So I was tlaking ot the wife, and she was remarking on the fact that I am a Republican who never seems to vote Republican, and we got to talking about this election.
I realized that I wasn't really voting for Obama because I think he is all that great personally - really, he has been mostly a significant dissapointment. I always said he had potential to be a great President, but I high likelihood of just being mediocre. Well, I think he is a lot closer to mediocre than great.
And Romeny doesn't even really bother me anymore - he did during the Primary, but that was mostly because I was really just disguested with the Tea Party bullshit, and his pandering to them. But really, he is a moderate, business oriented, pretty smart guy. Nothing really objectionable about him, but nothing really to get excited about either. Unlike Obama as a candidate in 2008, I don't think Romney has any significant "upside". What you see is what you get, and there is no real chance that once he is in office he would be excellent.
So I am left with a sitting President who I think is mediocre, even if he had potential, and a candidate who has no real potential, but no real negative potnetial either. Honestly, I think both men are...adequate.
But there is zero chance I am voting for Romney anyway. And it isn't because I am a RINO.
Rather, it is because I cannot stand the idea of rewarding the Republicans for spending the last four years holding the country hostage, and basically refusing to govern under the idea that causing the country to fail to recover is the best way of getting Obama out, and that was more important than the actual well being of the country.
More fundamentally, things like Voter ID laws and such make it clear that for the Republicans, winning is the goal, not the means to the goal. Win the election is all that matters - actually getting anything done is immaterial. That much was clear form their winning the mid-terms - they didn't want to win so they could get things done, they wanted to win so they could make sure NOTHING gets done.
SO there it is - I am not really ovting for Obama, or even against Romney. I am voting against radical partisanship and the tactics that entails.
I'm not sure I follow what this thread is about. :unsure:
Quote from: garbon on November 01, 2012, 03:05:52 PM
I'm not sure I follow what this thread is about. :unsure:
Forget it; he's on a roll.
While we're at it, why don't you come clean with your electoral confession, g?
What is there to confess?
That's some first-rate self-righteousness there, Berkut :slowclap:
Quote from: Berkut on November 01, 2012, 02:56:38 PM
So I am left with a sitting President who I think is mediocre, even if he had potential, and a candidate who has no real potential, but no real negative potnetial either.
You're not the only one; The Economist sorta feels that way, too.
QuoteOur American endorsement
Which one?
America could do better than Barack Obama; sadly, Mitt Romney does not fit the bill
Nov 3rd 2012
FOUR years ago, The Economist endorsed Barack Obama for the White House with enthusiasm. So did millions of voters. Next week Americans will trudge to the polls far less hopefully. So (in spirit at least) will this London-based newspaper. Having endured a miserably negative campaign, the world's most powerful country now has a much more difficult decision to make than it faced four years ago.
That is in large part because of the woeful nature of Mr Obama's campaign. A man who once personified hope and centrism set a new low by unleashing attacks on Mitt Romney even before the first Republican primary. Yet elections are about choosing somebody to run a country. And this choice turns on two questions: how good a president has Mr Obama been, especially on the main issues of the economy and foreign policy? And can America really trust the ever-changing Mitt Romney to do a better job? On that basis, the Democrat narrowly deserves to be re-elected.
The changeling
Mr Obama's first term has been patchy. On the economy, the most powerful argument in his favour is simply that he stopped it all being a lot worse. America was in a downward economic spiral when he took over, with its banks and carmakers in deep trouble and unemployment rising at the rate of 800,000 a month. His responses—an aggressive stimulus, bailing out General Motors and Chrysler, putting the banks through a sensible stress test and forcing them to raise capital (so that they are now in much better shape than their European peers)—helped avert a Depression. That is a hard message to sell on the doorstep when growth is sluggish and jobs scarce; but it will win Mr Obama some plaudits from history, and it does from us too.
Two other things count, on balance, in his favour. One is foreign policy, where he was also left with a daunting inheritance. Mr Obama has refocused George Bush's "war on terror" more squarely on terrorists, killing Osama bin Laden, stepping up drone strikes (perhaps too liberally, see article) and retreating from Iraq and Afghanistan (in both cases too quickly for our taste). After a shaky start with China, American diplomacy has made a necessary "pivot" towards Asia. By contrast, with both the Israeli-Palestinian dispute and his "reset" with Russia, he overreached and underdelivered. Iran has continued its worrying crawl towards nuclear weapons.
All these problems could have been anticipated. The Arab spring could not. Here Mr Obama can point to the ousting of tyrants in Egypt and Libya, but he has followed events rather than shaping them, nowhere more so than with the current carnage in Syria. Compared with, say, George Bush senior, who handled the end of the cold war, this aloof, disengaged man is no master diplomat; set beside the younger Bush, however, Mr Obama has been a safe pair of hands.
The other qualified achievement is health reform. Even to a newspaper with no love for big government, the fact that over 40m people had no health coverage in a country as rich as America was a scandal. "Obamacare" will correct that, but Mr Obama did very little to deal with the system's other flaw—its huge and unaffordable costs. He surrendered too much control to left-wing Democrats in Congress. As with the gargantuan Dodd-Frank reform of Wall Street, Obamacare has generated a tangle of red tape—and left business to deal with it all.
It is here that our doubts about Mr Obama set in. No administration in many decades has had such a poor appreciation of commerce. Previous Democrats, notably Bill Clinton, raised taxes, but still understood capitalism. Bashing business seems second nature to many of the people around Mr Obama. If he has appointed some decent people to his cabinet—Hillary Clinton at the State Department, Arne Duncan at education and Tim Geithner at the Treasury—the White House itself has too often seemed insular and left-leaning. The obstructive Republicans in Congress have certainly been a convenient excuse for many of the president's failures, but he must also shoulder some blame. Mr Obama spends regrettably little time buttering up people who disagree with him; of the 104 rounds of golf the president has played in office, only one was with a Republican congressman.
Above all, Mr Obama has shown no readiness to tackle the main domestic issue confronting the next president: America cannot continue to tax like a small government but spend like a big one. Mr Obama came into office promising to end "our chronic avoidance of tough decisions" on reforming its finances—and then retreated fast, as he did on climate change and on immigration. Disgracefully, he ignored the suggestions of the bipartisan Bowles-Simpson deficit commission that he himself set up. More tellingly, he has failed to lay out a credible plan for what he will do in the next four years. Virtually his entire campaign has been spent attacking Mr Romney, usually for his wealth and success in business.
Many a Mitt makes a muddle
Mr Obama's shortcomings have left ample room for a pragmatic Republican, especially one who could balance the books and overhaul government. Such a candidate briefly flickered across television screens in the first presidential debate. This newspaper would vote for that Mitt Romney, just as it would for the Romney who ran Democratic Massachusetts in a bipartisan way (even pioneering the blueprint for Obamacare). The problem is that there are a lot of Romneys and they have committed themselves to a lot of dangerous things.
Take foreign policy. In the debates Mr Romney stuck closely to the president on almost every issue. But elsewhere he has repeatedly taken a more bellicose line. In some cases, such as Syria and Russia (see article), this newspaper would welcome a more robust position. But Mr Romney seems too ready to bomb Iran, too uncritically supportive of Israel and cruelly wrong in his belief in "the Palestinians not wanting to see peace". The bellicosity could start on the first day of his presidency, when he has vowed to list China as a currency manipulator—a pointless provocation to its new leadership that could easily degenerate into a trade war.
Or take reducing the deficit and reforming American government. Here there is more to like about Mr Romney. He generally believes in the smaller state we would rather see; he would slash red tape and his running-mate, Paul Ryan, has dared to broach much-needed entitlement reform.
Yet far from being the voice of fiscal prudence, Mr Romney wants to start with huge tax cuts (which will disproportionately favour the wealthy), while dramatically increasing defence spending. Together those measures would add $7 trillion to the ten-year deficit. He would balance the books through eliminating loopholes (a good idea, but he will not specify which ones) and through savage cuts to programmes that help America's poor (a bad idea, which will increase inequality still further). At least Mr Obama, although he distanced himself from Bowles-Simpson, has made it clear that any long-term solution has to involve both entitlement reform and tax rises. Mr Romney is still in the cloud-cuckoo-land of thinking you can do it entirely through spending cuts: the Republican even rejected a ratio of ten parts spending cuts to one part tax rises. Backing business is important, but getting the macroeconomics right matters far more.
Mr Romney's more sensible supporters explain his fiscal policies away as necessary rubbish, concocted to persuade the fanatics who vote in the Republican primaries: the great flipflopper, they maintain, does not mean a word of it. Of course, he knows in current circumstances no sane person would really push defence spending, projected to fall below 3% of GDP, to 4%; of course President Romney would strike a deal that raises overall tax revenues, even if he cuts tax rates.
You'd better believe him
However, even if you accept that Romneynomics may be more numerate in practice than it is in theory, it is far harder to imagine that he will reverse course entirely. When politicians get elected they tend to do quite a lot of the things they promised during their campaigns. François Hollande, France's famously pliable new president, was supposed to be too pragmatic to introduce a 75% top tax rate, yet he is steaming ahead with his plan. We weren't fooled by the French left; we see no reason why the American right will be more flexible. Mr Romney, like Mr Hollande, will have his party at his back—and a long record of pandering to them.
Indeed, the extremism of his party is Mr Romney's greatest handicap. The Democrats have their implacable fringe too: look at the teachers' unions. But the Republicans have become a party of Torquemadas, forcing representatives to sign pledges never to raise taxes, to dump the chairman of the Federal Reserve and to embrace an ever more Southern-fried approach to social policy. Under President Romney, new conservative Supreme Court justices would try to overturn Roe v Wade, returning abortion policy to the states. The rights of immigrants (who have hardly had a good deal under Mr Obama) and gays (who have) would also come under threat. This newspaper yearns for the more tolerant conservatism of Ronald Reagan, where "small government" meant keeping the state out of people's bedrooms as well as out of their businesses. Mr Romney shows no sign of wanting to revive it.
The devil we know
We very much hope that whichever of these men wins office will prove our pessimism wrong. Once in the White House, maybe the Romney of the mind will become reality, cracking bipartisan deals to reshape American government, with his vice-president keeping the headbangers in the Republican Party in line. A re-elected President Obama might learn from his mistakes, clean up the White House, listen to the odd businessman and secure a legacy happier than the one he would leave after a single term. Both men have it in them to be their better selves; but the sad fact is that neither candidate has campaigned as if that is his plan.
As a result, this election offers American voters an unedifying choice. Many of The Economist's readers, especially those who run businesses in America, may well conclude that nothing could be worse than another four years of Mr Obama. We beg to differ. For all his businesslike intentions, Mr Romney has an economic plan that works only if you don't believe most of what he says. That is not a convincing pitch for a chief executive. And for all his shortcomings, Mr Obama has dragged America's economy back from the brink of disaster, and has made a decent fist of foreign policy. So this newspaper would stick with the devil it knows, and re-elect him.
Quote from: derspiess on November 01, 2012, 03:12:28 PM
That's some first-rate self-righteousness there, Berkut :slowclap:
But self-righteousness is what made America great.
Quote from: Berkut on November 01, 2012, 02:56:38 PM
....
So I am left with a sitting President who I think is mediocre, even if he had potential, and a candidate who has no real potential, but no real negative potnetial either. Honestly, I think both men are...adequate.
......
Talk about damning with faint praise; not that I thing you're wrong.
Anyway, if you do not live in a battleground state and don't like either of the two main candidates, I think the best thing to do is vote for a third party candidate that better represents your views.
Quote from: Berkut on November 01, 2012, 02:56:38 PM
NOTHING gets done.
Plenty got done.
-The historical passage of universal healthcare legislation.
-Number of troops in Afghanistan was tripled in a massive "surge".
-Unprecedented stimulus funds pumped into the economy as well as quantitative easing and bank/auto bailouts.
-Extension of Patriot Act and more anti-terrorism powers under 2011 National Defense Authorization Act
-Cap-and-trade law passed by the House, first of its kind to try and reduce carbon emissions
-Bush tax cuts extended in addition to payroll tax holiday
-Removal of Qadaffi
-Initial freeze of Israeli settlements
It's up to you to decide whether those were the right priorities to have spent time and political capital on, and whether they were executed well.
Quote from: derspiess on November 01, 2012, 03:24:58 PM
Anyway, if you do not live in a battleground state and don't like either of the two main candidates, I think the best thing to do is vote for a third party candidate that better represents your views.
The American Scipio approach.
Just start doing a national ID card. That way, you can have your Voter ID laws. Best of all, you'll have tricked he Tea Party fools who think that national ID cards are the mark of the beast or some shit.
Quote from: Valmy on November 01, 2012, 03:27:57 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 01, 2012, 03:24:58 PM
Anyway, if you do not live in a battleground state and don't like either of the two main candidates, I think the best thing to do is vote for a third party candidate that better represents your views.
The American Scipio approach.
Yeah, pretty much. Yours too, ain't it? If it's close then obviously pick the better of the two, but if it's not close in your state there's no sense in helping give the winner some sense of mandate if you don't like him.
Makes perfect sense Berkut.
I mean, from my perspective I both like Obama and think he got a lot done so I don't really agree with your starting point; but the reasoning that follows makes sense.
Maybe if Berk wasn't so partisan he wouldn't have this problem.
Good call, CdM. I was about to quote the same article.
If I were to vote in this election I wouldn't.
Quote from: The Brain on November 01, 2012, 03:34:24 PM
Maybe if Berk wasn't so partisan he wouldn't have this problem.
Self-hating Republicans are the worst.
Quote from: Valmy on November 01, 2012, 03:27:57 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 01, 2012, 03:24:58 PM
Anyway, if you do not live in a battleground state and don't like either of the two main candidates, I think the best thing to do is vote for a third party candidate that better represents your views.
The American Scipio approach.
THat's been my way of handling things. It doesn't matter in Mass who I vote for, so I used to vote Nader. Don't know about this time. Not a Green party or Libertarian.
Quote from: Berkut on November 01, 2012, 02:56:38 PM
So I was tlaking ot the wife, and she was remarking on the fact that I am a Republican who never seems to vote Republican, and we got to talking about this election.
I realized that I wasn't really voting for Obama because I think he is all that great personally - really, he has been mostly a significant dissapointment. I always said he had potential to be a great President, but I high likelihood of just being mediocre. Well, I think he is a lot closer to mediocre than great.
And Romeny doesn't even really bother me anymore - he did during the Primary, but that was mostly because I was really just disguested with the Tea Party bullshit, and his pandering to them. But really, he is a moderate, business oriented, pretty smart guy. Nothing really objectionable about him, but nothing really to get excited about either. Unlike Obama as a candidate in 2008, I don't think Romney has any significant "upside". What you see is what you get, and there is no real chance that once he is in office he would be excellent.
