Topic: Romney portends Alf Landon’s failure, not Reagan’s victory

[AmericanPatriot]

Something to think about.
One thing the writer got wrong was calling Hoover a conservative

http://www.capoliticalreview.com/publishers-corner/romney-portends-alf-landons-failure-not-reagans-victory/

I want to see Mitt Romney beat Barack H. Obama for President. But I don’t think it is going to happen. I think he is the wrong GOP candidate at the wrong time. Like Alf Landon in 1936.

I cringe when I hear the pro-Romney pundits reference Ronald Reagan’s 1980 come-from-behind victory as inspiration for a Romeny victory in 2012. I think some of those pundits may never have been in the same room with Ronald Reagan in making their comparison of him to Romney. There is no comparison. Reagan’s personality and ability to connect with the average person is unparalled, and perhaps only Barack Obama and Bill Clinton approach his charisma. And they will both be center-stage next week at the Democrat convention making mince-meat of Romney.

Romney is not Ronald Reagan, by personality or policy. But he is more than a little like Alf Landon, the GOP “whiz-kid” from Kansas (and Kansas Governor) whom Republicans put up against a one-term incumbent Democrat President under very similar economic times in 1936. That Democrat was Franklin Roosevelt, who followed a conservative Republican named Herbert Hoover. Hoover was blamed for harming the national economy and causing the Great Depression during his one term. Roosevelt beat Hoover in part by blaming him for the bad economy and promising he would aggressively attack unemployment with massive government spending projects. (Are you seeing the parallels yet?)

But by the 1936 election, things weren’t getting that much better. Unemployment was an amazing 16.9%. Roosevelt was criticised by the GOP for instigating socialistic programs in his New Deal platform. So they turned to Governor Landon as the man to beat Roosevelt.

Landon was a banker and oilman, a wealthy and successful businessman who turned to politics and was elected Governor. A Methodist, he was known as a fiscal conservative who was not so strongly conservative on social issues and even supported some aspects of Roosevelt’s New Deal. But Labor unions hated Landon. Landon won the GOP nomination on the first ballot. (Still seeing the parallels?)

Landon proved to be an ineffective campaigner who left the development of his message against Roosevelt to political professionals. The GOP lost the black vote en masse to Roosevelt in this election, and Roosevelt won a hugely lopsided victory across the country despite double-digit unemployment. Landon simply could not connect well with the average voter, and even in bad economic times, the country decided to turn to what they knew in Roosevelt, rather than the unknown of a wealthy GOP Governor despised by labor unions.

The Electoral College map heavily favors Barack Obama, even with Romney winning 27 or 28 states in the election. The key swing state of Florida is absolutely necessary for Romney to have a chance to win the election. However, Obama could lose Florida and still have plenty of options left to win. And Obama will add credibility on election night building big majorities in California, Illinois and New York. Next week at the Democrat Convention, Obama can be expected to get the election bounce he needs to lead the race into November, and such a similar bounce likely will elude Romney this week.

In his book, “Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail, 1972?, author Hunter S. Thompson famously stated that the Democrats putting George McGovern up against Richard Nixon was “like sending a three-toeed sloth in to fight a wolverine.” Mitt Romney is no three-toeed sloth, but Barack Obama and his Chicago political machine are definitely wolverines. And, sadly in my opinion, as to the most apt historical comparson for Mitt Romney, the tea leaves seem to be rating his campaign and inability to get a clear lead at this stage, much more like Alf Landon than Ronald Reagan. Take that, GOP pundits.

[Pandora]

Think about?  What's to think?  Romney's what we got; thinking what might happen if Obongo gets four more years is borrowing worry at this point.  Plenty of time to freak after if that's what comes to pass in November.

[EW1(SG)]

Think about?  What's to think?  Romney's what we got; thinking what might happen if Obongo gets four more years is borrowing worry at this point.  Plenty of time to freak after if that's what comes to pass in November.

Yup.  And not so sure it's not a plant anyway...like a sour grape maybe.  The polls after the convention are looking very promising.

[CatholicCrusader]

Romney did just fine and he will do just fine.
I think Romney is much like Reagan. Reagan didn't give flambouyant speeches, he was pretty much an "aw shucks" kinda guy.
And frankly, Reagan would be considered slightly moderate these days. He was a Democrat before he was a Republican; today they'd call him a fli-flopper. He cut a quasi-amnesty deal, ran up deficits, and compromised with the Deomocrat Congress to at least get half a loaf instead of no loaf at all.

We all need to lighten a little on all the litmus tests. Romney is a good guy, and I think he'll win.

[ChrstnHsbndFthr]

Romney does NOT compare well with Reagan....but Obama does not compare well with Roosevelt either.   The choice here is not Landon-Roosevelt, or Reagan-Obama. The choice we face is either four more disastrous years of Obama, or to give Governor Romney a four year chance. Romney has demonstrated competence at governance, personal morality, and basic human decency.  He has shown himself to be a leader, capable of tough decisions, and he has shown he can fight hard when he deems it necessary.  For me, this is an easy choice.  I choose Romney/Ryan over Obama/Biden with no reservations.  Without this change, there is no hope.

[AmericanPatriot]

Let me try and clarify.
For better or worse, we do have Romney as the only choice against the one.

