borne from the evidence that Obama is vulnerable after losing the first debate so badly.

Well, most political specialists thought so- on both sides I might add. But that is neither here nor there. I think there are other means to determine that Romney might in fact very well be fairly moderate. He himself mentioned that as someone who wound up becoming governor of a highly Democratic, liberal-leaning state, he had to learn how to work with Democrats. And as can't be pointed out enough and even as he himself agreed, his healthcare plan enacted in MA was in some ways the model used for the Obamacare plan. Call it a different name, but if those who hate Obamacare and now want to vote for Romney as a result, then they are in some ways voting for someone who masterminded a overwhelmingly similar plan. Surely someone who leans heavily to the right would have never even breathed a word about socialized medicine.

So again, and as mentioned as a question as the premise of this post, If Romney turns out to be the moderate Republican president he didn't advertise on the trail, will those who seem to lean heavily to the right be as pleased? Once the temporary euphoria of having beaten Obama settles and reality sets in, will those who I described above be tickled as punch?

Romney has never been a "severe" conservative. He has taken both sides of many issues, --- at times has been a gay rights supporter, pro-choice and created a mini-Obamacare in Massachusetts.

I've taken solace in the fact that, if he were to win, he might likely at least half the time do something moderate to liberal. If anyone was to win the nomination on the GOP side AND win the General, I was hoping it would be him for that reason.

For Dems to win, the other candidates would have been easier to beat though.

Yes, Romney is a moderate just like McCain was. Hardcore Republicans are mainly voting *against* Obama and not *for* Romney.

Romney is little more than a robot for the top 0.1%.

edvard2 says

Once the temporary euphoria of having beaten Obama settles and reality sets in, will those who I described above be tickled as punch?

Yeah they'll be pissed, but they'll keep doing the same thing every election cycle. They're nothing more than AM radio/Fox News robots. Critical thinking is outside of their circle of competence.

freak80 says

Yes, Romney is a moderate just like McCain was. Hardcore Republicans are mainly voting *against* Obama and not *for* Romney.

But if he is, I wonder that percentage of those who are voting for him out of the belief that he's all for super right-leaning agendas are aware of this? Sure- most Presidents say whatever they think will get them elected. But given the amount of increasingly right-leaning rhetoric out there you'd think that a revelation like this could potentially make a few people stop and think for just a minute.

edvard2 says

I wonder that percentage of those who are voting for him out of the belief that he's all for super right-leaning agendas are aware of this?

The hardcore Republicans are probably thinking they are on defense, protecting God's Chosen Nation(tm) from a Kenyan half-breed / witch doctor / evil clown. It's just "anyone but Obama" for them.

"What if many of the same things Obama wanted to do or accomplished were simply taken up by Romney and "re-branded" or perhaps dumbed down a little, but essentially along the same lines?"

Already have an answer to that question: George H Bush. He made a promise during a debate "read my lips, no new taxes" and then broke it during a bi-partisan effort to reach across the aisle and then the economy tanked.

He did not win re-election.

As Obama is indicating due to his overreaction to reclaim his manhood last week after the debates, he really wants a second term. It's not pleasant to think that historians are going to refer to you as a one term president elected out of office for centuries after you're gone. Romney will need to face the same hurdle: Will he want to be a one-termer?

If he blows it, and goes "moderate" and the economy tanks as with GHB, then I may just stay home the next election.

"Yes, Romney is a moderate just like McCain was. Hardcore Republicans are mainly voting *against* Obama and not *for* Romney."

I think McCain's "maverick" style was different in that rather than trying to get things accomplished via necessary political compromise, McCain seemed to adopt the policies of the left including promising LaRaza amnesty for illegals. Big mistake. GWB could promise it because he was at the end of his term but McCain's term NEVER GOT STARTED. And it's his fault.

In addition, the debate demonstrated something rather important: While McCain (and Dole for that matter) were "nice guys" and didn't want to ruffle the feathers of their Democrat "friends" they probably drank with after hours, Romney was a "chainsaw" as Carville claimed. In other words, he acted like Carville would have wanted Obama to act in a similar situation. He didn't play nice and roll over. THAT has generated enthusiasm in the base and why I contributed money to his campaign. So sure, if he keeps this up, I'll vote FOR him.

Weird, that compromise is not to be tolerated in the Republican electorate, but a flip-flopper who has, according to his own estimation, worked with the Dems in his liberal state and has espoused many positions on the left, even to the left of Kennedy.