So I am left with a sitting President who I think is mediocre, even if he had potential, and a candidate who has no real potential, but no real negative potnetial either. Honestly, I think both men are...adequate.
But there is zero chance I am voting for Romney anyway. And it isn't because I am a RINO.
Rather, it is because I cannot stand the idea of rewarding the Republicans for spending the last four years holding the country hostage, and basically refusing to govern under the idea that causing the country to fail to recover is the best way of getting Obama out, and that was more important than the actual well being of the country.
More fundamentally, things like Voter ID laws and such make it clear that for the Republicans, winning is the goal, not the means to the goal. Win the election is all that matters - actually getting anything done is immaterial. That much was clear form their winning the mid-terms - they didn't want to win so they could get things done, they wanted to win so they could make sure NOTHING gets done.
SO there it is - I am not really ovting for Obama, or even against Romney. I am voting against radical partisanship and the tactics that entails.
I understand you completely. I have some philosophical differences with Romney which helped push me toward Obama anyway, but ultimately, I hate the way the Republicans have acted over the past four years and can't see voting for any of them in any office. I also despise the idea that they can claim to be about small government and getting government out of people's lives while still trying to outlaw gay marriage and abortion.
Quote from: Martinus on November 01, 2012, 03:38:59 PM
Good call, CdM. I was about to quote the same article.
Now you know Seedy what you did wrong.
Only 5 days to go. :)
I wonder if they'll manage putting off campaigning for the mid-terms until after the inauguration ? :unsure:
Quote from: derspiess on November 01, 2012, 03:31:47 PM
Yeah, pretty much. Yours too, ain't it? If it's close then obviously pick the better of the two, but if it's not close in your state there's no sense in helping give the winner some sense of mandate if you don't like him.
Pretty much, the Libertarians get lots of Valmy votes. I only seriously consider my vote in local elections. Though I think I bungled this year, I voted for a bond proposal I now realize was horrible. I sure hope my fellow citizens help correct my error.
I don't know about the "no upside" part Berk. I think Romney has significant upside. Here's a bit in a David Frum piece that kind of sums it up:
QuoteBut I also reject the Jonathan Chait theory that Romney personally shares the beliefs of the selfish and stupid elements of the coalition. Massachusetts Mitt - the Mitt who hurled himself into the battle for universal health coverage within his state - also came from someplace real. I believe they came from the place whence also came passages like this in Romney's book, No Apology, a book whose middle sections pretty obviously were written or dictated by the candidate himself.
Following my election as governor of Massachusetts, and knowing that I now shared responsibility for the education of hundreds of thousands of young people, I studied the education literature to gain perspective. What I found was a virtual quicksand of differing opinion in which it would be easy to sink, but what was missing was an examination of data. Instead, most writers sought to convince readers by appealing to their inherent prejudices and by recounting anecdotes that supported their particular policy preferences. ... Anecdotes are illustrative, but data is compelling – particularly if it is comprehensive and presented by an unbiased source. (201)
Getty
I liked the bit about the data, but even more the calm acceptance of "responsibility." Romney has demonstrated an ability to absorb and process information we've seen in no Republican candidate for president since Dwight Eisenhower. And the finest accomplishment of his governorship, Romneycare, is the work of a man who takes seriously the obligations that society owes to each and every one of its members, the 47% as well as the 53%. Romney has the capacity to excel at the job of president.
And now that I look at the article again, he has the same objection you do about congressional republicans, but comes to the opposite result:
QuoteThe question over his head is not a question about him at all. It's a question about his party - and that question is the same whether Romney wins or loses. The congressional Republicans have shown themselves a destructive and irrational force in American politics. But we won't reform the congressional GOP by re-electing President Obama. If anything, an Obama re-election will not only aggravate the extremism of the congressional GOP, but also empower them: an Obama re-election raises the odds in favor of big sixth-year sweep for the congressional GOP - and very possibly a seventh-year impeachment. A Romney election will at least discourage the congressional GOP from deliberately pushing the US into recession in 2013. Added bonus: a Romney presidency likely means that the congressional GOP will lose seats in 2014, as they deserve.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/01/why-i-ll-vote-for-romney.html
Quote from: Valmy on November 01, 2012, 04:08:39 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 01, 2012, 03:31:47 PM
Yeah, pretty much. Yours too, ain't it? If it's close then obviously pick the better of the two, but if it's not close in your state there's no sense in helping give the winner some sense of mandate if you don't like him.
Pretty much, the Libertarians get lots of Valmy votes. I only seriously consider my vote in local elections. Though I think I bungled this year, I voted for a bond proposal I now realize was horrible. I sure hope my fellow citizens help correct my error.
I voted in favor of both county levy renewals. They're fairly modest and do a little to help out old people, drug addicts and crazies :mellow:
Quote from: Barrister on November 01, 2012, 04:13:57 PM
QuoteThe question over his head is not a question about him at all. It's a question about his party - and that question is the same whether Romney wins or loses. The congressional Republicans have shown themselves a destructive and irrational force in American politics. But we won't reform the congressional GOP by re-electing President Obama. If anything, an Obama re-election will not only aggravate the extremism of the congressional GOP, but also empower them: an Obama re-election raises the odds in favor of big sixth-year sweep for the congressional GOP - and very possibly a seventh-year impeachment. A Romney election will at least discourage the congressional GOP from deliberately pushing the US into recession in 2013. Added bonus: a Romney presidency likely means that the congressional GOP will lose seats in 2014, as they deserve.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/01/why-i-ll-vote-for-romney.html
If the GOP proves that this is a successful strategy, why shouldn't the Dems follow it if Romney wins? If we follow this advice, the Dems might as well hang up their hats and leave. If they win elections they will be obstructed at every possible turn and prevented from governing, and if they lose they will be expected to be bipartisan and let the Republicans have their way because democrats are apparently the only adults in the room. What is the point for Dems to run for office at all?
Raz, if it is all down to Republican obstructionism, what was the reason for the failure of the Pelosi-Reid Connection?
Quote from: garbon on November 01, 2012, 04:44:22 PM
Raz, if it is all down to Republican obstructionism, what was the reason for the failure of the Pelosi-Reid Connection?
Why don't you tell me what that is first.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 01, 2012, 04:46:07 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 01, 2012, 04:44:22 PM
Raz, if it is all down to Republican obstructionism, what was the reason for the failure of the Pelosi-Reid Connection?
Why don't you tell me what that is first.
The period of time when Obama first arrived, the Dems in charge across the board still had difficulties rallying their troops.
Quote from: garbon on November 01, 2012, 04:47:39 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 01, 2012, 04:46:07 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 01, 2012, 04:44:22 PM
Raz, if it is all down to Republican obstructionism, what was the reason for the failure of the Pelosi-Reid Connection?
Why don't you tell me what that is first.
The period of time when Obama first arrived, the Dems in charge across the board still had difficulties rallying their troops.
Yeah. I totally blame Pelosi for that whole mess. Maybe it's just personal dislike of the woman, but it seemed like she had no idea what she was doing, and certainly no clue how to get anything pulled together and passed.
Quote from: garbon on November 01, 2012, 04:47:39 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 01, 2012, 04:46:07 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 01, 2012, 04:44:22 PM
Raz, if it is all down to Republican obstructionism, what was the reason for the failure of the Pelosi-Reid Connection?
Why don't you tell me what that is first.
The period of time when Obama first arrived, the Dems in charge across the board still had difficulties rallying their troops.
They could get simple majorities, they couldn't get the numbers to overcome filibusters.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 01, 2012, 04:58:24 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 01, 2012, 04:47:39 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 01, 2012, 04:46:07 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 01, 2012, 04:44:22 PM
Raz, if it is all down to Republican obstructionism, what was the reason for the failure of the Pelosi-Reid Connection?
Why don't you tell me what that is first.
The period of time when Obama first arrived, the Dems in charge across the board still had difficulties rallying their troops.
They could get simple majorities, they couldn't get the numbers to overcome filibusters.
So we can't expect anything from government even if one party has the Presidency and almost super-majorities in Congress. :lol:
The key word here is "almost". Tell me Phil, why shouldn't Dems obstruct every bill that Republicans propose if they lose this election?
Quote from: Razgovory on November 01, 2012, 05:04:13 PM
The key word here is "almost". Tell me Phil, why shouldn't Dems obstruct every bill that Republicans propose if they lose this election?
No idea what Dems or Repubs can or should do. We need to see the breakdown of Congressional seats and situation of the economy in 2013.
Quote from: Barrister on November 01, 2012, 04:13:57 PM
I don't know about the "no upside" part Berk. I think Romney has significant upside.
BB = More conservative than Neil, and yet somehow, sillier.
QuoteHere's a bit in a David Frum piece that kind of sums it up:
David Frum :bleeding:
QuoteAnd now that I look at the article again, he has the same objection you do about congressional republicans, but comes to the opposite result:
QuoteThe question over his head is not a question about him at all. It's a question about his party - and that question is the same whether Romney wins or loses. The congressional Republicans have shown themselves a destructive and irrational force in American politics. But we won't reform the congressional GOP by re-electing President Obama. If anything, an Obama re-election will not only aggravate the extremism of the congressional GOP, but also empower them: an Obama re-election raises the odds in favor of big sixth-year sweep for the congressional GOP - and very possibly a seventh-year impeachment. A Romney election will at least discourage the congressional GOP from deliberately pushing the US into recession in 2013. Added bonus: a Romney presidency likely means that the congressional GOP will lose seats in 2014, as they deserve.
Once again, your foreignness totally blinds you. With the exception of the usual mid-term losses, that is as totally off the wall a hypothesis as Obama "destroying freedom".
They get the White House, they're going into feeding frenzy mode, and emboldening the growth of the Teabaggers even more.
Quote from: Berkut on November 01, 2012, 02:56:38 PM
So I was tlaking ot the wife, and she was remarking on the fact that I am a Republican who never seems to vote Republican, and we got to talking about this election.
I realized that I wasn't really voting for Obama because I think he is all that great personally - really, he has been mostly a significant dissapointment. I always said he had potential to be a great President, but I high likelihood of just being mediocre. Well, I think he is a lot closer to mediocre than great.
And Romeny doesn't even really bother me anymore - he did during the Primary, but that was mostly because I was really just disguested with the Tea Party bullshit, and his pandering to them. But really, he is a moderate, business oriented, pretty smart guy. Nothing really objectionable about him, but nothing really to get excited about either. Unlike Obama as a candidate in 2008, I don't think Romney has any significant "upside". What you see is what you get, and there is no real chance that once he is in office he would be excellent.
So I am left with a sitting President who I think is mediocre, even if he had potential, and a candidate who has no real potential, but no real negative potnetial either. Honestly, I think both men are...adequate.
But there is zero chance I am voting for Romney anyway. And it isn't because I am a RINO.
Rather, it is because I cannot stand the idea of rewarding the Republicans for spending the last four years holding the country hostage, and basically refusing to govern under the idea that causing the country to fail to recover is the best way of getting Obama out, and that was more important than the actual well being of the country.
More fundamentally, things like Voter ID laws and such make it clear that for the Republicans, winning is the goal, not the means to the goal. Win the election is all that matters - actually getting anything done is immaterial. That much was clear form their winning the mid-terms - they didn't want to win so they could get things done, they wanted to win so they could make sure NOTHING gets done.
SO there it is - I am not really ovting for Obama, or even against Romney. I am voting against radical partisanship and the tactics that entails.
Seems like you're taking this hard. Lay off the bottle, Berkut.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 01, 2012, 05:16:24 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 01, 2012, 04:13:57 PM
I don't know about the "no upside" part Berk. I think Romney has significant upside.
BB = More conservative than Neil, and yet somehow, sillier.
QuoteHere's a bit in a David Frum piece that kind of sums it up:
David Frum :bleeding:
QuoteAnd now that I look at the article again, he has the same objection you do about congressional republicans, but comes to the opposite result:
QuoteThe question over his head is not a question about him at all. It's a question about his party - and that question is the same whether Romney wins or loses. The congressional Republicans have shown themselves a destructive and irrational force in American politics. But we won't reform the congressional GOP by re-electing President Obama. If anything, an Obama re-election will not only aggravate the extremism of the congressional GOP, but also empower them: an Obama re-election raises the odds in favor of big sixth-year sweep for the congressional GOP - and very possibly a seventh-year impeachment. A Romney election will at least discourage the congressional GOP from deliberately pushing the US into recession in 2013. Added bonus: a Romney presidency likely means that the congressional GOP will lose seats in 2014, as they deserve.
Once again, your foreignness totally blinds you. With the exception of the usual mid-term losses, that is as totally off the wall a hypothesis as Obama "destroying freedom".
They get the White House, they're going into feeding frenzy mode, and emboldening the growth of the Teabaggers even more.
Why? If Republicans control Congress and the White House they're now pretty much obliged to go work together. And as Frum points out, it's almost inevitable that the party not holding the White House picks up seats in off-year elections.
You can play the Raz blame game and say "I don't want to reward House Republicans", but you have to vote based on the facts as they are, not on the facts as you wish they'd be.
I expect them to obstruct. I would expect the Dems to do the same if Romney wins. If that happens, I'm confident that they will as much as they can.
Quote from: Barrister on November 01, 2012, 05:27:17 PM
Why? If Republicans control Congress and the White House they're now pretty much obliged to go work together. And as Frum points out, it's almost inevitable that the party not holding the White House picks up seats in off-year elections.
"Obligated" to work together? Says fucking who?
You seem to operate under the assumption that Romney possesses the vertebrae to corral the Tea Baggers to whom he's promised everything to--including the Vice Presidency--on his way to this point, from personhood bullshit to cutting taxes, from gay rights to repealing even the most basic Federal initiatives, let alone the big ones except for defense. Who the fuck says they're going to be "obligated" to work together with anybody?
Just because he's out right lied afterwards, or invented shit in the middle of debates, or his campaign has had to issue corrections after public statements, doesn't change the fact that he possesses something even worse than principles: a complete and total lack of them. He will be a rubber fucking stamp for the worse of the GOP's ideas. All he wants is the Presidency, because it's the Presidency. He believes in nothing, except saying, doing and promising anything to anybody to get there.
QuoteYou can play the Raz blame game and say "I don't want to reward House Republicans", but you have to vote based on the facts as they are, not on the facts as you wish they'd be.
What the fuck does this even fucking mean, Rumsfeld?
I"ll vote for Romney because Obama and I are just too far apart on economic issues and too far apart on how we look at the role of government.
