CINCINNATI (TDB) -- Bizzyblog's Tom Blumer has been hammering Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney as "Unfit Mitt." The rap: Romney sounds conservative today, but didn't just a few years back. He seems to change his mind on political issues as often as he changes socks.
The Democratic National Committee has noticed, too. And it's out with a fresh collection of what it calls flip flops by "Massachusetts Mitt." The DNC's collection has a tone similar to Blumer's criticism of Unfit Mitt. Both conjure up visions of Romney as a figure who fits Kahlil Gibran's description of a babbler: "In much of your talking, thinking is half murdered."
Of course, the DNC hits Mitt from the left; Blumer pokes from the right. A good shot delivered by the DNC was about Romney's shifting view of President Ronald Reagan:
"Mitt Romney Today: 'The right way for America to proceed is to pursue the strategy Ronald Reagan pursued in the last century.' [NBC's Meet The Press, 12/16/07]
"Massachusetts Mitt Romney: 'I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I'm not trying to return to Reagan-Bush.' [1994 Senate Debate]"
[UPDATE: 10:00 pm -- Fred Thompson also weighed in with a Romney smackdown that recounts the shifts, along with the I-was-an-independent-when-Reagan-was-president bit of history.]
Showing posts with label Ronald Reagan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ronald Reagan. Show all posts
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Tuesday, August 07, 2007
CIA's Press Release: Attacks Author Tim Weiner, But Doesn't Deny It Missed USSR's Fall
CINCINNATI (TDB) -- The full retort from the U.S. spy agency's public affairs office is posted online at the CIA's Website. And it accuses author Tim Weiner -- whose new book "Legacy of Ashes" faults the CIA for decades of ineptitude -- of presenting a false history that focuses on failure and ignores successes. One of the biggest flops: Missing the collapse of the USSR.
Weiner has covered national security for The New York Times and his 702-page book quotes Henry Kissinger telling Chinese Communist Prime Minster Chou En-lai in 1971 that he had "vastly overestimated the competence of the CIA." Weiner's writing attempts to make a case that the agency's aura of being on top of world events was largely an illusion.
Ronald Reagan, the Republican president who gets credit for caging the Soviet Bear, might have found some of the language in the CIA's news release a bit quizzical if not downright disturbing. The agency says that it sensed as early as 1948 that the likelihood of war with the Soviets was nil. Reagan built a successful political career around the idea that the U.S. had to have superior forces, in numbers and technology, to keep the Russians at bay. He believed the USSR was a totalitarian state, the "evil empire" bent on expanding across the globe. He saw it as a malevolent society that was up to no good. The CIA now says it recognized "trouble signs" that the Soviet Union was shaky during the years Reagan was in office.
But Weiner , as Evan Thomas has written, sees the CIA as Charlie Brown trying to kick the football because it muffed one of the biggest socio-political events of the 20th Century. It failed to forecast the 1989 demise of the Marxist state ruled from Moscow, an event that ended the Cold War. The CIA's news release critical of Weiner tries to take issue with him on that point. But it reads like spin, and says the agency had been warning that the Soviets were growing weaker starting sometime in the 1970s. Here's the CIA angle:
"The book suggests that the CIA didn't predict the collapse of the Soviet Union. As a number of prominent outside observers have noted, the agency had warned of trouble signs in the Soviet Union on regular occasions since the 1970s."
Those "trouble signs" don't equate with collapse. Reagan certainly didn't think the Evil Empire was about to disappear while he was in office. He saw it trying to expand in Central America, Afghanistan and other global hotspots. In June 1982 he spoke to the British Parliament:
"Historians looking back at our time will note the consistent restraint and peaceful intentions of the West. They will note that it was the democracies who refused to use the threat of their nuclear monopoly in the forties and early fifties for territorial or imperial gain. Had that nuclear monopoly been in the hands of the Communist world, the map of Europe -- indeed, the world -- would look very different today."
Weiner has covered national security for The New York Times and his 702-page book quotes Henry Kissinger telling Chinese Communist Prime Minster Chou En-lai in 1971 that he had "vastly overestimated the competence of the CIA." Weiner's writing attempts to make a case that the agency's aura of being on top of world events was largely an illusion.