Seems to me that the voters on the right (who didn't want Romney) are throwing out their "principles" for electoral expedience.

The reason George H Bush didn't get a second term was largely due to the early 90's recession. Sure- it probably didn't help that he was ( for that time period) more moderate. But bad economies sink more Presidencies than anything else and that might prove to be true for Obama as well.

Now- if Romney wins, even if he does nothing there lies a very good chance that simply due to the natural cycle of economics the overall economy will improve and he will be able to claim credit for it. That isn't to say nobody else on either side would have or has done the same thing.

But in my opinion, if Romney won and was more moderate, that in turn could potentially be one of the best things for the Republican party. There has been many out there making the observation that this race might be the last one that Republicans can count heavily on their base to win an election. The country's demographics are changing rapidly. Any look at any Republican rally these days shows pretty much... a total singular demographic. You can't possibly count on a singular chunk of the population that is becoming increasingly less relevant. Thus the party needs a re-brand and if they were to over time move from, the right to maybe center-right that would probably help them more in the long term, and I say this as a Democrat.

Edvard,
Nice post. Both campaigns threw out their biggest bones to the base over a month ago -- hoping that it will give them enough to chew on until election day. It certainly has been fun watching Romney race to the center after running the ultra-conservative primary gauntlet. I will actually fear for Romney's well being if he ascends to the presidency. If some whack job knocks off Obama, you get President Biden, but if a disgruntled right winger takes out Romney, you get President Ryan. Yikes.

"Now- if Romney wins, even if he does nothing there lies a very good chance that simply due to the natural cycle of economics the overall economy will improve and he will be able to claim credit for it."

Hmmm, wasn't that what everyone said about Obama back in 2008? That the economy would be doing great by 2011 and he would be a shoe-in. Regarding claiming credit: Didn't Clinton claim credit for the great economy he created by signing off on Republican legislation (such as welfare reform) and coming to office after GWB?

"The country's demographics are changing rapidly."

Translation: "There are fewer white guys around and the Democrats get votes based upon racial entitlements and welfare mothers. But it's racist for them to say that."

"But in my opinion, if Romney won and was more moderate, that in turn could potentially be one of the best things for the Republican party."

Similar things were said about GWB and GHB. And even about McCain that his moderate stance would attract voters away from Obama. Didn't work out. On the other hand... imagine if Romney loses and the Republicans get the message that their party is dead unless they address the elephant in the room above: That the left gets it's voters out by promising free stuff for their base?

So far, the right has largely left race and gender based reverse discrimination alone but imagine if they needed to bring it up to try to survive? Imagine what THOSE debate will be like! I welcome them.

PolishKnight says

Hmmm, wasn't that what everyone said about Obama back in 2008?

I thought smart people, including in the administration, said that financial crises were different and that it would be a long, slow period of moderate growth?

RE: Demographics, the GOP can't win if they only cater to angry, old white voters. The GOP knows that too. The teabggers cost the GOP control of the Senate in 2010. They may very well cost the GOP the House, Senate and the Whitehouse this time.

A move toward the middle improves their prospects.

PolishKnight says

Hmmm, wasn't that what everyone said about Obama back in 2008? That the economy would be doing great by 2011 and he would be a shoe-in.

He should be a shoe-in. Just shows how ggood the right wing has gotten at propoganda..

The stock market has doubled.
The economy has gone from shedding 500k+ jobs per month to adding 100k+ per month.
Economic growth has generally been positive, albeit slow, for 3 years.
Inflation has been low.
There have been no new wars and public enemy #1 was killed.
No scandals.
What else do you guys need? No one, not Clinton, not Reagan, not Lincoln or Roosevelt themselves would have done better.

Honestly if you want to know what I thought, look at what I said back in 2008 in this site. I am pretty sure I thought they were setting up Obama as a patsy to take the fall. Put the black guy in there while this thing blows up, and they will never have to worry about a minority being a contender again. To me it was the perfect setup. How else do you explain Obama rising over Hillary out of nowhere?

Hillary was the frontrunner of all frontrunners and ran a good campaign. Has there ever been a frontrunner like her that didn't win AND had no major scandal that destroyed their campaign?

You want a conspiracy theory? There is one. Obama wasn't serious to win the nominiation until this thing looked certain to blow. He was tabbed for 2016/2020 after a Hillary run. Then all of the sudden he came out of nowhere and passed Hillary...