I'll also say that as a conservative Republican that spent years defending much of Bush's activity during the GWOT in some ways Obama has actually gotten scarier on the civil liberties front than Bush did. I was a long view kind of guy on the USA PATRIOT Act and stuff like that. I've read my history, I know that during times of existential threat, the Civil War, World War II, the early stages of the Cold War, America has a tendency to give civil liberties short shrift. But in the long run, we have a strongly democratic and civil libertarian culture. The excesses of Lincoln and Roosevelt were mostly a product of tough times and were reined in to a large degree after their Presidencies were over.
Near the end of Bush's term I felt we had reached that point, the initial response to 9/11 I agreed with in that regard, but it was time to move on. In retrospect I disagreed with the realpolitik and the practicality of invading Iraq, but to my dying day I'll never understand the liberal position that once we had fucked up that country out duty was to cut tail and run and leave it a huge mess. I think whether you agreed with Iraq or not, once we had done the deed it was gravely immoral to just up and leave, and I'm glad Bush stayed and glad the surge happened. I think it's why Iraq at least has a chance (and it's been unequivocally good for Kurdistan)--hard to say how Iraq turns out long term.
But anyway, in regard to the GWOT Obama has gotten, to say the least "scary." His use of drone warfare is both appropriate but disturbing. So we killed al-Awlaki, an American citizen, without any attempt at capture or trial. Basically an assassination, but based on what I've seen al-Awlaki was "operationally" involved in al-Qaeda. He was an armed belligerent just as much as Confederate soldiers marching into Pennsylvania, and you don't put guys like that on trial. You don't hold trials on the battlefield, you kill people on the battlefield. The 21st century has a different type of battlefield than the 19th. But where I diverge is awhile after we killed al-Awlaki, in a separate targeted drone strike we killed his 16 year old son, along with other teenage boys. I don't know that that sits right with me. In recent days some members of the press actually cornered an Obama campaign toady and the guy responded that "he should have had a more responsible father." I don't know that even George W. Bush would have had 16 year olds on targeted assassination lists.
You know why I'm voting Romney? I'm sick of Michelle Obama. Brak is ok, she is a bitch.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 01, 2012, 05:52:50 PM
I'm sick of Michelle Obama. Brak is ok, she is a bitch.
Hey now. Brak owes everything to her. She was the main breadwinner until he became President/candidate.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 01, 2012, 05:41:02 PM
All he wants is the Presidency, because it's the Presidency. He believes in nothing, except saying, doing and promising anything to anybody to get there.
So he's Obama?
On the issue of Republicans, I think Democrats have blinders on in regards to a lot of stuff. They cry about Citizens United but are fine with the 60+ year relationship with the Democratic party and Big Labor. If you actually read any part of that history or truly come to understand the relationship between the Democratic Party and Big Labor I don't see how you can't condemn that as corrupt and an underhanded way to manipulate votes. Yeah, Voter I.D.'s motivation is wrong, but factually speaking I can't get upset about the concept that you should prove who you are in order to vote. Yes, I understand motive matters, but the actual particulars to me just aren't egregious. Yes, it's shitty to push it because you know it'll make people you don't want to vote not vote, but at the same time the intrinsic requirement to prove who you are at the ballot box really isn't a bad thing.
Democrats and their infamous "ground game" is just as bad as anything Republicans do, rounding up homeless people and giving them pint bottles of cheap liquor to entice them into voting on election day, and various other forms of graft. Every state Democratic party I'm familiar with is as corrupt as the day is long, in many states worse than their Republican counterparts (they openly steal elections in West Virginia--don't take my word for it, two guys are in Federal prison for election fraud out of there.) And in our system the State parties are the ones who control elections, so while we can point to some stuff Republicans do that are shitty in regard to elections, my view is that both parties are shitty in that regard. Both engage in skullduggery, both tilt things to their favor. In every State where I'm familiar with local government, the party in power be it Democrat or Republican uses every trick in the book to try and gerrymander the shit out of the whole State to perpetuate their power. It's just being partisan when you cry about the Republicans doing this and not the Democrats.
So to me the current problem with my party is ideological, the process stuff is irrelevant. The Democrats have more noisy journalists and more of them, and more internet presence, so we see more about the Republicans in that light but as a life long observer of state-level politics I laugh when I hear Democrats bitch about corrupt Republican election practices.
Ideologically, the core of the Republican party ethos I supported since the 80s I still support. I'd still vote for George H.W. Bush twice, hell I'd even vote for his son again with a bit more hesitation. But we've picked up a lot of baggage and intractability since '88 and '92.
I think the core problem with the Republican party is we've lost all flexibility, and until that is fixed we are going to move more and more extreme and become less and less palatable to the rest of the country. I think it can be summed up as "too many sacred cows." We have too many sacred cows:
Abortion - If you aren't 100% pro-life, and leaning towards forcing women to carry rape babies and ban birth control you violate this sacred cow and can't run as a Republican.
Taxes - If you aren't 100% committed to never increasing any form of taxes on any person ever under any circumstances, you violate this sacred cow and can't run as a Republican.
Defense - If you aren't 100% committed to continual expansion of defense spending, you violate this sacred cow and can't run as a Republican.
Immigration - If you aren't 100% against all browns coming up from the south, and aren't immediately in favor of all current browns being rounded up summarily and shipped out, you violate this sacred cow and can't run as a Republican.
Those are the big sacred cows, there might be others. But you take those four sacred cows, then combined it with the more traditional Republican values (pro-business, anti-economic interventionism, more limited services in exchange for lowered taxes and more emphasis on private solutions and market solutions etc) you create a ideological matrix that basically only a crazy schizophrenic person could generally adhere to, so in order to get on the ballot as a Republican you basically have to be something you aren't. You have to be everything to every body.
I don't believe Mitt Romney is the guy he has campaigned as, based on his life history I think Mitt probably holds the following views: He thinks abortion is deeply immoral but probably shouldn't be illegal, he doesn't have a problem with insurance paying for birth control. He is very pro-business and in favor of lowering taxes, but he leans more towards balanced budget than supply-side theories and is ideologically not opposed to some tax increases. He's also a big fan of government fees, which are really a form of user tax. I don't think he has strong feelings on foreign policy or defense, I think he's just adopted the Republican sacred cow position in that regard. On immigration I think he probably likewise doesn't have strong feelings, and is just saying what he has to say to be a Republican candidate.
But the problem is, I think Mitt has the right ideology to be a President I could support, but I don't actually expect much out of a Mitt Presidency. Why? Because of those sacred cows. They aren't just lies you have to tell to get elected. Those sacred cows dominate all Senate and House races. Republican Congressmen and Senators live and die by those sacred cows. It doesn't matter that Mitt might be a little more reasonable, his Republican congressmen can't afford to be reasonable with him, because violating those sacred cows will result in them facing a brutal primary battle from some crazed ideologue who is likely to knock them out of the race.
So I'll still vote for Romney because I don't support Obama (and I could go on for a lot longer about why), I do think Romney will run the executive better. I think things that can be controlled by executive order, he'll do a good job at. But unlike in Massachusetts, I don't think Romney is going to be able to build any sort of bipartisan coalition to get reasonable policies passed. I think his legislative record will be a lot like Obama's. A few big things he wants would get passed, but by and large you'd have intractable gridlock (in many cases from his own party.)
By the way...to a degree that is what happened to Obama. The first two years in office a lot of really conservative Democrats helped the Dems control the House because they came from very conservative, traditionally Republican districts where people had gotten really disgusted with the GOP either back in '06 or in '08 itself. They weren't DINOs but they did have some shared ideology with the worst parts of the Republican party, and had their sacred cows. They were not willing to compromise or work with the President on a lot of issues, so that is by and large why they couldn't get stuff done. (The Dems actually had enough votes in the Senate several times to overcome filibustering, by the way. Their rebellious House caucus had more to do with the paucity of legislation.)
Quote from: Barrister on November 01, 2012, 05:27:17 PM
Why? If Republicans control Congress and the White House they're now pretty much obliged to go work together. And as Frum points out, it's almost inevitable that the party not holding the White House picks up seats in off-year elections.
You can play the Raz blame game and say "I don't want to reward House Republicans", but you have to vote based on the facts as they are, not on the facts as you wish they'd be.
So if the Democrats emulate the Republicans in a successful strategy of obstruction, would it then be right to vote for the Democrats?
Quote from: Razgovory on November 01, 2012, 06:06:08 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 01, 2012, 05:27:17 PM
Why? If Republicans control Congress and the White House they're now pretty much obliged to go work together. And as Frum points out, it's almost inevitable that the party not holding the White House picks up seats in off-year elections.
You can play the Raz blame game and say "I don't want to reward House Republicans", but you have to vote based on the facts as they are, not on the facts as you wish they'd be.
So if the Democrats emulate the Republicans in a successful strategy of obstruction, would it then be right to vote for the Democrats?
This is one of those situations where hypotheticals aren't real useful.
The question is - who should you vote for in 2012.
Who would you vote for if the Bull Moose Party was running really doesn't add much to the discussion.
Okay, I'll ask you the same question next week, maybe it'll be less hypothetical if Romney wins.
Quote from: Kleves on November 01, 2012, 06:00:07 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 01, 2012, 05:41:02 PM
All he wants is the Presidency, because it's the Presidency. He believes in nothing, except saying, doing and promising anything to anybody to get there.
So he's Obama?
No, he's not.
You may not like what he delivered, whether it was healthcare reform or the way he recapitalized the banks or the mini-stim of 2010, but he's delivered on what he's said to deliver, as much as he's been able to, considering today's Congress.
What Mittens' problem is, is that Mittens has promised multiple deliveries on any given topic, from Severe Conservative to Moderate Mittens. It's all just a dartboard trying to figure out this guy. Obama's a lefty, has delivered as a lefty, and can be reasonably believed that he will continue to be a lefty in a 2nd term. Whether or not you're comfortable with that, hey, that's your political philosophy. But at least you have a reliable barometer on where he is on the map.
Never thought I'd say it, but I'd actually prefer Dubya over this guy--I disagreed with a lot of his Administration's moves, but at least he laid out in front of you what he believed, what he was going to do, and then he went out and fucking did it. For all his faults, at least he had his convictions and stuck with them, come hell or high water.
But this guy? He's just bad news.
I agree with what you said 100% Berkut, and it's why I voted Democrat for the first time this election.
The Republicans in congress simply cannot be rewarded for their atrocious behavior, made worse by the fact that Obama's mostly governed as what would have been considered a moderate Republican just 10 years ago.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 01, 2012, 06:17:31 PM
Quote from: Kleves on November 01, 2012, 06:00:07 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 01, 2012, 05:41:02 PM
All he wants is the Presidency, because it's the Presidency. He believes in nothing, except saying, doing and promising anything to anybody to get there.
So he's Obama?
No, he's not.
You may not like what he delivered, whether it was healthcare reform or the way he recapitalized the banks or the mini-stim of 2010, but he's delivered on what he's said to deliver, as much as he's been able to, considering today's Congress.
What Mittens' problem is, is that Mittens has promised multiple deliveries on any given topic, from Severe Conservative to Moderate Mittens. It's all just a dartboard trying to figure out this guy. Obama's a lefty, has delivered as a lefty, and can be reasonably believed that he will continue to be a lefty in a 2nd term. Whether or not you're comfortable with that, hey, that's your political philosophy. But at least you have a reliable barometer on where he is on the map.
Never thought I'd say it, but I'd actually prefer Dubya over this guy--I disagreed with a lot of his Administration's moves, but at least he laid out in front of you what he believed, what he was going to do, and then he went out and fucking did it. For all his faults, at least he had his convictions and stuck with them, come hell or high water.
But this guy? He's just bad news.
Hell no. Bush and his "convictions" were a disaster.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 01, 2012, 06:17:31 PM
Quote from: Kleves on November 01, 2012, 06:00:07 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 01, 2012, 05:41:02 PM
All he wants is the Presidency, because it's the Presidency. He believes in nothing, except saying, doing and promising anything to anybody to get there.
So he's Obama?
No, he's not.
You may not like what he delivered, whether it was healthcare reform or the way he recapitalized the banks or the mini-stim of 2010, but he's delivered on what he's said to deliver, as much as he's been able to, considering today's Congress.
What Mittens' problem is, is that Mittens has promised multiple deliveries on any given topic, from Severe Conservative to Moderate Mittens. It's all just a dartboard trying to figure out this guy. Obama's a lefty, has delivered as a lefty, and can be reasonably believed that he will continue to be a lefty in a 2nd term. Whether or not you're comfortable with that, hey, that's your political philosophy. But at least you have a reliable barometer on where he is on the map.
Never thought I'd say it, but I'd actually prefer Dubya over this guy--I disagreed with a lot of his Administration's moves, but at least he laid out in front of you what he believed, what he was going to do, and then he went out and fucking did it. For all his faults, at least he had his convictions and stuck with them, come hell or high water.
But this guy? He's just bad news.
In what world is Obama a lefty? He's center of the spectrum by any unbiased measure. On some issues he's further right than GWB was.
That's mostly why I don't "fear" another Obama term. He proved with his first term he's not an ideological lefty. He always "spoke like one" on the campaign trail in 2008, but that was just in his rhetoric. If you look at his campaign positions they were mostly middle of the road Clinton-type moderate Democratic positions.
He came out for gay marriage when polling showed him it wouldn't hurt him in any States that mattered and might help him in States where it would. Romney is a cat of many colors but Obama has picked electability over all things in the entirety of his first term in office.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 01, 2012, 05:52:50 PM
You know why I'm voting Romney? I'm sick of Michelle Obama. Brak is ok, she is a bitch.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsnakkle.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F03%2Fmichelle-obama-nerds-young-photo-GC.jpg&hash=c454ff0c3fd03f1b1d7ff71f8b3bb7d5644a8844)
WATCH IT SUCKA
Quote from: derspiess on November 01, 2012, 06:31:52 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 01, 2012, 05:52:50 PM
You know why I'm voting Romney? I'm sick of Michelle Obama. Brak is ok, she is a bitch.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsnakkle.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F03%2Fmichelle-obama-nerds-young-photo-GC.jpg&hash=c454ff0c3fd03f1b1d7ff71f8b3bb7d5644a8844)
WATCH IT SUCKA
Brak could have done soooooo much better.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 01, 2012, 06:36:53 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 01, 2012, 06:31:52 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 01, 2012, 05:52:50 PM
You know why I'm voting Romney? I'm sick of Michelle Obama. Brak is ok, she is a bitch.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsnakkle.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F03%2Fmichelle-obama-nerds-young-photo-GC.jpg&hash=c454ff0c3fd03f1b1d7ff71f8b3bb7d5644a8844)
WATCH IT SUCKA
Brak could have done soooooo much better.
