Are Democrats ashamed of Michael Dukakis?

[SFCumdog]

21 hours ago, Rillion said:

Are Repubicans still embarrassed by Hoover?

Herbert or J. Edgar? Or both? 😉

[Rillion]

2 hours ago, SFCumdog said:

Herbert or J. Edgar? Or both? 😉

Well consider he was rumored to have dressed in drag, I think they will have completely disowned J Edgar.

[hntnhole]

18 hours ago, NWUSHorny said:

but they would happily claim Jefferson Davis.

Stunningly, I think you're entirely correct.  Particularly since the statuary, iconography has begun to come down (only 150 years late).  

[drscorpio]

The thing that bothers me most about both parties is how they only seem to want to nominate POTUS candidates who are older than most people would ever consider hiring. I thought we had turned a corner with Obama. I was hoping to see more candidates in their 40-50s than their 70s. But since Obama, we have had Hilary, Bernie, Biden, and Trump. Boomers (of which I am one) need to sit down and let younger people have their shot. 

[evilqueerpig]

19 minutes ago, drscorpio said:

The thing that bothers me most about both parties is how they only seem to want to nominate POTUS candidates who are older than most people would ever consider hiring. I thought we had turned a corner with Obama. I was hoping to see more candidates in their 40-50s than their 70s. But since Obama, we have had Hilary, Bernie, Biden, and Trump. Boomers (of which I am one) need to sit down and let younger people have their shot. 

Mayor Pete

[drscorpio]

31 minutes ago, evilqueerpig said:

Mayor Pete

Right, it's not that there aren't younger people, but Pete didn't get much traction in the primary. 

[evilqueerpig]

Meanwhile, he's proving himself.

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, evilqueerpig said:

Meanwhile, he's proving himself.

Yes, proving himself to be worthless. 

[evilqueerpig]

10 minutes ago, Jackruby said:

Yes, proving himself to be worthless. 

Go back to Tucker Carlson!

[wood]

99.9% of people don’t give any shits about Michael Dukakis. He doesn’t matter. 
 

NEXT. 

[hntnhole]

Frankly, I was surprised that Pete got as far as he did.  That speaks to his abilities, his talents, and his "heart".  Being mayor of Studebaker-ville is no big feather in anyone's cap, but it was enough to get him press, and he took every advantage of that.

To be clear, he lacked the depth of experience on a National Stage that most voters think a Presidential candidate needs. His present position in the Cabinet will stand him in good stead next time he runs.  We haven't seen the last of him by a loooong shot, maybe even as Biden's choice for Veep running mate.  I doubt that, as Kamela brings in much needed minority votes, but it could happen. 

And yes, I still have my "PETE" cap ready and waiting.

[BootmanLA]

16 hours ago, Jackruby said:

Yes, proving himself to be worthless. 

Although I downvoted this comment - because I've noticed it's from someone who's making a habit of trolling for attention - I will note that I've been a little disappointed in "Mayor Pete" myself of late - though I'm open to re-evaluating that opinion over time.

From a wider perspective, I realize that the president has had to focus on a number of "really big picture" things in his term thus far (COVID, Ukraine/Russia, inflation, etc.), and bandwidth is limited. But in my mind, given the enormous amount of damage Hair Furor wrought in the administration of the federal government, I would have had my cabinet heads make a top priority of identifying every major change Trump's team made in the agencies, make a quick decision as to whether it should be kept or reversed, and for the latter, immediately started the process of publishing regs for comment and getting the ball rolling.

For instance, in the DOT arena (Pete's bailiwick), Trump gutted some substantial safety reforms in the railroad industry that Obama had put in place. That should have been top priority for changing back. Instead, no change has yet been made, and there's some early evidence that had the braking regulation in particular been still in effect, the derailment disaster ongoing in Ohio wouldn't have happened.

And again, in his defense, he's had to carry a big chunk of the infrastructure workload, but that can't come at the expense of regulations, both safety and operational. DOT has nearly 60,000 employees; surely a dozen could be spared for a team to identify problem areas and draft solutions. 

[BootmanLA]

17 hours ago, drscorpio said:

Right, it's not that there aren't younger people, but Pete didn't get much traction in the primary. 

I'll note, though, that Pete was by far the youngest candidate there and with a correspondingly thinner resume. (And that's not a dig at him.)

It's more helpful, I think, to look at "a good age for a president" as a percentage of lifespan rather than an absolute number of years. In Washington's day, he became president at 57 - fairly young by our standards, but very definitely senior citizen material at the time.

Teddy Roosevelt was 42 when he became president in 1901, but at that point the average lifespan in the US still only 47-ish. Most presidents, in fact, were older than the average lifespan when elected until into the 20th century.

Nowadays, with the average male lifespan 74 years, and the average female lifespan 79 years, a presidential candidate over 70 is actually pretty much in keeping with the norm. The drawback, of course, is that while we live much longer, our bodies at that point are a lot more worn down, on average, than when men routinely died at 62 or so, and mental faculties often decline in tandem.

[Mattsdarkside]

Republicans are in the same category as scat.   Hard no from me.  Apologies in advance to all the scat guys on here.

[PozBearWI]

@Mattsdarkside I would agree if you phrased it "The republican party".  The distinction between party and members of that party are worth making.  As a party, it will only come back to center if we encourage members who are more centrist to become more vocal within that party.