Ronald Reagan, the Republican president who gets credit for caging the Soviet Bear, might have found some of the language in the CIA's news release a bit quizzical if not downright disturbing. The agency says that it sensed as early as 1948 that the likelihood of war with the Soviets was nil. Reagan built a successful political career around the idea that the U.S. had to have superior forces, in numbers and technology, to keep the Russians at bay. He believed the USSR was a totalitarian state, the "evil empire" bent on expanding across the globe. He saw it as a malevolent society that was up to no good. The CIA now says it recognized "trouble signs" that the Soviet Union was shaky during the years Reagan was in office.
But Weiner , as Evan Thomas has written, sees the CIA as Charlie Brown trying to kick the football because it muffed one of the biggest socio-political events of the 20th Century. It failed to forecast the 1989 demise of the Marxist state ruled from Moscow, an event that ended the Cold War. The CIA's news release critical of Weiner tries to take issue with him on that point. But it reads like spin, and says the agency had been warning that the Soviets were growing weaker starting sometime in the 1970s. Here's the CIA angle:
"The book suggests that the CIA didn't predict the collapse of the Soviet Union. As a number of prominent outside observers have noted, the agency had warned of trouble signs in the Soviet Union on regular occasions since the 1970s."
Those "trouble signs" don't equate with collapse. Reagan certainly didn't think the Evil Empire was about to disappear while he was in office. He saw it trying to expand in Central America, Afghanistan and other global hotspots. In June 1982 he spoke to the British Parliament:
"Historians looking back at our time will note the consistent restraint and peaceful intentions of the West. They will note that it was the democracies who refused to use the threat of their nuclear monopoly in the forties and early fifties for territorial or imperial gain. Had that nuclear monopoly been in the hands of the Communist world, the map of Europe -- indeed, the world -- would look very different today."
Sunday, March 11, 2007
'Best President' Poll of U.S. Historians Ranks Clinton Over Reagan
CINCINNATI (TDB) -- A poll of 250 historians and history professors rates Democrat Bill Clinton as a better recent president than Republican Ronald Reagan. Some respondents considered Reagan "great," a rating that no one bestowed on Clinton. Others viewed the conservative two-termer from California as a divisive national figure, and their votes pulled down Reagan's overall ranking. Professor Tim Blessing at Alverina College has been conducting the surveys of historians for years, and the school released his latest results this weekend.
Blessing, along with a colleague who analyzed the data, said no one running for president in 2008 seems to embody Reagan's conservative credentials, and they suggest the cycle of Reagan-style conservatism in national politics appears to have ebbed.
Alverina is a Catholic school affiliated with the Franciscan order, and the report issued by the Reading, Pa., college about the survey is as follows:
"Ask historians to rank the presidents and you will get varied opinions. Limit their choices to only the four most recent occupants of the White House and interesting patterns emerge. In a recent poll, more than 250 college and university history professors placed former President Bill Clinton as the best president of the last quarter century, Ronald Reagan as the second best, followed by Jimmy Carter and then the first President Bush. (The current president was excluded since his term of office had not yet ended.)
"Dr. Tim H. Blessing, Professor of History and Political Science, has conducted presidential polls for many years as part of the Presidential Performance Study. Since 2001, he has been joined in ranking presidents by Dr. Anne Skleder, Associate Professorof Psychology. They asked historians, all with doctoral degrees and allteaching full-time at a college or university, to rank these four presidents as 'great,' 'near great,' 'above average,' 'average,' 'below average,' or 'failing.' Using this system, Clinton received the highest average score, though no historian ranked him as one of the 'Greats.'
"Reagan garnered a number of 'great' marks, but also received numerous 'below average' marks, dragging down his score and indicating that he is still a polarizing figure. For Carter and Bush, 'losing the confidence of the people' during their terms contributed to their trailing numbers.
"'A one-term president does nothave the time to collect successes and move up in the ranks," Blessing and Skleder note. They also suspect that the waning popularity of the current President Bush may have caused a slight 'suppression' of his father's ratings. Likewise Carter's rating might have been still lower had it not been for a 'lift due to his post-presidential humanitarian activities.'