He had several white girlfriends. Was Michelle is first and only black woman?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 01, 2012, 06:20:16 PM
I agree with what you said 100% Berkut, and it's why I voted Democrat for the first time this election.
The Republicans in congress simply cannot be rewarded for their atrocious behavior, made worse by the fact that Obama's mostly governed as what would have been considered a moderate Republican just 10 years ago.
:nelson: @Languish Obama supporters. Consider yourselves tainted.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 01, 2012, 06:28:41 PM
In what world is Obama a lefty? He's center of the spectrum by any unbiased measure. On some issues he's further right than GWB was.
You just said it: he's proved he's not an "ideological" lefty.
Now, he's certainly not left enough for the Bill Mahers of the world or the MoveOn.orgs, but he's just enough left for me, with a splash of rightie in decent doses.
Comfortable. Deliberate. Not Severely Liberal. "Clinton-type moderate Democratic positions", as you say. Which is fine by me.
Quote from: derspiess on November 01, 2012, 06:40:26 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 01, 2012, 06:20:16 PM
I agree with what you said 100% Berkut, and it's why I voted Democrat for the first time this election.
The Republicans in congress simply cannot be rewarded for their atrocious behavior, made worse by the fact that Obama's mostly governed as what would have been considered a moderate Republican just 10 years ago.
:nelson: @Languish Obama supporters. Consider yourselves tainted.
:lol:
Quote from: Phillip V on November 01, 2012, 06:40:11 PM
He had several white girlfriends. Was Michelle is first and only black woman?
Some of the white gfs were made-up, or "composites" but yeah, AFAIK Michelle was his first.
Hmm, maybe you really never do go back :hmm:
Maybe you people need to fucking crop your posts. It's a fucking Michelle Obama 10th grade film strip in here.
:lol:
:lol:
:lol: I miss film strips.
Quote from: Phillip V on November 01, 2012, 06:40:11 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 01, 2012, 06:36:53 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 01, 2012, 06:31:52 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 01, 2012, 05:52:50 PM
You know why I'm voting Romney? I'm sick of Michelle Obama. Brak is ok, she is a bitch.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsnakkle.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F03%2Fmichelle-obama-nerds-young-photo-GC.jpg&hash=c454ff0c3fd03f1b1d7ff71f8b3bb7d5644a8844)
WATCH IT SUCKA
Brak could have done soooooo much better.
He had several white girlfriends. Was Michelle is first and only black woman?
She's looking at you, CDM.
Alright, that does it.
Quote from: Kleves on November 01, 2012, 06:00:07 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 01, 2012, 05:41:02 PM
All he wants is the Presidency, because it's the Presidency. He believes in nothing, except saying, doing and promising anything to anybody to get there.
So he's Obama?
I don't think so. As I've said before, for me the biggest problem with Romney is I don't think he has the character suitable for any elected office, far less President. The guy decided to completely overhaul his political identity in 2006 because he saw Giuliani and McCain running and thought there was a gap in the market for a social conservative candidate of the base. Unfortunately he was a relatively moderate, mildly successful bipartisan Governor of a blue state. But there was no self-abnegation Romney wouldn't go through, no part of his past he wouldn't renounce and no virtue he wouldn't denounce to win the nomination. I think he'll lose and deserves to lose, but I've moved from contempt to pity with Romney. He's shown in the last three weeks what a moderate Republican Governor could do in this race, if he'd had the courage of his convictions these for these last 6 years of running, rather than just these last 6 weeks - or perhaps the convictions in the first place - he'd be running away with this and deservedly so (so, incidentally would Huntsman).
If anything I think Obama's got the opposite problem. That weird role of Valerie Jarrett as his conscience in the White House prodding him into being this 'transformational' figure. The view I have, and many Brits (including the Spectator and many Tories) share, is that he's a Tory President. He reminds me of a pragmatic, one nation Tory and that 'no drama Obama' line reminds me of the sign MacMillan put on his office door, 'quiet, calm deliberations disentangles every knot'. In terms of Presidents he most reminds me of GHW Bush - and I mean that as a compliment and as with Bush I think the Economist's right that history will rate him more highly. But I think this niggling left-liberal whinging has led him into a position where he's running as, and looks like, a disappointing left-wing President rather than, in my view, what he is which is a relatively successful centrist President.
You see this every time when the White House position starts as ultimately pretty centrist - healthcare reform or stimulus for example - then the left get excited and the White House nudge and wink at them. The rhetoric gets a bit more strident. Then everyone starts to think they're going to be more bold and ideological. Then they ultimately get, roughly, the centrist proposals they initially made. The left feel disappointed and everyone else feels that the White House were pushing for something far more radical than it was. It's baffling.
I would add that I agree with OvB. I've always thought lefties who moan about Obama disappointing weren't paying attention during the campaign. They were over-excited by the campaign and the fact that he was black to realise that he was roughly were Clinton was and, on some issues (such as healthcare) to her left. The real liberal candidate was Edwards. The one significant exception to that in my view are civil libertarians who have been entirely betrayed and let down and are justified in their anger.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 01, 2012, 06:53:59 PM
I don't think so. As I've said before, for me the biggest problem with Romney is I don't think he has the character suitable for any elected office, far less President. The guy decided to completely overhaul his political identity in 2006 because he saw Giuliani and McCain running and thought there was a gap in the market for a social conservative candidate of the base. Unfortunately he was a relatively moderate, mildly successful bipartisan Governor of a blue state. But there was no self-abnegation Romney wouldn't go through, no part of his past he wouldn't renounce and no virtue he wouldn't denounce to win the nomination. I think he'll lose and deserves to lose, but I've moved from contempt to pity with Romney. He's shown in the last three weeks what a moderate Republican Governor could do in this race, if he'd had the courage of his convictions these for these last 6 years of running, rather than just these last 6 weeks - or perhaps the convictions in the first place - he'd be running away with this and deservedly so (so, incidentally would Huntsman).
100% wishful thinking on your part. Huntsman or a Huntsman-like Romney would do nothing for the GOP base, which would stay home. Obama would win in a landslide.
Quote from: derspiess on November 01, 2012, 07:07:21 PM
100% wishful thinking on your part. Huntsman or a Huntsman-like Romney would do nothing for the GOP base, which would stay home. Obama would win in a landslide.
They've not minded Mitt's sudden turn to the centre.
Also I'd note that Mitt's biggest critics during the primary were the sort of 'voices of the base', rather than NYT columnist conservatives like Brooks and Douthat. Since he's become the nominee that's been reversed. Also in states were the more moderate, non-Tea Party candidate has won the primary generally the Tea Party and base have swung behind them. I see no reason why that wouldn't happen on a national level with an opponent they dislike as fiercely as Obama.
In addition, of course, a moderate Republican like Mitt in the last few weeks or like Huntsman would be winning independent and centrist votes, maybe dissatisfied Democrats - who knows even some Latinos.
As a total aside the way the Republican Right has primaried candidates and taken over the House really reminds me of entryist Trots like Militant Faction in Labour in the 80s. I think there needs to be blood on the carpet at the next Republican convention.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 01, 2012, 06:53:59 PM
Quote from: Kleves on November 01, 2012, 06:00:07 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 01, 2012, 05:41:02 PM
All he wants is the Presidency, because it's the Presidency. He believes in nothing, except saying, doing and promising anything to anybody to get there.
So he's Obama?
If anything I think Obama's got the opposite problem. That weird role of Valerie Jarrett as his conscience in the White House prodding him into being this 'transformational' figure. The view I have, and many Brits (including the Spectator and many Tories) share, is that he's a Tory President. He reminds me of a pragmatic, one nation Tory and that 'no drama Obama' line reminds me of the sign MacMillan put on his office door, 'quiet, calm deliberations disentangles every knot'. In terms of Presidents he most reminds me of GHW Bush - and I mean that as a compliment and as with Bush I think the Economist's right that history will rate him more highly. But I think this niggling left-liberal whinging has led him into a position where he's running as, and looks like, a disappointing left-wing President rather than, in my view, what he is which is a relatively successful centrist President.
I like centrist and moderate. The question is whether it is well-managed moderation or mediocre moderation.
-Universal healthcare is great. But is there cost control?
-War in Afghanistan was justified. But what will this quick tripling of troops and soon quick pullback accomplish?
-There was/is a need for stimulus. But are the projects and recipients well-chosen and distributed to?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 01, 2012, 06:17:31 PM
You may not like what he delivered, whether it was healthcare reform or the way he recapitalized the banks or the mini-stim of 2010, but he's delivered on what he's said to deliver, as much as he's been able to, considering today's Congress.
None of those are the reason Obama is running today, or why he ran in '08. Healthcare was Hillary's thing that Obama got pushed into during the primary (IIRC). TARP was Bush's. Frankly, I don't know what Obama wants to do with a second term, other than he wants to keep being President and has put out some small ideas that poll-tested well to accomplish that.
Of course, small ideas that poll-test well might be better than Mitt's batshit crazy ideas, but that's a different conversation.
I have the feeling that Obama is going to be nearly worthless in his second term. Yes children, I think he is gonna win.
You like centrist and moderate but you're supporting a candidate whose policy positions are neither. I don't believe that there's a real Mitt who is actually a conviction moderate who would pass universal healthcare, but better; manage Afghanistan, but better; do stimulus, but better. In my view if he's not his views are very conservative, if he is then he's been lying constantly for these past six years and doesn't deserve to be in office.
To take those points by turn:
1 - Yes there is cost control, such as the death panels and the cut in Medicare being campaigned against by the Republicans. I'd also point to every other developed country all of which have some form of universal healthcare or other (Obamacare most resembles the Swiss system) and all of which have far lower healthcare inflation than the US. In addition Romney passed universal healthcare in his state and, in 2008, when it was a big issue he proposed it as a model for the nation. Now it is he has literally no healthcare policy beyond repealing Obamacare. So the Republican line is actually universal healthcare isn't great. End it now and replace it with...nothing.
2 -I think withdrawal is inevitable and it's only a matter of time. The war in Afghanistan was justified - I'm not sure that much more post-war operations are if we're able to disrupt al-Qaeda and their allies sufficiently that they can't establish and attack again. We're at the point where no-one wants to be the last soldier to die (at the hands of an Afghan army soldier, no doubt) to keep Karzai in power. Personally I prefer Biden's policy of immediate withdrawal with long-term counter-terrorism presence to Obama's of surge, withdraw, counter-terrorism. But I think both a preferable to Romney's policy of maintaining this war, as far as I can see, indefinitely.
3 - The candidate you support opposed and opposes stimulus entirely. My view is that the stimulus package was badly designed to get bipartisan support - most of it was tax cuts, for example - and too small for the same reason.
Look I wish Obama was running against someone I believed to be a real moderate (Huntsman :wub:) or a real populist conservative (Huckabee :wub:), but I don't think he is. He's running against a very conservative candidate - on every one of those issues you just raised - or a shameless liar.
QuoteNone of those are the reason Obama is running today, or why he ran in '08. Healthcare was Hillary's thing that Obama got pushed into during the primary (IIRC). TARP was Bush's. Frankly, I don't know what Obama wants to do with a second term, other than he wants to keep being President and has put out some small ideas that poll-tested well to accomplish that.
You don't remember correctly. Healthcare was the big issue of the Democratic primary. It was Edwards' thing. He published a very in depth proposal - single payer I think - which effectively bounced all of the candidates into producing proposals (Obama's, with two exceptions one stolen from Hillary, one stolen from McCain, was broadly what Obamacare is). But it was a big issue that all Democrat candidates campaigned on heavily and used in a big way in the general election until Lehman's collapsed.
What's more striking is that every Republican had a healthcare policy and it was repeatedly discussed at their debates too and the main issue was access for the uninsured. Time's have changed.
I'd add TARP was Bush's but passed by Democrats in Congress (I think McCain's best moment was not demagoguing this) despite its potential unpopularity. But I think Bush, Pelosi and Paulson deserve a lot of credit. In terms of Obama I think an understated element of the US recovery - which has still been the strongest - is the Geithner stress tests which restored the credibility of US banks in a way that still hasn't happened in Europe. It's interesting at the time the stress tests were seen as too little, but since they seem to be more appreciated.
Quote from: Kleves on November 01, 2012, 07:50:34 PM
Of course, small ideas that poll-test well might be better than Mitt's batshit crazy ideas, but that's a different conversation.
Yes, it is. It's certainly driving my vote.
Quote from: derspiess on November 01, 2012, 07:07:21 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 01, 2012, 06:53:59 PM
I don't think so. As I've said before, for me the biggest problem with Romney is I don't think he has the character suitable for any elected office, far less President. The guy decided to completely overhaul his political identity in 2006 because he saw Giuliani and McCain running and thought there was a gap in the market for a social conservative candidate of the base. Unfortunately he was a relatively moderate, mildly successful bipartisan Governor of a blue state. But there was no self-abnegation Romney wouldn't go through, no part of his past he wouldn't renounce and no virtue he wouldn't denounce to win the nomination. I think he'll lose and deserves to lose, but I've moved from contempt to pity with Romney. He's shown in the last three weeks what a moderate Republican Governor could do in this race, if he'd had the courage of his convictions these for these last 6 years of running, rather than just these last 6 weeks - or perhaps the convictions in the first place - he'd be running away with this and deservedly so (so, incidentally would Huntsman).
100% wishful thinking on your part. Huntsman or a Huntsman-like Romney would do nothing for the GOP base, which would stay home. Obama would win in a landslide.
He only caught up in the polls after he turned hard to the center in the debates.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 01, 2012, 07:11:12 PM
They've not minded Mitt's sudden turn to the centre.
It was well-timed, to the point where it seems to have largely gone unnoticed. Had he gone centrist in the primary he wouldn't have made it through.
QuoteAlso I'd note that Mitt's biggest critics during the primary were the sort of 'voices of the base', rather than NYT columnist conservatives like Brooks and Douthat. Since he's become the nominee that's been reversed. Also in states were the more moderate, non-Tea Party candidate has won the primary generally the Tea Party and base have swung behind them. I see no reason why that wouldn't happen on a national level with an opponent they dislike as fiercely as Obama.
In addition, of course, a moderate Republican like Mitt in the last few weeks or like Huntsman would be winning independent and centrist votes, maybe dissatisfied Democrats - who knows even some Latinos.
You overestimate the viability of a moderate GOP candidate. The truth is they don't do too well in the general election these days. The GOP base is absolutely necessary, and the Democrats and large segments of the media will still paint a moderate GOP candidate as an extreme Republican just by association. Lose-lose.
You guys seem to think Palin cost McCain the election in 2008. It may have lowered McCain's standing in the Languish echo-chamber and outside the US, but McCain would have lost by a larger margin had he chosen a moderate candidate.
