I always found this fact odd, you would think that ideologically Truman would be nowhere near the top of his ranking.
In 1960, Reagan wrote a letter to Richard Nixon in which he harshly criticized Kennedy, comparing him to Karl Marx and Adolf Hitler.
Herein the incendiary quote: “One last thought—shouldn’t someone tag Mr. Kennedy’s bold new imaginative program with it’s proper age? Under the tousled boyish haircut it is still old Karl Marx—first launched a century ago. There is nothing new in the idea of a government being Big Brother to us all. Hitler called his ‘State Socialism’ and way before him it was ‘benevolent monarchy.’ “
In the 1984 election, Walter Mondale brought up this letter to attack Reagan, accusing him of being deceitful and distorting Kennedy’s legacy by claiming him as an influence on his policies.
Mondale was also incensed that Reagan channeled FDR and Truman, though it’s worth noting he actually campaigned for them back in the 40s, whereas in 1960 he was leading Democrats for Nixon.
Reagan defended himself by claiming that Kennedy was very different as a candidate than as a President, and that less than a political attack this was an expression of his political philosophy.
Now I’m aware that Holmes fooled plenty of prominent figures, including the likes of Henry Kissinger and George Shultz.
That being said, it feels odd that Clinton went so far out of his way to support her. He invested money on Theranos, appeared onstage with Holmes, publicly praised her to high heavens.
Clinton is not just an incredibly intelligent individual, but more importantly, as the definition of a consummate politician, shouldn’t he have been to recognize a huckster? What was so special about Holmes?
Maybe this is going to be a controversial take, but I’m going with Herbert Hoover.
His humanitarian efforts saved the lives of literally tens of millions of civilians, regardless of ideology. His coordinating efforts are legitimately awe inspiring.
Walter de Vries was a longtime aide and campaign strategist for George Romney who became a surprisingly staunch opponent of Mitt Romney’s 2012 campaign.
He distributed an essay and did press interviews accusing the Massachusetts Governor of being someone who “would say and do anything to close a deal – or an election.”
De Vries was upset that Mitt invoked his father as a inspiration, “I just don't see it... George would never have been seen with the likes of Sheldon Adelson or (REDACTED)”
I’m curious since both Romney’s were considered part of the moderate wing of the GOP… that being said the party had changed dramatically between 1968 and 2012. It’s also true that Mitt was a lot more willing to shift his positions to wherever was most convenient.
Harry Truman spoke about how in 1944 he had a prophetic nightmare where FDR had passed on and now he was going to be the President.
Abraham Lincoln also had a prophetic dream in which he was wandering around the White House, hearing sobbing in the East Room. There he discovered a covered corpse surrounded by mourners and guards. When he asked who passed away, they told him “The President. He was killed by an assassin”.
This was 3 days before his assassination.
(This story was related by his friend Ward Hill Lamon)
Lincoln also had a recurring dream where he was sailing rapidly to some dark shore. He reported this dream before major events like Gettysburg, Antietam, Vicksburg and before his own murder.
I’m curious to hear more examples regarding this. I’m sure that the pressures of the Presidency must lead to intense dreams, although they would be naturally reluctant to disclose them.
I wonder how many Presidents have had nightmares of being assassinated or having to deal with nuclear war.
I’m guessing the instinctive answer I’m going to get from a lot of people on here is “no, Clinton was too charismatic”… however, I want you to consider following factors:
-Clinton faced a major scandal in 1992 when it was leaked he had cheated on his wife.
-Clinton was seriously struggling in a field of weak candidates including guys like Paul Tsongas and Jerry Brown. So clearly he was a lot more vulnerable than people remember.
-Cuomo was the longtime popular governor of a major state, and the DNC was enamored by him, they were really behind him to run.
The advantage Clinton had was that he represented a more centrist Third Way approach to politics which was was more in tune with the post-Reagan 90s.
Sometimes I see this narrative that the reason why stars like say Edward Norton, Val Kilmer, etc. haven’t been successful at the Oscars is due to the fact that, to put it delicately, they have a reputation for being “difficult.”
Essentially, people in the industry don’t feel too excited for voting for someone they personally dislike.
That being said, there are also plenty of Oscar winners with similar reputations. Dustin Hoffman, Julia Roberts, Russell Crowe, Christian Bale, Gene Hackman, Sean Penn, etc.
So what’s the difference here? Or is it a myth?
The first time was as a teenager when he was attending Catholic school. However his mother persuaded him to experience more of life first before making such a dramatic decision.
The second time was after the 1972 tragic accident that killed his wife and daughter. Biden met with a bishop to discuss the possibility of obtaining a special dispensation to enter the seminary and become a priest, despite having small children. However eventually he decided this wasn’t his calling.
This is an aspect that has always confused me.
First of all, it feels like a downgrade to go from a powerful governor and party leader like Rocky, to this new Mayor.
Secondly, ideologically Francis is more of a conservative, whereas Lindsay was so liberal that by his second term he had to switch to a Democrat.
