It's morning in Obama's America

[Admiral Yi]

I don't think so.

You think people who demagogue unfairly should be given a parade?

I think we'd have different ideas of demagoguing if it came to it. 

Hunstman said Romney enjoys firing people.  Hunstman knows that's not what Romney said and he knows that's not what Romney meant.

The only way I can see for you to get your golden boy off the hook here is to say it's not demagoguery if my guy does it.

Incidentally, Santorum was asked on CNN yesterday to respond to Romney's gaffe and chose to take the (relatively) high road.

[Sheilbh]

You think people who demagogue unfairly should be given a parade?

Only if they win.

Hunstman said Romney enjoys firing people.  Hunstman knows that's not what Romney said and he knows that's not what Romney meant.

The only way I can see for you to get your golden boy off the hook here is to say it's not demagoguery if my guy does it.

Not really I don't have issues with this sort of thing.  I think it's part of politics. 

I support Obama but I think the stuff about his 'clinging to their guns' comment, recent ads were he said 'Americans are lazy' (he was referring to Congress, in context the remarks are fine) or even Romney's anti-Obama ad showing Obama saying 'if we keep talking about the economy, we're going to lose' (it was from 2008, he was speaking about McCain) are fair game.

If you're a politician and you say something in public it will be used against you.  You need to be careful not to say things that feed into the perception of you (a la Romney and Kerry) or be very able and ready to defend yourself.  As I say what troubles me is the attack on a person or their family like Palin and Brown went through.  What you describe as demagoguing is politics, what I have problems with is when it goes beyond politics and you get the sense that one side's forgotten the other's human.

Incidentally, Santorum was asked on CNN yesterday to respond to Romney's gaffe and chose to take the (relatively) high road.

I like Santorum too.

[Admiral Yi]

Not really I don't have issues with this sort of thing.  I think it's part of politics. 

I support Obama but I think the stuff about his 'clinging to their guns' comment, recent ads were he said 'Americans are lazy' (he was referring to Congress, in context the remarks are fine) or even Romney's anti-Obama ad showing Obama saying 'if we keep talking about the economy, we're going to lose' (it was from 2008, he was speaking about McCain) are fair game.

If you're a politician and you say something in public it will be used against you.  You need to be careful not to say things that feed into the perception of you (a la Romney and Kerry) or be very able and ready to defend yourself.  As I say what troubles me is the attack on a person or their family like Palin and Brown went through.  What you describe as demagoguing is politics, what I have problems with is when it goes beyond politics and you get the sense that one side's forgotten the other's human.

Read back what you wrote and take note of the abundant use of passive voice.  You keep changing the subject back to how the game is played.  I'm talking about a moral judgement of people who knowingly make untrue statements to further their own cause.  When Rush says Obama thinks Americans are lazy he's not "playing the game," he's saying something he knows is not true.  When HuffPost and Fathead Moore run with Romney loves to fire people the same will be true of them.  And the same is true of Hunstman now.

[Sheilbh]

I'm talking about a moral judgement of people who knowingly make untrue statements to further their own cause.  When Rush says Obama thinks Americans are lazy he's not "playing the game," he's saying something he knows is not true.  When HuffPost and Fathead Moore run with Romney loves to fire people the same will be true of them.  And the same is true of Hunstman now.

I think that's morally better than personal attacks - even if they are true, or have a basis in truth.  I don't think any of these statements are untrue, I'd use Robin Butler's phrase that they're economical with the truth.  What they say is accurate they're just not giving you all the information around it.

Personally I've no time for moral judgements for this sort of thing.  It's part of politics.  I'd go further.  In theory, I'd like my politics to consist of deeply civilised, polite, policy based discourse.  I know in reality it would bore me to tears and I think it's a route to an elite stitch-up disguised as consensus.  I enjoy the blood sport nature of politics, I like attack ads and the Commons in full voice.  My view on politics are a bit like my views on the media.  I like tabloid and the tabloid sensibility in both sectors.

Having said that I've wondered before if it works in your system because you require cooperation, whereas I come from a winner takes all political system.

So Huntsman doing this doesn't bother me on a moral level (again for the most part I've very little time for morals in campaigning) but if other people see it as you do it'll be a stumble because it goes against what he's trying to sell.

[Phillip V]

Another revision. The narrative at the time was that Clinton needed to step aside early and let Obama focus on the general election; that her attacks like the March 2008 "3 AM phone call" were destroying Obama's election chances and irrevocably dividing the Democratic base.

But they didn't destroy Obama's election chance or divide the Democratic base.  Obama had to deal with the 3 AM call issue, and Jeremiah Wright, in April winning an election which was, as Raz says, far better than having to deal with it in August or, God forbid, October. 

