https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/identit...1504132735

Jim Baker and Andrew Young decry the divisiveness of identity politics.

For youngsters:
"Mr. Baker served as U.S. secretary of the Treasury (1985-88) and state (1989-92). Mr. Young served as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations (1977-79) and mayor of Atlanta (1982-90). "

Baker also served as Ford's campaign manager in 1976 and Bush's in 1988 and was the guy who called out Gore for trying to steal the election in Florida (I stood up and cheered seeing him on TV-he helped save us from the "inventor of the internet"). Andy Young' appointment by Jimmy Carter as the first US Black ambassador to the UN was a very big deal.

Andrew Young is a very thoughtful person. I don't always agree with him, but I always listen.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

(08-31-2017 07:31 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  Andrew Young is a very thoughtful person. I don't always agree with him, but I always listen.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

I feel the same way about James Carville, Bill Clinton's lead strategist.

(08-31-2017 07:31 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  Andrew Young is a very thoughtful person. I don't always agree with him, but I always listen.

I seldom agree with Young, but I do agree as to the thoughtfulness and competence of both of them.

Back in late 2006, I attended a continuing education conference where Baker was a lunchtime speaker. I sat with a group of Canadian lawyers. During the speech, they kept asking me, "This guy makes a lot of sense. Why isn't Bush listening to him?" I replied that I had spent six years wondering the same thing.

(08-31-2017 09:06 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-31-2017 07:31 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  Andrew Young is a very thoughtful person. I don't always agree with him, but I always listen.

I seldom agree with Young, but I do agree as to the thoughtfulness and competence of both of them.

Back in late 2006, I attended a continuing education conference where Baker was a lunchtime speaker. I sat with a group of Canadian lawyers. During the speech, they kept asking me, "This guy makes a lot of sense. Why isn't Bush listening to him?" I replied that I had spent six years wondering the same thing.

I always felt that if he had been running HW's campaign I think HW would have been reelected and we never would have had to deal with the Clintons after 1992. He only became involved with the campaign when HW was in too much of a hole. Wonder if anyone else has run campaigns for 3 different candidates (Ford, Reagan 84 and Bush 88).

(08-31-2017 09:48 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-31-2017 09:06 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-31-2017 07:31 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  Andrew Young is a very thoughtful person. I don't always agree with him, but I always listen.

I seldom agree with Young, but I do agree as to the thoughtfulness and competence of both of them.
Back in late 2006, I attended a continuing education conference where Baker was a lunchtime speaker. I sat with a group of Canadian lawyers. During the speech, they kept asking me, "This guy makes a lot of sense. Why isn't Bush listening to him?" I replied that I had spent six years wondering the same thing.

I always felt that if he had been running HW's campaign I think HW would have been reelected and we never would have had to deal with the Clintons after 1992. He only became involved with the campaign when HW was in too much of a hole. Wonder if anyone else has run campaigns for 3 different candidates (Ford, Reagan 84 and Bush 88).

He is also the person who came up with the strategy that pretty much ensured that GWB would get the Florida electoral votes in 2000.

(08-31-2017 07:56 AM)CoastGuardHawk06 Wrote:  

(08-31-2017 07:31 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  Andrew Young is a very thoughtful person. I don't always agree with him, but I always listen.

I feel the same way about James Carville, Bill Clinton's lead strategist.

For about 20 years (~'78 - '98), Bill Clinton's lead strategist was Dick Morris.

It's difficult to separate the effectiveness of the strategist from the effectiveness of the candidate. I'll gladly give Carville credit for being quick with a one-liner, and for being on the winning team in 1992 and again in 1996. But I'm curious how much difference (if any) he, personally, made in those outcomes.

(08-31-2017 09:48 AM)bullet Wrote:  I always felt that if [James Baker] had been running HW's campaign I think HW would have been reelected and we never would have had to deal with the Clintons after 1992. He only became involved with the campaign when HW was in too much of a hole.

If Lee Atwater had lived, he would've been managing the campaign (just as he had done in 1988), and Clinton would be remembered as nothing more than the southern version of Mondale/Dukakis. But Atwater died in March 1991 (had been on the sidelines for a few months before that) and Baker replaced him as the campaign's honcho.

(08-31-2017 11:39 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  [Jim Baker] is also the person who came up with the strategy that pretty much ensured that GWB would get the Florida electoral votes in 2000.

???

I have a lot of respect for Baker and Young. Wise men.

(08-31-2017 01:38 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(08-31-2017 07:56 AM)CoastGuardHawk06 Wrote:  

(08-31-2017 07:31 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  Andrew Young is a very thoughtful person. I don't always agree with him, but I always listen.

I feel the same way about James Carville, Bill Clinton's lead strategist.

For about 20 years (~'78 - '98), Bill Clinton's lead strategist was Dick Morris.

It's difficult to separate the effectiveness of the strategist from the effectiveness of the candidate. I'll gladly give Carville credit for being quick with a one-liner, and for being on the winning team in 1992 and again in 1996. But I'm curious how much difference (if any) he, personally, made in those outcomes.

(08-31-2017 09:48 AM)bullet Wrote:  I always felt that if [James Baker] had been running HW's campaign I think HW would have been reelected and we never would have had to deal with the Clintons after 1992. He only became involved with the campaign when HW was in too much of a hole.

If Lee Atwater had lived, he would've been managing the campaign (just as he had done in 1988), and Clinton would be remembered as nothing more than the southern version of Mondale/Dukakis. But Atwater died in March 1991 (had been on the sidelines for a few months before that) and Baker replaced him as the campaign's honcho.