And thirdly and most important, Lindsay was objectively way more incompetent than Rockefeller. He was a poor Mayor who greatly struggled to get his agenda through and to deal with the city’s issues, receiving low polling.
Meanwhile Rockefeller, although has his own issues, overall is widely praised and admired as a Governor and political figure.
So again I feel confused by the decision behind why would Henry Francis do this.
Inspired after discovering that John Connally managed to raise more money than any other candidate in the 1980 Republican primaries, including Ronald Reagan.
He managed to do so by leveraging his deep connections with business elites, particularly Texas oilmen.
Connally actually chose not to accept federal primary matching funds, freeing him from spending caps and allowing his campaign to aggressively court high-dollar private contributions without matching constraints.
And all this to achieve one measly delegate. One.
I think Malik Obama is a strong contender.
Obama’s half brother, in 2013 he ran for governor of the Kenyan county of Siaya under the slogan "Obama here, Obama there", yet flopped with less than 3 thousand votes, over 140K behind the eventual winner.
He accused President Obama of making a deal with the devil and faking his birth certificate. He posted on social media the “real one”, which by the way says “Republic of Kenya” and “1961” despite the fact that the Republic of Kenya wasn’t founded until 1964.
Overall he comes across as a strange man.
In 1886, Cleveland married Frances Folsom at the White House, who was 21 years old while he was 49.
To make matters worse, Cleveland had known her since she was a baby and acted as the executor of her late father's estate, who was a business partner of his.
Although this caused a great deal of media frenzy, overall it did not seem to hurt Cleveland’s reputation, of course he ended up getting reelected.
I’m curious what would happen if say Bush or Obama or in general a 21st century President did this. Like how strong would the backlash be?
So this is an odd phenomenon I’ve noticed.
Whenever I see discussions of say Romney, McCain or Dole, or hell even Presidents who failed to win re-election like Ford or HW Bush, I see Democrats praise them.
Comments like “we might disagree politically but they were good men and would make for fine Presidents” or “how far the GOP has fallen since those days.”
However this definitely doesn’t seem to work the other way around. Despite the fact many Republicans complain about how extreme the DNC has become, they wouldn’t be out there praising say Kerry, Gore, Dukakis or Mondale. At best they view them with indifference.
I guess the closest equivalent would be Jimmy Carter, whose reputation has improved thanks to his humanitarian work, but even then the consensus is more like “terrible President, good human being.”
So why is this?
I’m asking this since it’s always bewildered me that 2012 Republican candidate Jon Hunstman would show off his mandarin-speaking skills during the campaign trail, including during a debate.
Now from a technical perspective I guess I get where he was coming from. Apart from being Governor of Utah, Huntsman’s most recent job had been as Ambassador to China, so he’s showing his foreign policy expertise when it comes to America’s rising superpower rival.
However, the average Republican is obviously not going to be into that, and Huntsman’s rivals naturally mocked him for it.
For examples, here are some suspicions of mine.
Richard Nixon: supported Henry Cabot Lodge Jr in 1964, and John Connally in 1980.
Gerald Ford: supported Nelson Rockefeller in 1964 and George HW Bush in 1980.
Jimmy Carter: supported Terry Sanford in 1972, Jesse Jackson in 1988 and Howard Dean in 2004.
George HW Bush: supported Henry Cabot Lodge Jr in 1964 and Lamar Alexander in 1996.
Bill Clinton: supported Gary Hart in 1984 and Al Gore in 1988. Also hot take but maybe Hillary Clinton in 2008.
Nolan has often talked about Borges as one of his favorite writers and a major inspiration on him, so I was curious to hear fans’ take on him.
Memento especially, with Nolan describing it as a strange cousin of Borges’ short story “Funes the Memorious”. Only this time it’s an inversion, one about a man cursed by remembering everything all of the time, while the other about a man cursed by remembering nothing.
Inception was also influenced by Borges, which he’s talked about.
“Probably Borges. I’d like to think this is a movie he might enjoy. It sounds like a highfalutin reference in some ways, but the truth is, he took these incredibly bizarre philosophical concepts – like a guy facing a firing squad who wants more time to finish a story in his head, and he’s granted more time by time slowing down, as the bullet travels between the gun and him – and makes them into very digestible short stories.” (He’s referring to 1943’s The Secret Miracle)
It’s also worth noting 1940’s The Circular Ruins, about a man dreams another human into existence, only to discover at the end that he is also a dream being imagined by someone else.
In his 2011 memoir and in interviews, Cheney sharply criticized colleague Rice, essentially for being too naive and eager for compromise.
The biggest examples being:
-The North Korea nuclear negotiations, in which Cheney felt the US had sacrificed too much, and accusing her of misleading President Bush regarding the right path forward.
-Making the administration apologize for making false claims regarding Iraq possessing uranium. Cheney believed this made the US and the Bush admin look weak and dishonest.
-The Syrian nuclear reactor debacle. Cheney wanted to immediately send a direct military strike, and was deeply upset that Rice pushed for a diplomatic approach via the United Nations.