I am not contesting what we see in hindsight now. However, during the heat of the Democratic contest in 2008, the conclusion was the opposite: that the prolonged contest was "diminishing everyone". There were ravenous calls for Clinton to withdraw and concede. Thus, I am skeptical of your observation now during the heat of the Republican primary that "The Republican primary this time seems to be diminishing everyone."

[crazy canuck]

The sort of thing Palin ... Brown had to endure is wrong.

Palin brought it on herself.

[Razgovory]

Disagree.  I think some of the attacks went over the line.  In particular the nasty rumors about her family.

[Razgovory]

Another revision. The narrative at the time was that Clinton needed to step aside early and let Obama focus on the general election; that her attacks like the March 2008 "3 AM phone call" were destroying Obama's election chances and irrevocably dividing the Democratic base.

But they didn't destroy Obama's election chance or divide the Democratic base.  Obama had to deal with the 3 AM call issue, and Jeremiah Wright, in April winning an election which was, as Raz says, far better than having to deal with it in August or, God forbid, October. 

I am not contesting what we see in hindsight now. However, during the heat of the Democratic contest in 2008, the conclusion was the opposite: that the prolonged contest was "diminishing everyone". There were ravenous calls for Clinton to withdraw and concede. Thus, I am skeptical of your observation now during the heat of the Republican primary that "The Republican primary this time seems to be diminishing everyone."

Yes and people at the time said what Shelf says now.

[garbon]

Another revision. The narrative at the time was that Clinton needed to step aside early and let Obama focus on the general election; that her attacks like the March 2008 "3 AM phone call" were destroying Obama's election chances and irrevocably dividing the Democratic base.

But they didn't destroy Obama's election chance or divide the Democratic base.  Obama had to deal with the 3 AM call issue, and Jeremiah Wright, in April winning an election which was, as Raz says, far better than having to deal with it in August or, God forbid, October. 

I am not contesting what we see in hindsight now. However, during the heat of the Democratic contest in 2008, the conclusion was the opposite: that the prolonged contest was "diminishing everyone". There were ravenous calls for Clinton to withdraw and concede. Thus, I am skeptical of your observation now during the heat of the Republican primary that "The Republican primary this time seems to be diminishing everyone."

Yes and people at the time said what Shelf says now.

Well they said it was good those things came out earlier, but I'm not sure that they were thus suggesting that the Dem primary should be long and drawn out.  More like it was fortuitous that they came out then.

[Sheilbh]

Well they said it was good those things came out earlier, but I'm not sure that they were thus suggesting that the Dem primary should be long and drawn out.  More like it was fortuitous that they came out then.

I don't think anyone thought it would be a good idea before it happened, because it had never really happened before.  I argued at the time - and I still think - that the primary sucked the oxygen out of McCain's campaign.  So the negative of the Dems not having a candidate was mitigated because no-one cared about the Republican candidate while this primary was going on.  Whereas I think in theory it should have worked the other way, McCain should've been able to build up a lead.

[Ideologue]

I still think Hillary would've made a better president.

These days?  Concur.

[Razgovory]

Well they said it was good those things came out earlier, but I'm not sure that they were thus suggesting that the Dem primary should be long and drawn out.  More like it was fortuitous that they came out then.

The GOP primary hasn't even had a chance to get drawn out yet, and it already looks like a train wreck.

[garbon]

Well they said it was good those things came out earlier, but I'm not sure that they were thus suggesting that the Dem primary should be long and drawn out.  More like it was fortuitous that they came out then.

The GOP primary hasn't even had a chance to get drawn out yet, and it already looks like a train wreck.

What does that have to do with my post?

That said, I agree. I'm not skeptical of that statement of yours. Of course, I wonder to what extent that stems from the candidates being so lackluster.

[Razgovory]

Oh, okay.  I think it's entirely due to the candidates being lackluster.  Nearly all of them have crippling short comings.

[Phillip V]

Regardless of the game, people who demagogue unfairly should be held to account.

I don't think so.  I think we'd have different ideas of demagoguing if it came to it. 

Ron Paul defends Mitt Romney on 'firing' comments.

'Speaking with reporters in New Hampshire, Ron Paul defended Mitt Romney against attacks on his comment about "firing people" -- and said any of his GOP rivals hitting Romney on the topic just don't understand the way the economy works:

'I think they're way overboard on saying that he wants to fire people and he doesn't care. I mean it seems a little weird, me coming to the defense of Romney, but I think they're wrong. I think they're totally misunderstanding of what the market works – because reorganization is a proper role. You save companies, you save jobs, you reorganize companies that are going to go bankrupt – and they don't understand. They're either just demagoguing or they don't have the vaguest idea of how the market works.'[/q]

Paul's campaign also sent out a statement on the topic shortly after he spoke, hitting Santorum, Gingrich and Huntsman for "using the language of the liberal left" in their hits on Romney.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/01/paul-defends-mitt-on-firing-comments-110362.html