Problem is it didn't blow up completely like they thought.

CL says

PolishKnight says

Hmmm, wasn't that what everyone said about Obama back in 2008?

I thought smart people, including in the administration, said that financial crises were different and that it would be a long, slow period of moderate growth?

RE: Demographics, the GOP can't win if they only cater to angry, old white voters. The GOP knows that too. The teabggers cost the GOP control of the Senate in 2010. They may very well cost the GOP the House, Senate and the Whitehouse this time.

A move toward the middle improves their prospects.

Nixon used to tell presidential candidates to run to the extremes in their respective primaries then back to the center after the convention. The guy that gets there first, wins.

PolishKnight says

Hmmm, wasn't that what everyone said about Obama back in 2008? That the economy would be doing great by 2011 and he would be a shoe-in

I don't recall many stating that given that the economy was in the worst shape than it had ever been since the 30's depression. Its important to recall that the 30's depression didn't end until WW2 caused production to soar and put people back to work out of necessity. So its a bit unrealistic to expect the economy to have mended itself totally at this point. Though it is better than it was, it took the better part of 30 years to cause the mess that crashed the economy thus 4 years is a relatively short time to fix things. Perhaps Romney wouldn't fix things either but the simple passing of time would be more to his advantage 4 years on versus starting a Presidency at the very start of a major recession/depression.

As far as Demographics, putting all of the whatever "entitlement" comments aside ( which I don't agree with) and looking at this as a purely mathematical issue, the math is increasingly working against the Republicans because regardless of why people vote for whatever group, the singular group Republicans seem to appeal to is shrinking while those groups who tend to support Democrats is growing. It doesn't take a mathematician to see the writing on the wall. Republicans made a mistake of chasing this one and only voting demographic while failing to change to appeal to others. Republicans and Romney aren't stupid and thus why we saw a bit of "softening" during the first debate.

Again- I think that this would be a good thing. Elected officials are meant to represent all of the people. If both start doing a better job of doing this, the better that would be for the country overall.

rootvg says

presidential candidates to run to the extremes in their respective primaries then back to the center after the convention. The guy that gets there first, wins.

This is precisely why I don't vote. It's just a cynical game of telling people what they want to hear.

"Republicans made a mistake of chasing this one and only voting demographic while failing to change to appeal to others."

It's rather hard for the Republicans to "appeal" to the others when the main thing the Democrats were promising was to throw the Republican's primary demographic under the bus and deny them equal enrollment to universities and access to public jobs (that's like WWII Germany taking away the rights of Poles to go to school and then saying that they don't deserve to go to school because they're illiterate. Socialists are such nice people.)

But sure, one candidate did try: McCain. He went to LaRaza (translation The Race) and hinted at amnesty and of course, future entitlements.

"I don't recall many stating that [the economy would improve/do great by 2011]"

Argument of ignorance. Very well, if you don't recall it then forget it. But I find this argument amusing:

"Its important to recall that the 30's depression didn't end until WW2 caused production to soar and put people back to work out of necessity."

Indeed! Says a lot about FDR's economic policies, don't they? Just take a nap while those intelligence reports come in about Japanese aircraft carriers approaching Hawaii and make a "sacrifice."*

And the left accuses GW of being a bloodthirsty monster.

*(Yeah, ok, FDR probably wasn't that monstrous but the fact is that it's clear that his "economic policies" only worked by becoming a wartime dictator and locking up Japanese Americans into internment camps. I guess that's another demographic that FDR didn't mind if they went over to the Republicans...)

"Nixon used to tell"...

That's like taking courtroom ethics advice from Bill Clinton. :-)

thomaswong.1986 says

As an example, Jobs described the ease with which companies can build factories in China compared to the United States, where “regulations and unnecessary costs” make it difficult for them.
Jobs also criticized America’s education system, saying it was “crippled by union work rules,” noted Isaacson. “Until the teachers’ unions were broken, there was almost no hope for education reform.” Jobs proposed allowing principals to hire and fire teachers based on merit, that schools stay open until 6 p.m. and that they be open 11 months a year.

I am not in favor of attacks on unions. The 2nd part of your argument for schools to stay open late and for 11 months perhaps may be of benefit in that it would reduce expenses of childcare.