(08-31-2017 11:39 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  [Jim Baker] is also the person who came up with the strategy that pretty much ensured that GWB would get the Florida electoral votes in 2000.

???

He's right. Jim Baker ensured that the law was followed and the rightful winner of Florida's votes got its electoral votes. And Gore's attempts to steal the election through selective recounting were exposed for the theft that they were.

(08-31-2017 01:38 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(08-31-2017 11:39 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  [Jim Baker] is also the person who came up with the strategy that pretty much ensured that GWB would get the Florida electoral votes in 2000.

???

He convinced Jeb Bush to call a special session of the republican-dominated Florida legislature for the purpose of selecting a slate of electors to represent the state.
I've gone over it several times on here. Under the applicable statute, the best result Al Gore could have gotten after that (and to get that result, he would have to have won a recount, which he never did) would be a stalemate that would by statute be broken by--Jeb Bush.

(08-31-2017 05:29 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  [Jim Baker] convinced Jeb Bush to call a special session of the republican-dominated Florida legislature for the purpose of selecting a slate of electors to represent the state.

Gotcha.

I remember that the concept of a special session was being talked about in the media, but I didn't know that it was Baker who persuaded ¡Jeb! to go down that path.

The role which I remember Baker having played in that conflict was that of basically the Spokesman for the Bush-Cheney ticket as the various lawsuits winded their way through the Florida (and federal) judicial systems. And Baker performed that role with great skill, IMHO. Explaining a series of complicated and obscure events in a manner that was as clear and precise as anyone could have done. Warren Christopher performed a similar role for Gore-Lieberman, but not with the same effectiveness. What an incredible drama all that was.

If the Florida legislature felt it had no other choice, I am certain that a special session would indeed have been called, and the legislature would have voted to award the State's electors to Bush-Cheney, and ¡Jeb! would've signed the bill into law. At the same time, I'm sure that the GOP wanted to avoid that scenario, inasmuch as it would've reinforced the view (already prevalent) that Bush's victory was due to his own brother having orchestrated a party-line vote in the state legislature.

The proper outcome was for the legislature of the State of Florida to allocate electors. That's it.

The US Supreme Court had no business intervening.

Democrats would not have liked it...but it would have been the right outcome.

I will have the exact same position if it is a Democratic legislature the next time.

I believe in the federal nature of our government either way.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

(08-31-2017 07:01 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  The proper outcome was for the legislature of the State of Florida to allocate electors. That's it.

The US Supreme Court had no business intervening.

Democrats would not have liked it...but it would have been the right outcome.

I will have the exact same position if it is a Democratic legislature the next time.

I believe in the federal nature of our government either way.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

I agree.

(08-31-2017 07:34 PM)bubbapt Wrote:  

(08-31-2017 07:01 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  The proper outcome was for the legislature of the State of Florida to allocate electors. That's it.

The US Supreme Court had no business intervening.

Democrats would not have liked it...but it would have been the right outcome.

I will have the exact same position if it is a Democratic legislature the next time.

I believe in the federal nature of our government either way.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

I agree.

The problem was the Democrats on the Florida Supreme Court were trying to figure out a way to let Gore steal the election. The Democrats never accepted their loss there. At least they didn't threaten the electors like they did this time.

The better example is Nixon, of all people, in 1960. He accepted his loss with grace even though it was obvious the Democrats had stolen Illinois, which would have made it close, and possible (not necessarily probable) they had cheated enough elsewhere to steal the election.

(08-31-2017 07:58 PM)bullet Wrote:  The better example is Nixon, of all people, in 1960. He accepted his loss with grace even though it was obvious the Democrats had stolen Illinois, which would have made it close, and possible (not necessarily probable) they had cheated enough elsewhere to steal the election.

Texas was stolen, too. Probably Missouri, although the evidence is more mixed.

Illinois in those days had 27 Electoral Votes; Texas 24. National total was 537; it expanded to 538 in 1964 and has held steady ever since.

If those 2 states (IL/TX) were flipped from JFK to Nixon (and everything else stayed the same), then the Electoral College goes from JFK 303, Nixon 219 to Nixon 270, JFK 252. There were 15 other votes for the Southern Democrat, but Nixon would've still had a bare (270-267) majority.

________

Agree with ark30inf comment above. The dispute should've been resolved by the state legislature, which is specifically given the responsibility of naming a state's electors by the US Constitution.

(08-31-2017 10:37 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(08-31-2017 07:58 PM)bullet Wrote:  The better example is Nixon, of all people, in 1960. He accepted his loss with grace even though it was obvious the Democrats had stolen Illinois, which would have made it close, and possible (not necessarily probable) they had cheated enough elsewhere to steal the election.

Texas was stolen, too. Probably Missouri, although the evidence is more mixed.

Illinois in those days had 27 Electoral Votes; Texas 24. National total was 537; it expanded to 538 in 1964 and has held steady ever since.

If those 2 states (IL/TX) were flipped from JFK to Nixon (and everything else stayed the same), then the Electoral College goes from JFK 303, Nixon 219 to Nixon 270, JFK 252. There were 15 other votes for the Southern Democrat, but Nixon would've still had a bare (270-267) majority.

________

Agree with ark30inf comment above. The dispute should've been resolved by the state legislature, which is specifically given the responsibility of naming a state's electors by the US Constitution.

Texas with Illinois would have given him a majority in the electoral college and there was major fraud in South Texas, but there probably weren't enough votes there to steal the state which Nixon lost by 46,000. There would have had to have been fraud elsewhere.