Have We Ever Enjoyed A Good Run?

[Boom_70]

I been through more Presidential elections than I care to admit. In all of them that I can remember it seems that the common theme of the candidates has been a focus our problems. In election years it always seems like the glass is half empty.

The question that comes to mind- are things always as bad as candidates portray them to be or are they better? Have we ever had a good run where a candidate could honestly stand up and say "life is good"?

 

[The Big Ragu]

"Are you better off now than you were four years ago?"

-- Ronald Reagan

 

[Baron Scicluna]

Herbert Hoover did, and we all know how well that turned out.

 

[Boom_70]

"Are you better off now than you were four years ago?"

-- Ronald Reagan

Reagan era was first to come to mind - but then there was Iran/Contra which tempers it a bit.

 

[93Devil]

Reagan would be my first choice, and in 1984, it did seem logical.

Although his allegiance to foreign oil and energy would greatly hinder America for the next two decades and beyond.

 

[The Big Ragu]

Reagan would be my first choice, and in 1984, it did seem logical.

Although his allegiance to foreign oil and energy would greatly hinder America for the next two decades and beyond.

Did he pledge allegiance to foreign oil every day?

 

[alleyallen]

"Are you better off now than you were four years ago?"

-- Ronald Reagan

If we knew then what we know now, it might not have been a good answer. But in 1984, I'd say that may have been the last time people could feel positive about things.

 

[jgmacg]

Plenty of tumult 1980 to 1988, and to hear the hardcore Reaganites tell it, we were never closer to nuclear annihilation than we were during those years - but that the Great Man saved us. Plenty of global upset and violence. Also plenty of scandal besides Iran-Contra to fret over - like the Savings and Loan debacle.

For the appearance of placidity, I like Ike, '54 to '59, but those times were fraught as well once you peek behind the draperies of suburban prosperity. History seething and churning, as it always must, just beyond the shimmer of Donna Reed's organdy cocktail dress.

The pre-Crash 20s? Harding, Coolidge, Hoover?

History's pretty relentless. There's no ease anywhere when you really look, is there?

homo homini lupus

 

[The Big Ragu]

Who are you calling a homo, you wolf?!?

 

[93Devil]

Reagan would be my first choice, and in 1984, it did seem logical.

Although his allegiance to foreign oil and energy would greatly hinder America for the next two decades and beyond.

Did he pledge allegiance to foreign oil every day?

No but the hostages were bring released on the day he was being sworn into office.

 

[The Big Ragu]

Reagan would be my first choice, and in 1984, it did seem logical.

Although his allegiance to foreign oil and energy would greatly hinder America for the next two decades and beyond.

Did he pledge allegiance to foreign oil every day?

No but the hostages were bring released on the day he was being sworn into office.

I'm totally not following.

 

[93Devil]

Reagan would be my first choice, and in 1984, it did seem logical.

Although his allegiance to foreign oil and energy would greatly hinder America for the next two decades and beyond.

Did he pledge allegiance to foreign oil every day?

No but the hostages were bring released on the day he was being sworn into office.

I'm totally not following.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_surprise_conspiracy

 

[JR]

For those of us who were around, Kennedy was a pretty good run.

North America was prospering, the middle clash was booming and if you forget the nasty stuff like The Cold War, segregation and future stuff like The Bay of Pigs and the Cuban Missile Crisis it was a time of unbridled optimism. And then along came The Beatles. What wasn't to like?

It's like your old man (Ike) was sent packing and the cool kid next door was taking over.

The Canadian counterpart was Pierre Trudeau in '68.

 

[Bob Cook]

The Canadian counterpart was Pierre Trudeau in '68.

If he wore this to the Grey Cup, you can only imagine how he'd dress for a real night of mackin'.

 

[The Big Ragu]

Reagan would be my first choice, and in 1984, it did seem logical.

Although his allegiance to foreign oil and energy would greatly hinder America for the next two decades and beyond.

Did he pledge allegiance to foreign oil every day?

No but the hostages were bring released on the day he was being sworn into office.

I'm totally not following.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_surprise_conspiracy

What does anything in that link have to do with American dependence on oil, and Reagan somehow being responsible for us relying on oil to fuel our energy needs?

 

[21]

This subject is the reason I'm increasingly convinced that it's almost irrelevant who becomes president.

Every administration has its disasters and achievements....some Americans will suffer and some will prosper. Is it possible for a country of this size and diversity to have a 'good run'? Someone is always going to be unhappy.

And in the meantime, in the tiny little history of this country, we've survived world wars and civil wars and illegal wars and really stupid wars...slavery and bigotry and depressions and recessions and oil shortages....rap music and Ann Coulter and the Colts leaving Baltimore.

Somehow, we just roll on. I have no idea how.

 

[beardpuller]

I was excited when I saw the title to this thread. I was going to say that just last Saturday, I did 5.5 miles in the park with the dog, it was a lovely day, I had some new Drive-By-Truckers in my MP3 mix ... but no, it's another political thread.
I would argue that "good runs" are only deemed so in retrospect. My father, a pretty conservative guy, nonetheless felt fond of FDR his whole life -- for most Americans who lived through the Depression and the war, this was a great, great president. But those also were the most trying times our nation has gone through since the Civil War -- presided over by another great president.
Maybe responding well to crisis creates a "great run"?
(The "well" part might explain why this presidency won't qualify).

 

[Bubbler]

I don't recall a lot of hemming and hawing in 1996.

 

[The Big Ragu]

This subject is the reason I'm increasingly convinced that it's almost irrelevant who becomes president.

Every administration has its disasters and achievements....some Americans will suffer and some will prosper. Is it possible for a country of this size and diversity to have a 'good run'? Someone is always going to be unhappy.

And in the meantime, in the tiny little history of this country, we've survived world wars and civil wars and illegal wars and really stupid wars...slavery and bigotry and depressions and recessions and oil shortages....rap music and Ann Coulter and the Colts leaving Baltimore.

Somehow, we just roll on. I have no idea how.

Good ole 'merican ingenuity, of course!

 

[Boom_70]

For those of us who were around, Kennedy was a pretty good run.

North America was prospering, the middle clash was booming and if you forget the nasty stuff like The Cold War, segregation and future stuff like The Bay of Pigs and the Cuban Missile Crisis it was a time of unbridled optimism. And then along came The Beatles. What wasn't to like?

It's like your old man (Ike) was sent packing and the cool kid next door was taking over.

The Canadian counterpart was Pierre Trudeau in '68.

Based on all the wool that he pulled while in the white house a good run is an understatement.
For the rest of the country he certainly did create a lot of optimisim.

I believe Obama has that ability also to create that same unbridled optimism.

Its more of a glass half full philosophy that I much prefer. It's something that Reagan was good at also.

On the other hand you have politicians like Hillary always telling us what's wrong with the country and bringing us down.