PolishKnight says

It's rather hard for the Republicans to "appeal" to the others when the main thing the Democrats were promising was to throw the Republican's primary demographic under the bus and deny them equal enrollment to universities and access to public jobs

I don't think its all that hard. Its about compromise and admittedly Democrats are also guilty of refusing the compromise on certain issues, if both were to do so then the public would probably be more likely to accept compromise themselves: Instead of an all-or-nothing approach, if both sides make concessions then voters along with politicians would feel that they both walked away with something even if the outcome wasn't totally what they wanted.

PolishKnight says

Argument of ignorance. Very well, if you don't recall it then forget it. But I find this argument amusing:

I don't have a short memory and no, most people I knew didn't expect a recovery anytime soon. The fact is that the recession we were/are still in was largely due to money being sucked out of the middle class via a housing bubble that caused more Americans to sink a huge percentage of their money and income into a housing market that had been carefully and purposively manipulated. Now- I in no way feel sorry for those who overpaid for a house. My wife and I saved for years and years to buy the house we now own. But putting responsibility aside for a minute the US economy had transformed from a economy that was based on production to consumption and largely due to the consumption of major debt. This transformation began in the early 80's with the cutting of many financial regulations that made it far easier to sell debt upriver and thus turn things like home loans into packaged trade goods which then of course led to an increased level of risk. Given that fact, you can't expect to change an economy from being mostly based on consumption and debt to one that is based on production and positive cash flow. So no- I don't think its a big secret that many thought that magically 30+ years of an economy based on debt could be easily turned around in 4 short years.

PolishKnight says

Indeed! Says a lot about FDR's economic policies, don't they?

No, not really. If this is in reference to the so-called "Kensyian" policies such as the CCC, WPA, TVA, and so on, the major reason why the US economy fell into a major depression was because the government decided to put huge tariffs on imported goods and thus this created a trade war and threw the US deeper into depression. Lesson learned: no politician has ever tried to do something that severe ever since.

Edvard2 doesn't want to drop it, ok: "I don't have a short memory and no, most people I knew didn't expect a recovery anytime soon."

“A year from now, I think people are going to see that we’re starting to make some progress. If I don’t have this done in three years, then there’s going to be a one-term proposition.” -- Barack Obama

Keep in mind he was promising "hope and change" while now he and his supporters claim that he's impotent to do anything. Regarding FDR, whatever justification you use for the miserable economy he delivered for two terms until he ran a dictatorial wartime economy with food and gas rationing, it's all his. Even Hoover could have bought votes for his cronies, thrown civilians into concentration camps, and ran a decent economy where the population willingly accepted low wages and children forced to serve in war.

David1 says: "The stock market has doubled."

And so has the price of gas! And sugar prices have jumped too. We're entering a period of hyperinflation. But don't worry! Wages have remained stagnant so it's all good! Speaking for that:

"The economy has gone from shedding 500k+ jobs per month to adding 100k+ per month."

Yeah yeah yeah. I heard that somewhere. :-) At this rate, they'll have enough part-time McJobs to go to a fraction of the chronically unemployed in 10 years or so. Assuming they want them now that Obama has ended work-for-welfare!

"Economic growth has generally been positive, albeit slow, for 3 years."

Yeah, tell that to the people out of work who DON'T want to be on welfare. I remember when Bush's economic figures were positive the left spun it precisely this way. Double standard.

"Inflation has been low."

Hahahaha! See above. I don't know where they get those figures from. Don't they buy bread, meat, sugar, or gas?

"There have been no new wars and public enemy #1 was killed.
No scandals."

Giving guns to the Mexico cartel so they can murder Americans and Mexicans alike and then blaming it all on the NRA is ok as long as President Nixon's Department of Justice, er, Obama's Eric Holder agrees that he shouldn't release the records. (No need to do that. Executive Privilege.)

What was WWII, if not pure Keynesian policy? Huge deficit spending is stimulative. The Government could employ those people as soldiers, or conversely as construction workers, scientists, teachers, etc.

Austerity---look at Europe to see how well that works.

"What was WWII, if not pure Keynesian policy?"

Try another term: slave and forced labor.

Scientists drafted and forced to work on bombs. Young men sent overseas and forced to kill at minimum wage (think the Iraq war was ugly? Look at the pictures of what the judges of Dresden did at Nuremburg!) Rationing and confiscation generated amazing profits for the state.

Note that people didn't mind this since they were fighting for "democracy" and viewed the sacrifice as acceptable. When people are not enthusiastically fighting and working for low wages, then the system fails.

