<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Obama and McCain May Be Considering Bloomberg</title>
	<atom:link href="http://donklephant.com/2008/05/23/obama-and-mccain-may-be-considering-bloomberg/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://donklephant.com/2008/05/23/obama-and-mccain-may-be-considering-bloomberg/</link>
	<description>Big Teeth. Huge Ass. Surprisingly Reasonable.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 08 Nov 2009 23:59:03 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: SMS</title>
		<link>http://donklephant.com/2008/05/23/obama-and-mccain-may-be-considering-bloomberg/comment-page-1/#comment-408072</link>
		<dc:creator>SMS</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 May 2008 18:55:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://donklephant.com/?p=5774#comment-408072</guid>
		<description>Conservative Republicans for fifty years had tended to denigrate the importance of personal diplomacy,&quot; said Richard Norton Smith, the former director of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, in a PBS film on the &#039;85 summit. &quot;It&#039;s the legacy of the Yalta Conference and they thought Franklin Roosevelt had sold us out and then we sold out China. We were all selling out someone. The sale was usually by a president who thought if only he could get in a room with his Soviet counterpart his charm and his arguments would prevail. That was the conservative position and yet Reagan clearly believed he could do that: the force of his personality of his arguments and above all of his sincerity would impress itself upon the Soviets.&quot;

Reagan went into that meeting with challenges more daunting than what U.S. faces in modern Iran. And the president&#039;s objective -- to back away from the brink of nuclear war while refusing to draw down America&#039;s commitment to the Strategic Defense Initiative (Star Wars) -- seemed, on the surface, to be an untenable proposition. But largely because of his personal touch, it was achieved. 

&quot;I think in terms of reaching out, Reagan went against the advice of what we would call today &#039;the neocons,&#039;&quot; said Lawrence Korb, Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Reagan administration. &quot;He took the lead in negotiating with the Soviets. He broke the impasse that a lot of people in government didn&#039;t want him to do it.&quot;

But it wasn&#039;t just with Gorbachev in which Reagan showed an inclination for personal involvement in foreign affairs. As George Schultz, Reagan&#039;s Secretary of State, wrote in a concluding section of his memoir &quot;Understanding Ronald Reagan&quot;: &quot;Critics said Ronald Reagan read too many letters and not enough briefing books. I often wished he would spend more time on the briefing books, mastering details more fully and following up more aggressively on the management of foreign policy. But the letters buoyed him up and also gave him a continuing sense of contact with the people.&quot;

All of which, aides and biographers say, was part of a broader decision made by Reagan that engagement, even on a non-political level, was an essential political tactic. 

&quot;He had a very strong belief in personal diplomacy.&quot; said Paul Kengor, author of &quot;The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism.&quot; Reagan placed &quot;enormous confidence in his personal ability to get along with other leaders. Reagan knew that he generally throughout his life got along well with people and they generally liked him.&quot;

Sounds like the Obama foreign policy philosophy to me...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Conservative Republicans for fifty years had tended to denigrate the importance of personal diplomacy,&#8221; said Richard Norton Smith, the former director of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, in a PBS film on the &#8216;85 summit. &#8220;It&#8217;s the legacy of the Yalta Conference and they thought Franklin Roosevelt had sold us out and then we sold out China. We were all selling out someone. The sale was usually by a president who thought if only he could get in a room with his Soviet counterpart his charm and his arguments would prevail. That was the conservative position and yet Reagan clearly believed he could do that: the force of his personality of his arguments and above all of his sincerity would impress itself upon the Soviets.&#8221;</p>
<p>Reagan went into that meeting with challenges more daunting than what U.S. faces in modern Iran. And the president&#8217;s objective &#8212; to back away from the brink of nuclear war while refusing to draw down America&#8217;s commitment to the Strategic Defense Initiative (Star Wars) &#8212; seemed, on the surface, to be an untenable proposition. But largely because of his personal touch, it was achieved. </p>
<p>&#8220;I think in terms of reaching out, Reagan went against the advice of what we would call today &#8216;the neocons,&#8217;&#8221; said Lawrence Korb, Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Reagan administration. &#8220;He took the lead in negotiating with the Soviets. He broke the impasse that a lot of people in government didn&#8217;t want him to do it.&#8221;</p>
<p>But it wasn&#8217;t just with Gorbachev in which Reagan showed an inclination for personal involvement in foreign affairs. As George Schultz, Reagan&#8217;s Secretary of State, wrote in a concluding section of his memoir &#8220;Understanding Ronald Reagan&#8221;: &#8220;Critics said Ronald Reagan read too many letters and not enough briefing books. I often wished he would spend more time on the briefing books, mastering details more fully and following up more aggressively on the management of foreign policy. But the letters buoyed him up and also gave him a continuing sense of contact with the people.&#8221;</p>
<p>All of which, aides and biographers say, was part of a broader decision made by Reagan that engagement, even on a non-political level, was an essential political tactic. </p>
<p>&#8220;He had a very strong belief in personal diplomacy.&#8221; said Paul Kengor, author of &#8220;The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism.&#8221; Reagan placed &#8220;enormous confidence in his personal ability to get along with other leaders. Reagan knew that he generally throughout his life got along well with people and they generally liked him.&#8221;</p>
<p>Sounds like the Obama foreign policy philosophy to me&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Grant Gould</title>
		<link>http://donklephant.com/2008/05/23/obama-and-mccain-may-be-considering-bloomberg/comment-page-1/#comment-408067</link>
		<dc:creator>Grant Gould</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 May 2008 17:45:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://donklephant.com/?p=5774#comment-408067</guid>
		<description>Bloomberg has yet to demonstrate that he can bring anything to the table.  His not-so-thinly-veiled self-coronation attempt with Unity08 was pretty much a total flop.  Does anyone really believe that he&#039;s got a big knapsack full of independent voters just waiting to see which way he jumps?  If he had that, he&#039;d have run himself.

McCain at least would have the excuse of money-hunting for picking Bloomberg (now there&#039;s a choice -- Bloomberg: As Rich as Romney and only half as irritating!).  For Obama it would be complete madness.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Bloomberg has yet to demonstrate that he can bring anything to the table.  His not-so-thinly-veiled self-coronation attempt with Unity08 was pretty much a total flop.  Does anyone really believe that he&#8217;s got a big knapsack full of independent voters just waiting to see which way he jumps?  If he had that, he&#8217;d have run himself.</p>
<p>McCain at least would have the excuse of money-hunting for picking Bloomberg (now there&#8217;s a choice &#8212; Bloomberg: As Rich as Romney and only half as irritating!).  For Obama it would be complete madness.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