I said in the primary that if Huntsman were to win it I'd probably vote third party. And believe me, I'm not the only one.
Quote from: derspiess on November 01, 2012, 08:30:10 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 01, 2012, 07:11:12 PM
They've not minded Mitt's sudden turn to the centre.
It was well-timed, to the point where it seems to have largely gone unnoticed. Had he gone centrist in the primary he wouldn't have made it through.
<snip>
I said in the primary that if Huntsman were to win it I'd probably vote third party. And believe me, I'm not the only one.
You've noticed it. Why are you still willing to vote for Romney and not for Huntsman?
Quote from: Barrister on November 01, 2012, 04:13:57 PM
QuoteThe question over his head is not a question about him at all. It's a question about his party - and that question is the same whether Romney wins or loses. The congressional Republicans have shown themselves a destructive and irrational force in American politics. But we won't reform the congressional GOP by re-electing President Obama. If anything, an Obama re-election will not only aggravate the extremism of the congressional GOP, but also empower them: an Obama re-election raises the odds in favor of big sixth-year sweep for the congressional GOP - and very possibly a seventh-year impeachment. A Romney election will at least discourage the congressional GOP from deliberately pushing the US into recession in 2013. Added bonus: a Romney presidency likely means that the congressional GOP will lose seats in 2014, as they deserve.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/01/why-i-ll-vote-for-romney.html
We should vote for Romney so the GOP in the House doesn't hold the economy and the presidency hostage? Fuck that bullshit!
Quote from: derspiess on November 01, 2012, 08:30:10 PM
You overestimate the viability of a moderate GOP candidate. The truth is they don't do too well in the general election these days. The GOP base is absolutely necessary, and the Democrats and large segments of the media will still paint a moderate GOP candidate as an extreme Republican just by association. Lose-lose.
You guys seem to think Palin cost McCain the election in 2008. It may have lowered McCain's standing in the Languish echo-chamber and outside the US, but McCain would have lost by a larger margin had he chosen a moderate candidate.
He didn't have to chose a moderate running mate, just a competent running mate. The polls certainly indicate that his choosing Palin hurt him significantly once the electorate realized how stupid she is.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 01, 2012, 08:35:29 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 01, 2012, 08:30:10 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 01, 2012, 07:11:12 PM
They've not minded Mitt's sudden turn to the centre.
It was well-timed, to the point where it seems to have largely gone unnoticed. Had he gone centrist in the primary he wouldn't have made it through.
<snip>
I said in the primary that if Huntsman were to win it I'd probably vote third party. And believe me, I'm not the only one.
You've noticed it. Why are you still willing to vote for Romney and not for Huntsman?
It's not like he's gone that far toward the center. And thankfully he's no pussy like Huntsman when it comes to confronting Obama.
You know he's going to throw you under the bus when he gets into office, right? A man that so brazenly lies to his base doesn't respect them.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 01, 2012, 08:39:39 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 01, 2012, 08:30:10 PM
You overestimate the viability of a moderate GOP candidate. The truth is they don't do too well in the general election these days. The GOP base is absolutely necessary, and the Democrats and large segments of the media will still paint a moderate GOP candidate as an extreme Republican just by association. Lose-lose.
You guys seem to think Palin cost McCain the election in 2008. It may have lowered McCain's standing in the Languish echo-chamber and outside the US, but McCain would have lost by a larger margin had he chosen a moderate candidate.
He didn't have to chose a moderate running mate, just a competent running mate. The polls certainly indicate that his choosing Palin hurt him significantly once the electorate realized how stupid she is.
Once her character was assassinated, yeah she started dragging him down. But even with that she was a net positive. But it was a hopeless cause in any case.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 01, 2012, 08:39:39 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 01, 2012, 08:30:10 PM
You overestimate the viability of a moderate GOP candidate. The truth is they don't do too well in the general election these days. The GOP base is absolutely necessary, and the Democrats and large segments of the media will still paint a moderate GOP candidate as an extreme Republican just by association. Lose-lose.
You guys seem to think Palin cost McCain the election in 2008. It may have lowered McCain's standing in the Languish echo-chamber and outside the US, but McCain would have lost by a larger margin had he chosen a moderate candidate.
He didn't have to chose a moderate running mate, just a competent running mate. The polls certainly indicate that his choosing Palin hurt him significantly once the electorate realized how stupid she is.
Polls indicate Palin made the race a tie (even small McCain lead), and then the tanking economy in late September / early October caused it to become a Democratic landslide.
(https://dl.dropbox.com/u/51524/2008polls.png)
(https://dl.dropbox.com/u/51524/2008dowjones.png)
Quote from: derspiess on November 01, 2012, 08:30:10 PM
The GOP base is absolutely necessary, and the Democrats and large segments of the media will still paint a moderate GOP candidate as an extreme Republican just by association. Lose-lose.
As long as even moderate GOP candidates continue to subscribe to the party base's increasingly alienating cro-magnon social positions, then yeah, it will be guilt by association.
Increasingly repellant GOP social conservatism has consistently proven to be the party's greatest barrier to their progression as a more inclusive party, more so than their pro-wealthy nonsense, which can even be tolerated by the uneducated masses if packaged properly.
The GOP should never gotten in bed with the Megachurch fruitcakes in the 80s. Now they're attached to the hip.
Quote from: derspiess on November 01, 2012, 08:40:22 PM
It's not like he's gone that far toward the center. And thankfully he's no pussy like Huntsman when it comes to confronting Obama.
Somehow, I don't think his being "a pussy" would stop you from voting Huntsman in the wild hypothetical where he becomes the Republican candidate.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 01, 2012, 08:44:03 PM
You know he's going to throw you under the bus when he gets into office, right? A man that so brazenly lies to his base doesn't respect them.
One step at a time, brah.
Quote from: Phillip V on November 01, 2012, 08:45:46 PM
Polls indicate Palin made the race a tie (even small McCain lead), and then the tanking economy in late September / early October caused it to become a Democratic landslide.
The tanking economy happened to coincide with a couple disastrous primetime interviews Palin had, so it's really hard to say with any certainty.
Quote from: derspiess on November 01, 2012, 08:40:22 PM
And thankfully he's no pussy like Huntsman when it comes to confronting Obama.
LOL, of course. After all, why should a Democrat choose a Republican ambassador that spoke Chinese as a bipartisan fig leaf? But no, the only real conservative in the primaries that wasn't clearly insane gets the "pussy" rap. So typical. You're the very example of the Teabagging Obama cockblockers.
I bet you had kittens watching Air Force One touch down in New Jersey, too, like your boy Rush did. CHRISTIE THAT TRAITOR
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 01, 2012, 08:46:00 PM
As long as even moderate GOP candidates continue to subscribe to the party base's increasingly alienating cro-magnon social positions, then yeah, it will be guilt by association.
Increasingly repellant GOP social conservatism has consistently proven to be the party's greatest barrier to their progression as a more inclusive party, more so than their pro-wealthy nonsense, which can even be tolerated by the uneducated masses if packaged properly.
The GOP should never gotten in bed with the Megachurch fruitcakes in the 80s. Now they're attached to the hip.
I would actually agree that the GOP could stand to lighten up on the social side of its platform. But how many social issues have the actual GOP candidates put out in front?
Quote from: derspiess on November 01, 2012, 08:30:10 PM
It was well-timed, to the point where it seems to have largely gone unnoticed. Had he gone centrist in the primary he wouldn't have made it through.
Quite that would've been ill-timed. But my point is really that he never should've stopped being moderate. I think if he'd always maintained the public persona of a reasonably successful, moderate, bipartisan Republican Governor of a blue state he'd be winning by a landslide.
QuoteYou overestimate the viability of a moderate GOP candidate. The truth is they don't do too well in the general election these days. The GOP base is absolutely necessary, and the Democrats and large segments of the media will still paint a moderate GOP candidate as an extreme Republican just by association. Lose-lose.
The victim card bores me. I don't like it when it comes up from any group, but from conservatives it's especially tedious.
The last real moderate GOP candidate was W. He ran as a compassionate conservative, with a record of governing a state, who believed in reforming immigration and, after years of Democrat foreign policy activism and nation-building, in a humble foreign policy. He won. Romney's not nearly enough like W in my view.
QuoteYou guys seem to think Palin cost McCain the election in 2008. It may have lowered McCain's standing in the Languish echo-chamber and outside the US, but McCain would have lost by a larger margin had he chosen a moderate candidate.
I don't think Palin cost McCain the election, but she did lose him votes. I believe academic studies think she did, which is almost unprecedented for a VP candidate. Some estimate around 2% and say she's the most negatively consequential VP pick of the century.
Personally I think there was a nastiness in the way Sarah Palin was treated (it reminded me of the Tories against Gordon Brown). I quite liked her to begin with and I think it's a shame she didn't finish her term, build some credibility on foreign policy and other issues. Because I think she had the potential to be a superb candidate - she's the dream populist conservative.. Sadly she preferred reality TV to politics.
QuoteI said in the primary that if Huntsman were to win it I'd probably vote third party. And believe me, I'm not the only one.
Yeah. But I think you'd all probably have come home as election time neared and many of you would've been replaced by independents and moderates and frustrated Democrats. The negative consequence of the base being turned off isn't necessarily that they don't vote, it's that they don't help out with the campaign and volunteer on election day etc. If you don't do that I think a campaign could afford to lose you.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 01, 2012, 08:53:33 PM
I bet you had kittens watching Air Force One touch down in New Jersey, too, like your boy Rush did. CHRISTIE THAT TRAITOR
Nah. Christie gets leeway. And I'm sure he'll be with me cheering on a Blue Hen victory Saturday :contract:
Quote from: derspiess on November 01, 2012, 08:54:24 PM
But how many social issues have the actual GOP candidates put out in front?
Exsqueeze me? Baking Powder? Did you not pay attention to the primaries, or any primary since 1988?
It's the same routine every cycle: radical, over-the-top social conservatism during the primaries and their debates, each one trying to out 15th century the other, and then hush-hush right before the nomination, before anybody notices.
Quote from: Phillip V on November 01, 2012, 08:45:46 PM
Polls indicate Palin made the race a tie (even small McCain lead), and then the tanking economy in late September / early October caused it to become a Democratic landslide.
She gave him a huge boost. Her approval ratings (and McCain's) started sliding about a week before the crash. That looks to have been a catalyst that was then intensified by the economic situation. As I say, research suggests that she probably cost him votes:
http://bostonreview.net/BR34.5/johnston_thorson.php
http://www.stanford.edu/~elis/Elis%20et%20al%202010%20Dynamics%20of%20Candidate%20Evaluations.pdf
Basically how people perceived Sarah Palin was a bigger indication of how they perceived McCain than is the norm for a VP candidate, and larger than, say, their views on W.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 01, 2012, 08:58:51 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 01, 2012, 08:54:24 PM
But how many social issues have the actual GOP candidates put out in front?
Exsqueeze me? Baking Powder? Did you not pay attention to the primaries, or any primary since 1988?
It's the same routine every cycle: radical, over-the-top social conservatism during the primaries and their debates, each one trying to out 15th century the other, and then hush-hush right before the nomination, before anybody notices.
Well, I was talking about the general election.
It depends on the social issue. I think the GOP's on the wrong side on the gays and immigration. But I think their position on abortion (though it seems to be getting more extreme) as a litmus test makes sense - same for the Dems. Ultimately it's an issue that can only be resolved by judges who can only be appointed by the President.
Quote from: Phillip V on November 01, 2012, 08:45:46 PM
Polls indicate Palin made the race a tie (even small McCain lead), and then the tanking economy in late September / early October caused it to become a Democratic landslide.
Looks like his support cratered after Couric (Katie Couric! :lol: ) eviscerated her and everyone realized McCain was one heart beat from an imbecile taking office.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 01, 2012, 09:01:43 PM
Basically how people perceived Sarah Palin was a bigger indication of how they perceived McCain than is the norm for a VP candidate, and larger than, say, their views on W.
What does that mean? I fucking love McCain, literally my favorite politician of the last 20 years.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 01, 2012, 09:35:21 PMWhat does that mean? I fucking love McCain, literally my favorite politician of the last 20 years.
There's a link there <_< :P
Basically a person's view of different figures influenced which way they chose to vote. The normal people who influence that are the candidates. Bush grew less important. How VP candidates are perceived doesn't normally matter a great deal, and it didn't with Biden - with Palin it did. How people viewed Palin was, unusually, an indicator of whether they approved of the McCain campaign and would vote for him.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 01, 2012, 09:33:12 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on November 01, 2012, 08:45:46 PM
Polls indicate Palin made the race a tie (even small McCain lead), and then the tanking economy in late September / early October caused it to become a Democratic landslide.
Looks like his support cratered after Couric (Katie Couric! :lol: ) eviscerated her and everyone realized McCain was one heart beat from an imbecile taking office.
She hardly "eviscerated", Palin. It was a softball interview. "What do you read?", is not exactly a difficult question to answer. It's not a question you are suppose to get wrong.
It's not a question you're supposed to ask. Which is why it threw her off.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 01, 2012, 09:41:29 PM
It's not a question you're supposed to ask. Which is why it threw her off.
If you're a national politician it shouldn't throw you off and you shouldn't reply 'most of them' :lol:
I don't think it's that odd a question for a so far little known governor two years into her term who's been picked as VP:
QuoteCOURIC: And when it comes to establishing your world view, I was curious, what newspapers and magazines did you regularly read before you were tapped for this — to stay informed and to understand the world?
PALIN: I've read most of them again with a great appreciation for the press, for the media, coming f—
COURIC: But like which ones specifically? I'm curious that you—
PALIN: Um, all of 'em, any of 'em that, um, have, have been in front of me over all these years. Um, I have a va—
COURIC: Can you name a few?
PALIN: I have a vast variety of sources where we get our news too. Alaska isn't a foreign country, where, it's kind of suggested and it seems like, 'Wow, how could you keep in touch with what the rest of Washington, D.C. may be thinking and doing when you live up there in Alaska?' Believe me, Alaska is like a microcosm of America.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 01, 2012, 09:41:29 PM
It's not a question you're supposed to ask. Which is why it threw her off.
Every politician should be ready for it since Bush's ambush on current events in '99.
I'm voting for Obama because he hangs out with JayZ and Beyonce.
Berk, if you ever get a chance to vote for president for the "right" reasons, I'll be shocked.
QuoteRather, it is because I cannot stand the idea of rewarding the Republicans for spending the last four years holding the country hostage, and basically refusing to govern under the idea that causing the country to fail to recover is the best way of getting Obama out, and that was more important than the actual well being of the country.
Pretty sane reason to vote for Obama.
Its just crazy how the republicans are getting away with how much of the mess is their fault. Obama has tried to fix the mess they made but they tried to stop him and now they expect people to vote for them? Eh?