Obama doesn't have a magic "fix the economy" button.

Neither does Romney.

PolishKnight says

Regarding FDR, whatever justification you use for the miserable economy he delivered for two terms until he ran a dictatorial wartime economy with food and gas rationing, it's all his.

I happen to have many surviving people in my family who lived during the depression and of course later, WW2. Its important to remember that in the 30's there were little to no assistance programs. If you lost your job- too bad. You suddenly had no money. If you had money in the bank and the bank went bankrupt... whoops- you just lost all of your money. Given that situation MANY people were out on the street and in some cases starving. Many of the programs passed by the FDR administration were done so as a means to keep people from starving. Some of my family members worked for the CCC, TVA, the WPA, and so on. Not a single one would ever say that these were worthless programs because they kept them from going hungry. People tend to forgot how dire the situation as then and thus stop-gap measures had to be made to solve some of those problems.

PolishKnight says

he ran a dictatorial wartime economy with food and gas rationing, it's all his.

So... what exactly is that supposed to mean? That the way we won the war was all wrong? Should we have sat around and done nothing? Should we have said, ahh, the heck with it, let's not build those tanks, planes, ships, and artillery pieces? Revisionist history only works when the point is to try and claim that the reason something didn't work was because of XXX. Well, sorry but we won WW2 and so a revisionist spin is utterly pointless. Most of the men in my family fought in WW2 and I can most definitely assure you they would be rolling on the ground laughing reading about a so-called "dictatorial economy" or whatever.

PolishKnight says

And so has the price of gas! And sugar prices have jumped too. We're entering a period of hyperinflation. But don't worry! Wages have remained stagnant so it's all good! Speaking for that:

Seems convenient to forget that in 2007 there was a HUGE spike in gas prices- well before Obama's administration. Secondly, wages have been stagnate since the 1970's so nothing new to report there either...

PolishKnight,

I can't even figure out what your ideological position is. It seems like you are just ranting and throwing stuff against a wall hoping some of it will stick.

PolishKnight says

And so has the price of gas! And sugar prices have jumped too. We're entering a period of hyperinflation.

Ha. Gasoline.
RBOB July 2008: $3.57
September 2012: $3.04
DOWN 14.9%

Sugar
July 2008: $.15
Sept 2012: $.20
UP 33%

Live Cattle
July 2008: 103.80
September 2012: 122.08
UP 17.6%

Hogs
August 2008: 89.97
September 2012: 77.17
DOWN 14.3%

Corn
July 2008: 716
September 2012: 740
UP 3.3%

Wheat
June 2008: 904
September 2012: 902
DOWN .2%

Natural Gas
July 2008: 13.58
September 2012: 3.32
DOWN 75.5%

http://wikiposit.org/a?uid=FUTURE.NG1

HYPERINFLATION!!!!

Some of those ag commodities will spike thanks to the massive drought.

Obviously Obama caused the drought. ;-)

Polish knight says, "If he blows it, and goes "moderate" and the economy tanks as with GHB, then I may just stay home the next election."

We've seen an example of this in current era. Bill Clinton was a moderate and he was easily reelected. Think about it: if he's not right-leaning enough to please the hardcore elements of his own party, will they really vote democrat? I highly doubt it. Going moderate is the way to get a second term. Obama wasn't moderate, and that's why he's on the chopping block.

Romney had to go hard right to get the GOP nomination, while Obama was free to play moderate this season. It made Romney look extreme and Obama look more friendly. Now, with the GOP bullshit out of the way, Romney can swing back to where he's more comfortable: the middle. If he can sell this story, if he can use the next month to show Americans that he's not a heartless corporate tool, if he can show some sort of plan that people can get behind, he's gonna win it.
Obama has no more cards in the deck to play.

I can't wait until one of you Austrian tards mentions Gold.

Here is my response:

1. I tried living in my gold, it didn't keep the wind and rain out very well.
2. I tried eating my gold and it tasted like shit and gave me the runs.
3. My car wouldn't start after I put my gold in my gas tank.
4. My house was cold last winter because I my gold wouldn't burn in the furnace.
5. I tried some gold in my coffee but it wasn't very sweet.
6. My cattle sure look skinny on their diet of gold.
7. Its hard to move around in my gold suit and it doesn't keep me very warm.
8. My gold doesn't even get basic cable.
9. I can't access the internet on my gold.
10. The reception on my gold sucks. It never has any bars. (pun intended)

Edvard2 says: "People tend to forgot how dire the situation as then and thus stop-gap measures had to be made to solve some of those problems."