Nothing is more important than getting the marxist out.
However, in my opinion, we are so desperate to get rid of Obama that we're trying to make a silk purse out of the sow's ear.

Romney is no Reagan.

The argument that Reagan was once a dem isn't a good one.
This ain't your father's democrat party.

Reagan had experienced a true conversion and was supporting Goldwater in 1964, more than a decade before he ran for prez the first time in '76.

Romney's "conversion" is a little shorter.

But, the article only indicates that the comparison to Alf Landon may be closer than to Reagan and those comparisons may lead to loss in November.

As Mark Twin said something like, "history doesn't repeat itself but it sure rhymes a lot"

[Sectionhand]

The author sees parallels between now and 1936 which in no way apply . The country wasn't nearly as evenly divided in '36 as it is today . There was no Gallup Poll at that time but had there been it would have been evident that Landon didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning . People didn't realize that there was any better way than FDR's because they had never experienced anything quite like The Great Depression . Actually the tipping point for FDR's victory in 1932 ( which the author may be unaware of ) was when MacArthur , acting without orders from Hoover , attacked and burned the encampment of the WW I Bonus Marchers , killing several and injuring quite a few . Roosevelt was listening in Hyde Park to the radio reports of the melee , looked to several advisers who were present and said with a confident smile . " I just won the election ! " ... Situations can turn on a single event and the author gives no credible argument as to why Romney shouldn't win handily in November . I also don't believe the author really wants Romney to win ... otherwise he wouldn't have labored so hard over this piece of tripe .

[EW1(SG)]

The author sees parallels between now and 1936 which in no way apply . The country wasn't nearly as evenly divided in '36 as it is today . There was no Gallup Poll at that time but had there been it would have been evident that Landon didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning . People didn't realize that there was any better way than FDR's because they had never experienced anything quite like The Great Depression . Actually the tipping point for FDR's victory in 1932 ( which the author may be unaware of ) was when MacArthur , acting without orders from Hoover , attacked and burned the encampment of the WW I Bonus Marchers , killing several and injuring quite a few . Roosevelt was listening in Hyde Park to the radio reports of the melee , looked to several advisers who were present and said with a confident smile . " I just won the election ! " ... Situations can turn on a single event and the author gives no credible argument as to why Romney shouldn't win handily in November . I also don't believe the author really wants Romney to win ... otherwise he wouldn't have labored so hard over this piece of tripe .

Ah, there's the nuts.

[AmericanPatriot]

If Romney wins, it won't be because he instills passion in the electorate.
It will solely be because we want rid of O so badly.
And only just a few % more than the adoring masses who want to keep him.

He and the RNC keep putting a stick up our conservative asses and there is a real danger of people staying home

[warpmine]

The author alsp fails to recognize the role of the eGOP in all this. McCain with all his factors that made him a terrible candidate in '08 was pushed uphill in a cart to become the nominee. Romney at that point would have made a much better candidate considering the dire consequences of the economy. McCain didn't know his ass from a hole in the ground and anybody with a lick of sense would have chose somebody who knew economic factors over both McCain and the usurper because of obvious reasons.

The real parallel is McCain to Hoover in their ineptness as candidates, Neither had a clue as to how to leave things alone(not true in Hoover's case as he was prodded into doing things he would later regret), McCain well, who knows since I regard him as an economic dolt wanted to interfere in all kinds of ways except removing the cancer, legislation he probably voted for as Senator because it looked good.

Anyway with the news blackout of the true origins of the usurper in place, he easily wins re-election but this isn't 1932 with no alternate sources or even technologies as we have the sources, the research, the attention span to realize who is at fault for these perilous times, the DemonRat Party and their massive social engineering projects.

One last thing, in '36, the country wasn't bankrupt, we are today.

[CatholicCrusader]

Romney did just fine and he will do just fine.
I think Romney is much like Reagan. Reagan didn't give flambouyant speeches, he was pretty much an "aw shucks" kinda guy.
And frankly, Reagan would be considered slightly moderate these days. He was a Democrat before he was a Republican; today they'd call him a fli-flopper. He cut a quasi-amnesty deal, ran up deficits, and compromised with the Deomocrat Congress to at least get half a loaf instead of no loaf at all.

We all need to lighten a little on all the litmus tests. Romney is a good guy, and I think he'll win.

Romney does NOT compare well with Reagan.............

I beg to differ, for all the reasons I stated above he does: "Reagan didn't give flambouyant speeches, he was pretty much an "aw shucks" kinda guy.
And frankly, Reagan would be considered slightly moderate these days. He was a Democrat before he was a Republican; today they'd call him a fli-flopper. He cut a quasi-amnesty deal, ran up deficits, and compromised with the Deomocrat Congress to at least get half a loaf instead of no loaf at all."

I can even add to those reasons that Reagan was governor of a liberal state who raised taxes. And frankly, by today's standards, Reagan was very reluctant to use military force.

Plus he has great hair.

 

[Libertas]

Yeah, that piece is even sour for me, heck, I'm not a big Romney guy, but anybody with a pulse and half a brain shouldn't lose to Obama this time around just based on what he has acheived - epic failure.  Fortunately Romney is way better than J-Mac, so it is probably enough to beat the SCoaMF.