:lol:
I always like when Jos weighs in on American politics.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 01, 2012, 10:13:00 PM
Berk, if you ever get a chance to vote for president for the "right" reasons, I'll be shocked.
McCain 2000!
<sob>
You're probably right.
Quote from: garbon on November 01, 2012, 10:20:04 PM
I always like when Jos weighs in on American politics.
He is fundamentally correct in this case though.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 01, 2012, 05:48:11 PM
I"ll vote for Romney because Obama and I are just too far apart on economic issues and too far apart on how we look at the role of government.
I'll also say that as a conservative Republican that spent years defending much of Bush's activity during the GWOT in some ways Obama has actually gotten scarier on the civil liberties front than Bush did. I was a long view kind of guy on the USA PATRIOT Act and stuff like that. I've read my history, I know that during times of existential threat, the Civil War, World War II, the early stages of the Cold War, America has a tendency to give civil liberties short shrift. But in the long run, we have a strongly democratic and civil libertarian culture. The excesses of Lincoln and Roosevelt were mostly a product of tough times and were reined in to a large degree after their Presidencies were over.
Near the end of Bush's term I felt we had reached that point, the initial response to 9/11 I agreed with in that regard, but it was time to move on. In retrospect I disagreed with the realpolitik and the practicality of invading Iraq, but to my dying day I'll never understand the liberal position that once we had fucked up that country out duty was to cut tail and run and leave it a huge mess. I think whether you agreed with Iraq or not, once we had done the deed it was gravely immoral to just up and leave, and I'm glad Bush stayed and glad the surge happened. I think it's why Iraq at least has a chance (and it's been unequivocally good for Kurdistan)--hard to say how Iraq turns out long term.
But anyway, in regard to the GWOT Obama has gotten, to say the least "scary." His use of drone warfare is both appropriate but disturbing. So we killed al-Awlaki, an American citizen, without any attempt at capture or trial. Basically an assassination, but based on what I've seen al-Awlaki was "operationally" involved in al-Qaeda. He was an armed belligerent just as much as Confederate soldiers marching into Pennsylvania, and you don't put guys like that on trial. You don't hold trials on the battlefield, you kill people on the battlefield. The 21st century has a different type of battlefield than the 19th. But where I diverge is awhile after we killed al-Awlaki, in a separate targeted drone strike we killed his 16 year old son, along with other teenage boys. I don't know that that sits right with me. In recent days some members of the press actually cornered an Obama campaign toady and the guy responded that "he should have had a more responsible father." I don't know that even George W. Bush would have had 16 year olds on targeted assassination lists.
This is a marvelous post and a huge reason why I am pretty demoralized right now as a voter. I want to vote for people who believe in scaling back this sort of thing but I am afraid, and primarily this is the work of Obama, the PATRIOT Act and the other GWOT expediences are now precedents and will be standard government operating procedure for all time going forward. They are just too institutionalized now and both parties support them. I hope I am wrong but man it is scary.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 01, 2012, 05:48:11 PM
I'll also say that as a conservative Republican that spent years defending much of Bush's activity during the GWOT in some ways Obama has actually gotten scarier on the civil liberties front than Bush did. I was a long view kind of guy on the USA PATRIOT Act and stuff like that. I've read my history, I know that during times of existential threat, the Civil War, World War II, the early stages of the Cold War, America has a tendency to give civil liberties short shrift. But in the long run, we have a strongly democratic and civil libertarian culture. The excesses of Lincoln and Roosevelt were mostly a product of tough times and were reined in to a large degree after their Presidencies were over.
Near the end of Bush's term I felt we had reached that point, the initial response to 9/11 I agreed with in that regard, but it was time to move on. In retrospect I disagreed with the realpolitik and the practicality of invading Iraq, but to my dying day I'll never understand the liberal position that once we had fucked up that country out duty was to cut tail and run and leave it a huge mess. I think whether you agreed with Iraq or not, once we had done the deed it was gravely immoral to just up and leave, and I'm glad Bush stayed and glad the surge happened. I think it's why Iraq at least has a chance (and it's been unequivocally good for Kurdistan)--hard to say how Iraq turns out long term.
But anyway, in regard to the GWOT Obama has gotten, to say the least "scary." His use of drone warfare is both appropriate but disturbing. So we killed al-Awlaki, an American citizen, without any attempt at capture or trial. Basically an assassination, but based on what I've seen al-Awlaki was "operationally" involved in al-Qaeda. He was an armed belligerent just as much as Confederate soldiers marching into Pennsylvania, and you don't put guys like that on trial. You don't hold trials on the battlefield, you kill people on the battlefield. The 21st century has a different type of battlefield than the 19th. But where I diverge is awhile after we killed al-Awlaki, in a separate targeted drone strike we killed his 16 year old son, along with other teenage boys. I don't know that that sits right with me. In recent days some members of the press actually cornered an Obama campaign toady and the guy responded that "he should have had a more responsible father." I don't know that even George W. Bush would have had 16 year olds on targeted assassination lists.
I agree with this too. Civil liberties was the main reason I contemplated voting for Obama in '08. I thought that of all his campaign rhetoric, he was most likely to follow through on that front. It's turned out though they he tried to do most everything else on that list with the exception of civil liberties where he's doubled down on the abuse. It leaves me very dismayed. :(
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 01, 2012, 09:41:29 PM
It's not a question you're supposed to ask. Which is why it threw her off.
She wanted a softball interview, and she got a softball interview. What else was she suppose to ask Palin, what her favorite color was?
The problem with Romney's views on economy is that, as The Economist put it, it makes sense only if you assume most of the things he says is just him lying to get elected. This is not very reassuring. For all that we hear about politicians not fulfilling their campaign promises, the real problem comes when they actually do.
Quote from: Valmy on November 02, 2012, 12:34:07 AM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 01, 2012, 05:48:11 PM
But anyway, in regard to the GWOT Obama has gotten, to say the least "scary." His use of drone warfare is both appropriate but disturbing. So we killed al-Awlaki, an American citizen, without any attempt at capture or trial. Basically an assassination, but based on what I've seen al-Awlaki was "operationally" involved in al-Qaeda. He was an armed belligerent just as much as Confederate soldiers marching into Pennsylvania, and you don't put guys like that on trial. You don't hold trials on the battlefield, you kill people on the battlefield. The 21st century has a different type of battlefield than the 19th. But where I diverge is awhile after we killed al-Awlaki, in a separate targeted drone strike we killed his 16 year old son, along with other teenage boys. I don't know that that sits right with me. In recent days some members of the press actually cornered an Obama campaign toady and the guy responded that "he should have had a more responsible father." I don't know that even George W. Bush would have had 16 year olds on targeted assassination lists.
This is a marvelous post and a huge reason why I am pretty demoralized right now as a voter. I want to vote for people who believe in scaling back this sort of thing but I am afraid, and primarily this is the work of Obama, the PATRIOT Act and the other GWOT expediences are now precedents and will be standard government operating procedure for all time going forward. They are just too institutionalized now and both parties support them. I hope I am wrong but man it is scary.
Otto's mellowed out since discovering fatherhood.
But the GWOT, just like the Red Scare of the '50s, the Japanese internships of the '40s, the Anarchist Panic of the turn of the century and the Civil War era, we get all knotted up over "The Threat", civil liberties contract a bit, and then they come back. The nonsense over the GWOT, just like all the nonsense eras before it, will dissipate over time.
This too shall pass.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 02, 2012, 05:40:47 AM
This too shall pass.
That's what I said five minutes ago. And it did.
Quote from: Berkut on November 02, 2012, 12:22:54 AM
Quote from: garbon on November 01, 2012, 10:20:04 PM
I always like when Jos weighs in on American politics.
He is fundamentally correct in this case though.
I don't think so. Personally, if I wanted to use my vote for Presidency as a stick or carrot, I'd follow the advice of voting for a 3rd party. From my vantage point most of the members in congress lack merit.
Quote from: Valmy on November 02, 2012, 12:34:07 AM
This is a marvelous post and a huge reason why I am pretty demoralized right now as a voter. I want to vote for people who believe in scaling back this sort of thing but I am afraid, and primarily this is the work of Obama, the PATRIOT Act and the other GWOT expediences are now precedents and will be standard government operating procedure for all time going forward. They are just too institutionalized now and both parties support them. I hope I am wrong but man it is scary.
The PATRIOT Act was a huge mistake at the time, and it wouldn't of mattered who was in office afterward they weren't going to willingly give up that power. It was an unnecessary overreaction to a threat that, although real, wasn't nearly as dangerous as our reaction to it. I don't think in the past 100 years there's been a case of a temporary power given to the US government ever being dropped once the original reason for it has gone away. The extensions of the PATRIOT Act weren't just implemented by Obama by fiat, they've been supported by each congress that passed them.
It's the same problem as the stupid Bush tax cuts. They've been in place long enough that it's become the "new normal" even if they weren't initially intended to be.
Quote from: Berkut on November 01, 2012, 02:56:38 PM
Honestly, I think both men are...adequate.
In a Presidential context, I think that's being generous. Barack Obama was "adequate" as a back-bencher in the Senate, but while you might be right that he may have had potential to be more than that, it shouldn't shock anybody that he isn't ready for the challange of the Presidency--that was obvious 4 years ago. Mitt Romney was barely adequate as Governor of Massachusetts--and as you say, he's not shown any potential to be anything more than that.
Ultimately, like OvB, I'm going to vote for Gov. Romney simply because Pres. Obama is too far to the left on economic issues for my taste.
from a liberal perspective, I think Obama's been a great president with the notable, and major, exception of civil liberties (well addressed by OvB above). Good take here:
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/10/barack-obama-is-a-great-president-yes-great.html
From a moderate perspective, I think Obama's been an okay President. :D
From an apathetic, semi-incoherent perspective, I think Romney would be a horrible President. And a cultist. :P
I just made the mistake of reading a couple of Israeli articles about American elections, or American articles from concerned Jews. Ugh, utterly disgusting. One of the idiots even went so far as to accuse Obama of lacking professionalism for not putting aside his personal antisemitism when dealing with Israel. What Israelis are going to get for their effort is a massive backlash, and it's going to be fully deserved.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 03, 2012, 11:16:22 AM
From an apathetic, semi-incoherent perspective, I think Romney would be a horrible President. And a cultist. :P
I don't think Romney would be that bad as President. Of course I'm assuming he's lying most of the time.
From an ethnic Albertan perspective, you guys made a big mistake in 1776.
Quote from: DGuller on November 03, 2012, 11:29:24 AM
I just made the mistake of reading a couple of Israeli articles about American elections, or American articles from concerned Jews. Ugh, utterly disgusting. One of the idiots even went so far as to accuse Obama of lacking professionalism for not putting aside his personal antisemitism when dealing with Israel. What Israelis are going to get for their effort is a massive backlash, and it's going to be fully deserved.
Muslims will get the backlash, and Israel will once again reign on both sides of the Jordan River. (https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fforum.backupot.com%2FSmileys%2Fdefault%2Fohgodicantthinkofanonoffensivenameforthis_2.gif&hash=c04e996ead2a21e75085a8ee653ec87546356074)
Quote from: DGuller on November 03, 2012, 11:29:24 AM
I just made the mistake of reading a couple of Israeli articles about American elections, or American articles from concerned Jews. Ugh, utterly disgusting. One of the idiots even went so far as to accuse Obama of lacking professionalism for not putting aside his personal antisemitism when dealing with Israel. What Israelis are going to get for their effort is a massive backlash, and it's going to be fully deserved.
Israel has gone kinda nutso with Sharon gone.
Quote from: Neil on November 03, 2012, 11:32:17 AM
From an ethnic Albertan perspective, you guys made a big mistake in 1776.
Yeah, we could have been under populated domain of servile Indians.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 03, 2012, 11:41:37 AM
Quote from: DGuller on November 03, 2012, 11:29:24 AM
I just made the mistake of reading a couple of Israeli articles about American elections, or American articles from concerned Jews. Ugh, utterly disgusting. One of the idiots even went so far as to accuse Obama of lacking professionalism for not putting aside his personal antisemitism when dealing with Israel. What Israelis are going to get for their effort is a massive backlash, and it's going to be fully deserved.
Israel has gone kinda nutso with Sharon gone.
Yeah, but Obama Derangement Syndrome has hit it harder than it hit Alabama. It also hit it earlier, since Israelis disliked Obama ever since he entered the primary six years ago.
Because of his father?
How come we don't have any black smilies anyway?
Yellow dude with a black sheet wrapped around his head doesn't cut it. :contract:
They are already black, they are just in yellow-face.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 03, 2012, 12:24:19 PM
Yellow dude with a black sheet wrapped around his head doesn't cut it. :contract:
This is a multi-purpose smiley. In this case, it signifies a nefarious explanation. :ph34r:
Obama is the 3rd term of Bush. And like all great tv shows, has jumped the shark.
Quote from: DGuller on November 03, 2012, 11:29:24 AM
I just made the mistake of reading a couple of Israeli articles about American elections, or American articles from concerned Jews. Ugh, utterly disgusting. One of the idiots even went so far as to accuse Obama of lacking professionalism for not putting aside his personal antisemitism when dealing with Israel. What Israelis are going to get for their effort is a massive backlash, and it's going to be fully deserved.
Look, someone born in the Old World with a streak of Jew hating in them, surprise surprise.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 01, 2012, 07:55:10 PM
You like centrist and moderate but you're supporting a candidate whose policy positions are neither. I don't believe that there's a real Mitt who is actually a conviction moderate who would pass universal healthcare, but better; manage Afghanistan, but better; do stimulus, but better. In my view if he's not his views are very conservative, if he is then he's been lying constantly for these past six years and doesn't deserve to be in office.
Going back some pages, but this jumped out at me. I can't imagine such a thing as a moderate who would pass universal healthcare. That's an issue wholly owned by the left over here.
I will have to say the last two elections I've cared about the least of any in my life. Not because I have no opinion on the candidates, but because I don't really care about either result.
With Obama-McCain, I wanted McCain to win but knew early on he would not. I figured McCain would be a little farther right than Obama on domestic policy and would be pretty solid in foreign policy. My prediction is that McCain's well known bellicose nature would be used to his advantage, and he'd actually be a lot more of a Nixonian style diplomat whose image didn't quite sync up with his actual activity. Unlike a lot of the "frenzied left" I had read Obama's actual opinions and policies. The guy was a moderate, period. I think some people were dreaming that he was a closet deep-lefty who was just aping moderation to get elected, but I just didn't see it. His life and positions were more an open book than almost any other candidate we've had, I'd have been really shocked if Obama turned out to be a far out lefty. On foreign policy I was a little worried about Obama as he was too far left in some regards on that front, but I suspected when he sat down and started getting his daily intelligence briefings his opinions would change.