"What makes a president rank above others is how well they embody the hopes and dreams of the people. 'Sometimes, people don't know what theywant,' Blessing said. 'What presidents mean to the people is more than the sum of their policies. Presidents who can voice the people's hopes and ideals and help them give voice to their aspirations' rank highest. Even though Reagan ranks behind Clinton, Blessing says the Reagan presidency was one of the frequent 'revolutions' that occur in American politics. 'Significant presidents, such as Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln and both Roosevelts 'set a style and create goals that linger long past their presidency.'
Subsequent presidents seek to capture that spirit until,years later, the people seek another dramatic change. Blessing and Skleder observe this is the 26th year of the Reagan presidency, as the elder Bush, Clinton, and the current President Bush have each campaigned on elements leftover from the Reagan platform.
'The Reagan presidency's legacyhas pretty much run its course,' they state. 'We cannot expect the policies and approaches of a very different era to be continued into this one.' None of the candidates in the race for next year's presidential nominations appear to be promoting Reaganesque ideals. While Blessing and Skleder are unsure whether the American electorate is moving strongly to the left or will find some moderate middle ground, they are sure that 'the cycle for the Reaganesque style of conservatism is over.'
Blessing, along with a colleague who analyzed the data, said no one running for president in 2008 seems to embody Reagan's conservative credentials, and they suggest the cycle of Reagan-style conservatism in national politics appears to have ebbed.
Alverina is a Catholic school affiliated with the Franciscan order, and the report issued by the Reading, Pa., college about the survey is as follows:
"Ask historians to rank the presidents and you will get varied opinions. Limit their choices to only the four most recent occupants of the White House and interesting patterns emerge. In a recent poll, more than 250 college and university history professors placed former President Bill Clinton as the best president of the last quarter century, Ronald Reagan as the second best, followed by Jimmy Carter and then the first President Bush. (The current president was excluded since his term of office had not yet ended.)
"Dr. Tim H. Blessing, Professor of History and Political Science, has conducted presidential polls for many years as part of the Presidential Performance Study. Since 2001, he has been joined in ranking presidents by Dr. Anne Skleder, Associate Professorof Psychology. They asked historians, all with doctoral degrees and allteaching full-time at a college or university, to rank these four presidents as 'great,' 'near great,' 'above average,' 'average,' 'below average,' or 'failing.' Using this system, Clinton received the highest average score, though no historian ranked him as one of the 'Greats.'
"Reagan garnered a number of 'great' marks, but also received numerous 'below average' marks, dragging down his score and indicating that he is still a polarizing figure. For Carter and Bush, 'losing the confidence of the people' during their terms contributed to their trailing numbers.
"'A one-term president does nothave the time to collect successes and move up in the ranks," Blessing and Skleder note. They also suspect that the waning popularity of the current President Bush may have caused a slight 'suppression' of his father's ratings. Likewise Carter's rating might have been still lower had it not been for a 'lift due to his post-presidential humanitarian activities.'
"What makes a president rank above others is how well they embody the hopes and dreams of the people. 'Sometimes, people don't know what theywant,' Blessing said. 'What presidents mean to the people is more than the sum of their policies. Presidents who can voice the people's hopes and ideals and help them give voice to their aspirations' rank highest. Even though Reagan ranks behind Clinton, Blessing says the Reagan presidency was one of the frequent 'revolutions' that occur in American politics. 'Significant presidents, such as Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln and both Roosevelts 'set a style and create goals that linger long past their presidency.'
Subsequent presidents seek to capture that spirit until,years later, the people seek another dramatic change. Blessing and Skleder observe this is the 26th year of the Reagan presidency, as the elder Bush, Clinton, and the current President Bush have each campaigned on elements leftover from the Reagan platform.
'The Reagan presidency's legacyhas pretty much run its course,' they state. 'We cannot expect the policies and approaches of a very different era to be continued into this one.' None of the candidates in the race for next year's presidential nominations appear to be promoting Reaganesque ideals. While Blessing and Skleder are unsure whether the American electorate is moving strongly to the left or will find some moderate middle ground, they are sure that 'the cycle for the Reaganesque style of conservatism is over.'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)