Only they didn't solve them (WWII did, remember?) They were a band aid at best (and keep in mind that there were soup kitchens during the Hoover years).

"I can most definitely assure you they would be rolling on the ground laughing reading about a so-called "dictatorial economy" or whatever."

Don't get me wrong, I agree as a Polish-American that it was good that the USA entered WWII. But he did so using dictatorial powers (and methods) that were regarded as oppressive in Iraq. My father gave me his WWII era German translation book. Included are questions to ask prisoners of war "How many troops at that location?" (Note: You're not supposed to ask questions like that. Just their rank and serial number. But I'm sure they "persuaded" answers out of them.) Dresden was firebombed. Can you imagine GWB rationing gasoline to win the war in Iraq? And putting Iraq and Afghanistan under martial law and totally controlling the population would be considered fascism today, but that's how they tamed Japan after dictating their constitution.

And hey, like you said, it worked (the war) but FDR's economic policies, not so much. On the contrary, the welfare state only bred, literally, more poor people to the point that Clinton signed off on welfare reform under duress, bragged about it later, and then later tried to deny that Obama was rescinding it. The American workers don't like paying welfare mothers to have children into poverty and that's the problem with a system that has no requirements for collecting aid.

Finally, the gas and sugar prices aren't mere "spikes". These are sustained, even permanent, increases unless natural gas and oil is drilled again (or speculators seeing that Romney is elected drive prices down via derivatives. Should happen within HOURS if he wins!) Also, ethanol which doesn't make any sense either financially or environmentally: Why spend a gallon of gasoline (and manpower as well as environmental damage) to make a gallon of ethanol and then kill people's car engines again causing environmental damage from the repairs? That's bad corporate welfare.

Quigley claims: "We've seen an example of this in current era. Bill Clinton was a moderate and he was easily reelected. Think about it: if he's not right-leaning enough to please the hardcore elements of his own party, will they really vote democrat?"

Clinton RAN as a moderate to fool (remaining) white male middle class independents and it worked for him. But it was clear he was as left as Obama when he got into office and wanted HillaryCare (remember that?) and government funded daycare. He also wanted a massive tax increase but instead got a smaller one on "millionaires" (which meant actually $250K/yr earners) His perjury scandal along with other financial scandals held up his agenda after that and then he basically ran water for Alan Greenspan.

Ironically, when economies are bad Obama blames GW but if economies are good, then GHB didn't get credit from Clinton but that's politics, of course. Clinton's first term was good economically while he got "Lewinski's" under the desk. A second term was easy and he didn't want to rock the boat by making voters think he'd do anything. Perhaps the best Democrat president is the one who does least. :-) Also, Dole was an AWFUL candidate (almost as bad as McCain) and he was portrayed by the media as a monster when he actually is civil and plays ball like most senators do.

In any case, the question is whether "moderate" Republicans do well. The same kind of applies here in that if Romney is elected and fixes the economy, then he'll get reelected and if he doesn't fix it, it won't really matter whether conservative or moderate. The media will NOT cut him any slack. So the question for him is whether his policies work rather than whether his base will show up or not.

It's a good test actually. If conservative policies don't work, then honestly we should reevaluate them. If moderate policies don't work, then let the sharks eat him. Does that sound fair?

Quigley says

If he can sell this story, if he can use the next month to show Americans that he's not a heartless corporate tool

He's got his work cut out for him.

PolishKnight says

Only they didn't solve them (WWII did, remember?) They were a band aid at best (and keep in mind that there were soup kitchens during the Hoover years).

If you look at what I had written, I wasn't arguing that the programs put into place by FDR were an economic fix. But they were necessary.

PolishKnight says

Finally, the gas and sugar prices aren't mere "spikes". These are sustained, even permanent, increases unless natural gas and oil is drilled again

We keep seeing about these calls to drill drill drill and drill some more. Whether on public or private lands, the US at this point is close to becoming not only the world's largest producer of natural gas, but the world's largest oil producer as well, with some studies suggesting that could be the case within as little as the next 5-10 years. So if the argument is that we should drill and drill, then that has been and is still the case and on a scale not seen in many decades. So its not like there was suddenly a drop-off in oil production as soon as a Democrat was elected, but rather the opposite.