What I didn't see is not only did Obama back off his more idealistic lefty view on foreign policy he basically became an aggressive warmongering type, probably more likely to engage in open war with Iran or Pakistan than any American President in the last half century. At the very least he's just bombed the shit out of a ton of countries where we had no real permission to do so and had not in any way established any sort of formal hostilities with them.
But because I didn't feel the real outcome was that different between McCain and Obama, I wasn't really too concerned. [I also did not think Obama would be able to pass healthcare reform, so I was surprised on that front.] With Obama and McCain I now pretty much know Obama is a moderate, slightly right-wing if not far right on foreign policy, who seems to be a piss poor administrator and with no real clear direction or drive on domestic or foreign policy (other than blow stuff up and kill people.) I won't be happy with a second Obama term but nor will I really be happy with a Romney first term, so I'm left pretty disinterested in the actual results on election day.
Romney's appeal is he did a decent job in Massachusetts and worked well with Democrats there to get things done. I think on the Federal level ideological battle lines are drawn too strictly, hypo-President Romney will be unallowed to compromise or his caucus will abandon him and without compromise the Dems won't work with him. Whatever his real motives he's going to be a prisoner of the dysfunctional GOP party politics. There's a good article in the Atlantic actually that speculates a Romney Presidency could just be the battleground for the inevitable clash between all the factions in the Republican party. The clash will implode Romney's Presidency and he'll be a Carter-esque President
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 03, 2012, 02:12:11 PM
Look, someone born in the Old World with a streak of Jew hating in them, surprise surprise.
DGuller is Jewish. I'm not sure if you realize that and are just being sarcastic.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 03, 2012, 02:12:11 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 03, 2012, 11:29:24 AM
I just made the mistake of reading a couple of Israeli articles about American elections, or American articles from concerned Jews. Ugh, utterly disgusting. One of the idiots even went so far as to accuse Obama of lacking professionalism for not putting aside his personal antisemitism when dealing with Israel. What Israelis are going to get for their effort is a massive backlash, and it's going to be fully deserved.
Look, someone born in the Old World with a streak of Jew hating in them, surprise surprise.
Considering that my family left the Old World due to being Jewish, and a significant part of it went to Israel, your little squirt of verbal diarrhea is a little off the mark.
Self-hating atheist Jews are not an unheard of phenomenon. Not saying it's necessarily true in this case.
Not totally sure how many non-Jewish Russian immigrant accountants there are in New Jersey.
Quote from: derspiess on November 03, 2012, 02:47:20 PM
Self-hating atheist Jews are not an unheard of phenomenon. Not saying it's necessarily true in this case.
I hate bigotry, and Jews are not immune from it.
Quote from: Queequeg on November 03, 2012, 02:48:56 PM
Not totally sure how many non-Jewish Russian immigrant accountants there are in New Jersey.
:mad:
Quote from: DGuller on November 03, 2012, 02:50:56 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on November 03, 2012, 02:48:56 PM
Not totally sure how many non-Jewish Russian immigrant accountants there are in New Jersey.
:mad:
I'm just saying. It's kind of weird to assume you are an anti-Semite, given that there's statistically significant odds that you are Jewish by profession and area of origin. You'd probably be better off not barking up that tree, at least.
Quote from: Queequeg on November 03, 2012, 02:56:56 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 03, 2012, 02:50:56 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on November 03, 2012, 02:48:56 PM
Not totally sure how many non-Jewish Russian immigrant accountants there are in New Jersey.
:mad:
I'm just saying. It's kind of weird to assume you are an anti-Semite, given that there's statistically significant odds that you are Jewish by profession and area of origin. You'd probably be better off not barking up that tree, at least.
I'M NOT AN ACCOUNTANT!!! :mad: :mad: :mad:
:Embarrass:
What are you, then?
Quote from: Queequeg on November 03, 2012, 03:17:15 PM
:Embarrass:
What are you, then?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actuary
Quote from: DGuller on November 03, 2012, 02:40:02 PMConsidering that my family left the Old World due to being Jewish, and a significant part of it went to Israel, your little squirt of verbal diarrhea is a little off the mark.
And you moved to America and became a leftist anti-semite, what does what the other parts of your family did have jack shit to do with you?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 03, 2012, 03:42:03 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 03, 2012, 02:40:02 PMConsidering that my family left the Old World due to being Jewish, and a significant part of it went to Israel, your little squirt of verbal diarrhea is a little off the mark.
And you moved to America and became a leftist anti-semite, what does what the other parts of your family did have jack shit to do with you?
:jaron:
Quote from: Queequeg on November 03, 2012, 03:17:15 PM
:Embarrass:
What are you, then?
An accountant who knows calculus.
Guller counts the beans that haven't ripened yet.
Going back to the original premise of the thread:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthepunchlineismachismo.com%2Fcomics%2F2012-10-22.jpg&hash=bf197ddbe8e3d1f2228e997948bbf6df55d32ec5)
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 03, 2012, 08:17:49 PM
Guller counts the beans that haven't ripened yet.
:hmm: That's actually a pretty good description.
A gay accountant?
An even better description would be counting the chickens before they hatch.
Faulty logic. You would have to count the eggs before the chickens.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 03, 2012, 02:15:08 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 01, 2012, 07:55:10 PM
You like centrist and moderate but you're supporting a candidate whose policy positions are neither. I don't believe that there's a real Mitt who is actually a conviction moderate who would pass universal healthcare, but better; manage Afghanistan, but better; do stimulus, but better. In my view if he's not his views are very conservative, if he is then he's been lying constantly for these past six years and doesn't deserve to be in office.
Going back some pages, but this jumped out at me. I can't imagine such a thing as a moderate who would pass universal healthcare. That's an issue wholly owned by the left over here.
Romeny passed it in Massachusetts and in the '08 primary when he ran to the right he championed it for the entire nation. However when Obama stole it from him it became heretical.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 04, 2012, 04:32:30 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 03, 2012, 02:15:08 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 01, 2012, 07:55:10 PM
You like centrist and moderate but you're supporting a candidate whose policy positions are neither. I don't believe that there's a real Mitt who is actually a conviction moderate who would pass universal healthcare, but better; manage Afghanistan, but better; do stimulus, but better. In my view if he's not his views are very conservative, if he is then he's been lying constantly for these past six years and doesn't deserve to be in office.
Going back some pages, but this jumped out at me. I can't imagine such a thing as a moderate who would pass universal healthcare. That's an issue wholly owned by the left over here.
Romeny passed it in Massachusetts and in the '08 primary when he ran to the right he championed it for the entire nation. However when Obama stole it from him it became heretical.
No. In 2007, Romney did not champion his Massachusetts healthcare plan for the nation, especially regarding the individual mandate. He resorted mostly to "let each state decide".
In 2007-08 running against Clinton, Obama did not want the individual mandate, either. ;)
Sort of. Romney did explicitly tout it as a model for other states. The debate wasn't much about individual mandates on the Republican side. Rather it was whether the federal government would require states to adopt a Romneycare model. Romney's position was this, 'I would not mandate at the federal level that every state do what we do, but what I would say at the federal level is we'll keep giving you these special payments we make if you adopt plans that get everybody insured.' All the while he was saying that his plan that got everyone insured - a good conservative plan in his view - was a good model for other states to achieve that.
You're right on Obama and the individual mandate (he also stole one of McCain's ideas on healthcare). As I said Obama was running to the right of Clinton on healthcare and with those two exceptions - one from Clinton, one from McCain - what he campaigned on was what was passed.
Compare with this Romney article from 2009 about his opposition to Obamacare, I think the tone, emphasis and policy is rather different - and closer to the Republicans in 2008 - than what's going on now:
QuoteThis opinion article by Mitt Romney appeared in USA Today on 07/30/2009. It is entitled Mr. President, What's the Rush?
Because of President Obama's frantic approach, health care has run off the rails. For the sake of 47 million uninsured Americans, we need to get it back on track.
Health care cannot be handled the same way as the stimulus and cap-and-trade bills. With those, the president stuck to the old style of lawmaking: He threw in every special favor imaginable, ground it up and crammed it through a partisan Democratic Congress. Health care is simply too important to the economy, to employment and to America's families to be larded up and rushed through on an artificial deadline. There's a better way. And the lessons we learned in Massachusetts could help Washington find it.
No other state has made as much progress in covering their uninsured as Massachusetts. The bill that made it happen wasn't a rush job. Shortly after becoming governor, I worked in a bipartisan fashion with Democrats to insure all our citizens. It took almost two years to find a solution. When we did, it passed the 200-member legislature with only two dissenting votes. It had the support of the business community, the hospital sector and insurers. For health care reform to succeed in Washington, the president must finally do what he promised during the campaign: Work with Republicans as well as Democrats.
Massachusetts also proved that you don't need government insurance. Our citizens purchase private, free-market medical insurance. There is no "public option." With more than 1,300 health insurance companies, a federal government insurance company isn't necessary. It would inevitably lead to massive taxpayer subsidies, to lobbyist-inspired coverage mandates and to the liberals' dream: a European-style single-payer system. To find common ground with skeptical Republicans and conservative Democrats, the president will have to jettison left-wing ideology for practicality and dump the public option.
The cost issue
Our experience also demonstrates that getting every citizen insured doesn't have to break the bank. First, we established incentives for those who were uninsured to buy insurance. Using tax penalties, as we did, or tax credits, as others have proposed, encourages "free riders" to take responsibility for themselves rather than pass their medical costs on to others. This doesn't cost the government a single dollar. Second, we helped pay for our new program by ending an old one — something government should do more often. The federal government sends an estimated $42 billion to hospitals that care for the poor: Use those funds instead to help the poor buy private insurance, as we did.
When our bill passed three years ago, the legislature projected that our program would cost $725 million in 2009. At $723 million, next year's forecast is pretty much on target. When you calculate all the savings, including that from the free hospital care we eliminated, the net cost to the state is approximately $350 million. The watchdog Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation concluded that our program's cost is "relatively modest" and "well within initial projections."
And if subsidies and coverages are reined in, as I've suggested, the Massachusetts program could actually break even. One thing is certain: The president must insist on a program that doesn't add to our spending burden. We simply cannot afford another trillion-dollar mistake.
The Massachusetts reform aimed at getting virtually all our citizens insured. In that, it worked: 98% of our citizens are insured, 440,000 previously uninsured are covered and almost half of those purchased insurance on their own, with no subsidy. But overall, health care inflation has continued its relentless rise. Here is where the federal government can do something we could not: Take steps to stop or slow medical inflation.
At the core of our health cost problem is an incentive problem. Patients don't care what treatments cost once they pass the deductible. And providers are paid more when they do more; they are paid for quantity, not quality. We will tame runaway costs only when we change incentives. We might do what some countries have done: Require patients to pay a portion of their bill, except for certain conditions. And providers could be paid an annual fixed fee for the primary care of an individual and a separate fixed fee for the treatment of a specific condition. These approaches have far more promise than the usual bromides of electronic medical records, transparency and pay-for-performance, helpful though they will be.
Try a business-like analysis
I spent most of my career in the private sector. When well-managed businesses considered a major change of some kind, they engaged in extensive analysis, brought in outside experts, exhaustively evaluated every alternative, built consensus among those who would be affected and then moved ahead. Health care is many times bigger than all the companies in the Dow Jones combined. And the president is rushing changes that dwarf what any business I know has faced.
Republicans are not the party of "no" when it comes to health care reform. This Republican is proud to be the first governor to insure all his state's citizens. Other Republicans such as Rep. Paul Ryan and Sens. Bob Bennett and John McCain, among others, have proposed their own plans. Republicans will join with the Democrats if the president abandons his government insurance plan, if he endeavors to craft a plan that does not burden the nation with greater debt, if he broadens his scope to reduce health costs for all Americans, and if he is willing to devote the rigorous effort, requisite time and bipartisan process that health care reform deserves.
QuoteGoing back some pages, but this jumped out at me. I can't imagine such a thing as a moderate who would pass universal healthcare. That's an issue wholly owned by the left over here.
That was more addressed at what Phil was saying - that universal healthcare's a good idea and that he likes moderates and centrists. Though I would point out that all the Republican candidates in 2008 had more developed healthcare policies than Romney currently has and the aimed to 'stop the free-riders' and to reduce the number of uninsured.
Sheilbh, have you seriously considered coming to America to work as a journalist? Brits are over-represented here. You are really, really talented.
Anything would be better than Piers Morgan and Martin 'flag code' Bashir.
:lol: Cheers, but Andrew Sullivan's cornered the market for overwrought gay Anglo-Catholics :(
Sullivan needs a boat trip back too.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 04, 2012, 01:12:40 PM
Anything would be better than Piers Morgan and Martin 'flag code' Bashir.
Christ yes. I honestly couldn't figure out who is the biggest jackass. If Piers Morgan grilled Charles Manson in an interview, I'd sympathize with Charlie.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 04, 2012, 01:13:55 PM
:lol: Cheers, but Andrew Sullivan's cornered the market for overwrought gay Anglo-Catholics :(
:lol:
And there's nothing wrong with Martin Bashir. He's a biracial angel. :mad:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 04, 2012, 01:18:46 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 04, 2012, 01:13:55 PM
:lol: Cheers, but Andrew Sullivan's cornered the market for overwrought gay Anglo-Catholics :(
:lol:
And there's nothing wrong with Martin Bashir. He's a biracial angel. :mad:
Somebody is drinking the grape Kool Aid.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 04, 2012, 01:20:36 PM
Somebody is drinking the grape Kool Aid.
That's goddamned right.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 04, 2012, 01:18:46 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 04, 2012, 01:13:55 PM
:lol: Cheers, but Andrew Sullivan's cornered the market for overwrought gay Anglo-Catholics :(
:lol:
And there's nothing wrong with Martin Bashir. He's a biracial angel. :mad:
He's genetically-engineered. :)
...oh wait.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 04, 2012, 01:13:55 PM
:lol: Cheers, but Andrew Sullivan's cornered the market for overwrought gay Anglo-Catholics :(
Somewhat ironically, I think your ideological attachments are almost 180% flipped,even if positions are similar.. He's also a bit more bourgeois or posh, by merit if not by birth.
Ended up voting pretty much a straight Dem ticket.
Pretty pissed off that I had to choose between voting for the assholes who decided to refuse to govern over the guy who didn't have the competence to stop them from doing it.
Kind of ridiculous really that I decided to go with the choice of well meaning incompetence over successful maliciousness.
Quote from: Berkut on November 06, 2012, 05:14:42 PM
Ended up voting pretty much a straight Dem ticket.
Pretty pissed off that I had to choose between voting for the assholes who decided to refuse to govern over the guy who didn't have the competence to stop them from doing it.
Kind of ridiculous really that I decided to go with the choice of well meaning incompetence over successful maliciousness.
At the end of the day the well meaning guy might get it right but the malicious guy will always get it wrong.
Quote from: Berkut on November 06, 2012, 05:14:42 PM
Ended up voting pretty much a straight Dem ticket.
Pretty pissed off that I had to choose between voting for the assholes who decided to refuse to govern over the guy who didn't have the competence to stop them from doing it.
Kind of ridiculous really that I decided to go with the choice of well meaning incompetence over successful maliciousness.
Whether or not you did the right thing is one thing; but you did the moral thing. You feel dirty now, but you'll feel better later. :hug:
Quote from: Berkut on November 06, 2012, 05:14:42 PM
Ended up voting pretty much a straight Dem ticket.
Pretty pissed off that I had to choose between voting for the assholes who decided to refuse to govern over the guy who didn't have the competence to stop them from doing it.
Kind of ridiculous really that I decided to go with the choice of well meaning incompetence over successful maliciousness.
How could one side force the other to govern? What you're saying is basically that the Republicans haven't operated in good faith these last four years, and I agree, but I don't see how any super-competent President could change that?
There's that great (and entirely accurate) Mitch McConnell line 'we worked very hard to keep our fingerprints off of these proposals, because we thought — correctly, I think — that the only way the American people would know that a great debate was going on was if the measures were not bipartisan. When you hang the 'bipartisan' tag on something, the perception is that differences have been worked out, and there's a broad agreement that that's the way forward.' So there's that and the 'one-term President' priority. In the Senate (where Republicans filibustered the very first bill Obama proposed, which passed 77-20) you can more or less stop anything from happening, doubly so once you won the House.
What do you think a more competent Obama administration could have done to thwart that?
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 06, 2012, 06:21:34 PM
How could one side force the other to govern? What you're saying is basically that the Republicans haven't operated in good faith these last four years, and I agree, but I don't see how any super-competent President could change that?
There's that great (and entirely accurate) Mitch McConnell line 'we worked very hard to keep our fingerprints off of these proposals, because we thought — correctly, I think — that the only way the American people would know that a great debate was going on was if the measures were not bipartisan. When you hang the 'bipartisan' tag on something, the perception is that differences have been worked out, and there's a broad agreement that that's the way forward.' So there's that and the 'one-term President' priority. In the Senate (where Republicans filibustered the very first bill Obama proposed, which passed 77-20) you can more or less stop anything from happening, doubly so once you won the House.
What do you think a more competent Obama administration could have done to thwart that?
I think he should have stared them down. Particularly on the budget crap they pulled, where they rejected the bipartisan compromise that he made with Boehner. At that point he had a deal with some Republicans, and if the rest of their base refuses to cooperate the mess that results would have been completely in the holdout's laps. He showed he was willing to work with Congress, but that they weren't willing to work with him. Instead they came up with the ridiculous delayed hand grenade that'll be giving us fits again during the next couple of months.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 06, 2012, 06:21:34 PM
What do you think a more competent Obama administration could have done to thwart that?
I think he could've done more to make Republicans pay for holding the country hostage, if he had a better control of the message.
Then again, I'm not sure how fair this reproach is. After all, it's not like Republican Congressmen were doing something their voters didn't want them to do. How often do you hear some moron actively wishing for a gridlock in Washington?
That was the debt ceiling wasn't it? If he'd stared them down surely there's the not-insignificant chance there were enough crazies in the GOP House who wouldn't compromise and the markets would've gone mental.
I suppose this is my problem with the way Berkut put it (which I think is fair) if one party is willing to govern and the other isn't, then doesn't the former always have to give in or force things through regardless of the level of competence or who's in charge?
So politically I get your point that the mess would've been entirely the responsibility of the crazies. But it would still be a mess with real effects in the US and global economy. Is a political point worth that? At that point doesn't the responsibility to govern matter more, even if it means you've got to give in or whatever else?
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 06, 2012, 06:21:34 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 06, 2012, 05:14:42 PM
Ended up voting pretty much a straight Dem ticket.
Pretty pissed off that I had to choose between voting for the assholes who decided to refuse to govern over the guy who didn't have the competence to stop them from doing it.
Kind of ridiculous really that I decided to go with the choice of well meaning incompetence over successful maliciousness.
How could one side force the other to govern? What you're saying is basically that the Republicans haven't operated in good faith these last four years, and I agree, but I don't see how any super-competent President could change that?
There's that great (and entirely accurate) Mitch McConnell line 'we worked very hard to keep our fingerprints off of these proposals, because we thought — correctly, I think — that the only way the American people would know that a great debate was going on was if the measures were not bipartisan. When you hang the 'bipartisan' tag on something, the perception is that differences have been worked out, and there's a broad agreement that that's the way forward.' So there's that and the 'one-term President' priority. In the Senate (where Republicans filibustered the very first bill Obama proposed, which passed 77-20) you can more or less stop anything from happening, doubly so once you won the House.
What do you think a more competent Obama administration could have done to thwart that?
I don't know - but to some extent, this is like asking someone who is complaining that the plane crashed if they could build a better one themselves.
Obstructionism has been around a long time - it isn't anything new. Obama failed at fighting through it to get his priorities done, and I don't think I am willing to chalk that up to a failure of the system entirely.
I don't get the analogy I'm afraid. In anything if one side refuses to operate in good faith, then does the competence of the other matter? It's as true of negotiations over rent as governing a country.
The sort-of related question is doesn't it work politically? As I say if one side has the responsibility of governing and the other side won't work in good faith, don't the former ultimately have to cave. I agree it's not a problem of the system - though I've said for a while that I think US parties are becoming more parliamentary, which will not work with your non-parliamentary system - but I think the precedent of McConnell could be one taken up by other Senate minorities in the future.
QuoteObstructionism has been around a long time - it isn't anything new. Obama failed at fighting through it to get his priorities done, and I don't think I am willing to chalk that up to a failure of the system entirely.
His priorities were healthcare and stimulus. Which he got - by forcing it through in what looked nasty and partisan, see McConnell's quote above. Then he lost the election which meant other priorities had to go, though this has still been the least productive Congress ever. But even nominees with large Republican support were put on hold for long time, timetabled out of being voted on and filibustered by the Senate minority.
I agree it's not a failure of the system. My view is it's a feature of the system that McConnell perhaps was better at exploiting than anyone else. The problem is it could become part of the system in the future. Which is why I wonder about the competence thing. If you've got a party that behaves in this way then is there a way to competently manage them? That is, not to give in or to look like you're ramming things through in a partisan way. Because if there's not I can't see why any opposition party would ever want to cooperate again.
Edit: I suppose it's an extension of an old problem that if you cooperate with the President to do something, even if you believe in it, he's going to get the credit. If you don't cooperate, even if you believe in it, very often you can pass on the blame - he didn't make an effort with you, he didn't concede enough or want to be bipartisan and when he blames you can accuse him of petty party politics :lol:
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 06, 2012, 06:39:57 PM
That was the debt ceiling wasn't it? If he'd stared them down surely there's the not-insignificant chance there were enough crazies in the GOP House who wouldn't compromise and the markets would've gone mental.
I suppose this is my problem with the way Berkut put it (which I think is fair) if one party is willing to govern and the other isn't, then doesn't the former always have to give in or force things through regardless of the level of competence or who's in charge?
So politically I get your point that the mess would've been entirely the responsibility of the crazies. But it would still be a mess with real effects in the US and global economy. Is a political point worth that? At that point doesn't the responsibility to govern matter more, even if it means you've got to give in or whatever else?
The thing is, if Obama showed that he was willing to go to the mat in that situation chances are he'd get some of the less crazy crazies to cave. If he would have pushed that deal hard he could have pitched it as "this deal goes through or the debt ceiling gets raised or these are the drastic (and unpleasant) measures I'll have to take". You don't need all of the holdouts to change, just enough to get the bill passed.
Quote from: DGuller on November 06, 2012, 06:39:21 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 06, 2012, 06:21:34 PM
What do you think a more competent Obama administration could have done to thwart that?
I think he could've done more to make Republicans pay for holding the country hostage, if he had a better control of the message.
Then again, I'm not sure how fair this reproach is. After all, it's not like Republican Congressmen were doing something their voters didn't want them to do. How often do you hear some moron actively wishing for a gridlock in Washington?
I agree with DGuller (and that has been happening with disturbing frequency the last few years) - a stronger President would have been better at making that kind of obstinence pay; And that circles around to his second point - Obama (and the Dems) badly failed at the job of creating an alternative message to weaken the Tea Party crazies so that those Republican Tea Party assholes maybe would not have the power they ended up with - this is all politics, right? Who else do you blame for one side "winning" but the other side for not playing the game better?
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 06, 2012, 06:55:53 PM
Edit: I suppose it's an extension of an old problem that if you cooperate with the President to do something, even if you believe in it, he's going to get the credit. If you don't cooperate, even if you believe in it, very often you can pass on the blame - he didn't make an effort with you, he didn't concede enough or want to be bipartisan and when he blames you can accuse him of petty party politics :lol:
Of course - that is always the tough part about being the minority party, or even the majority with another party President.
That is tolerable to some extent, even expected. Such is politics.
In my opinion though, there are times when that is NOT tolerable - it is not ok to try to get the Executive to fail in times of crisis, for example. FDR might be President, but that doesn't mean that it is acceptable for the Republicans to try to throw WW2 in order to get him out of office.
I saw (and complained) about this with the Iraq War - where some Dems seemed willing to see the US fail in wartime rather than see Bush succeed at a war they opposed. Or even the very basis of opposition being primarily driven by the politics, rather than the actual issue. So this happens even when you don't want to see it happening.
It is the job of the guy trying to get things done to overcome it though - that is what is the mark of a excellent leader. Arguing that there was nothing Obama could do? Of course there were thing she could do, he could lead, he could win the political war, he could do the things that politicians do to convince people, he could use the legislative process to his advantage, rather than letting others use it to theirs, etc., etc.
Quote from: DGuller on November 06, 2012, 06:39:21 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 06, 2012, 06:21:34 PM
What do you think a more competent Obama administration could have done to thwart that?
I think he could've done more to make Republicans pay for holding the country hostage, if he had a better control of the message.
Then again, I'm not sure how fair this reproach is. After all, it's not like Republican Congressmen were doing something their voters didn't want them to do. How often do you hear some moron actively wishing for a gridlock in Washington?
I remember Derspeiss saying he was pleased with it. It does beg the question though, if Romney wins why shouldn't Democrats block everything the Republicans do, if for no other reason then to prove that Romney is an incompetent. After all, if Romney wins that proves it's a successful political strategy. It's a nasty strategy that hurts the country, but what else can the Dems do?
Quote from: Berkut on November 06, 2012, 07:11:34 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 06, 2012, 06:39:21 PM
Then again, I'm not sure how fair this reproach is. After all, it's not like Republican Congressmen were doing something their voters didn't want them to do. How often do you hear some moron actively wishing for a gridlock in Washington?
I agree with DGuller (and that has been happening with disturbing frequency the last few years) - a stronger President would have been better at making that kind of obstinence pay; And that circles around to his second point - Obama (and the Dems) badly failed at the job of creating an alternative message to weaken the Tea Party crazies so that those Republican Tea Party assholes maybe would not have the power they ended up with - this is all politics, right? Who else do you blame for one side "winning" but the other side for not playing the game better?
Part of the Tea Party attraction was to go to Washington DC in 2010 specifically to derail anything the President wanted to accomplish. How a "stronger" President would've countered that by an alternative message to weaken the Tea Party--a president whose message was as alternative as it could get--is pretty illogical.
It's not within a Democratic President's abilities to fight the Republicans' internal battles, especially when the Republicans wanting to make him a one-term President.
Quote from: Berkut on November 06, 2012, 07:11:34 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 06, 2012, 06:39:21 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 06, 2012, 06:21:34 PM
What do you think a more competent Obama administration could have done to thwart that?
I think he could've done more to make Republicans pay for holding the country hostage, if he had a better control of the message.
Then again, I'm not sure how fair this reproach is. After all, it's not like Republican Congressmen were doing something their voters didn't want them to do. How often do you hear some moron actively wishing for a gridlock in Washington?
I agree with DGuller (and that has been happening with disturbing frequency the last few years) - a stronger President would have been better at making that kind of obstinence pay; And that circles around to his second point - Obama (and the Dems) badly failed at the job of creating an alternative message to weaken the Tea Party crazies so that those Republican Tea Party assholes maybe would not have the power they ended up with - this is all politics, right? Who else do you blame for one side "winning" but the other side for not playing the game better?
Exactly how would he make the "pay"?
Quote from: Berkut on November 06, 2012, 07:18:57 PM
It is the job of the guy trying to get things done to overcome it though - that is what is the mark of a excellent leader. Arguing that there was nothing Obama could do? Of course there were thing she could do, he could lead, he could win the political war, he could do the things that politicians do to convince people, he could use the legislative process to his advantage, rather than letting others use it to theirs, etc., etc.
Berkut overestimates the House Republicans' ability, or desire, to be reasoned with. They are not a particularly rational political species at this moment in history.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 06, 2012, 07:39:54 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 06, 2012, 07:11:34 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 06, 2012, 06:39:21 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 06, 2012, 06:21:34 PM
What do you think a more competent Obama administration could have done to thwart that?
I think he could've done more to make Republicans pay for holding the country hostage, if he had a better control of the message.
Then again, I'm not sure how fair this reproach is. After all, it's not like Republican Congressmen were doing something their voters didn't want them to do. How often do you hear some moron actively wishing for a gridlock in Washington?
I agree with DGuller (and that has been happening with disturbing frequency the last few years) - a stronger President would have been better at making that kind of obstinence pay; And that circles around to his second point - Obama (and the Dems) badly failed at the job of creating an alternative message to weaken the Tea Party crazies so that those Republican Tea Party assholes maybe would not have the power they ended up with - this is all politics, right? Who else do you blame for one side "winning" but the other side for not playing the game better?
Exactly how would he make the "pay"?
Do what Clinton did to Gingrich--let the government get "shut down" and then blame Congress.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 06, 2012, 06:39:57 PM
That was the debt ceiling wasn't it? If he'd stared them down surely there's the not-insignificant chance there were enough crazies in the GOP House who wouldn't compromise and the markets would've gone mental.
The markets did go mental. :P
Quote from: Berkut on November 06, 2012, 07:18:57 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 06, 2012, 06:55:53 PM
Edit: I suppose it's an extension of an old problem that if you cooperate with the President to do something, even if you believe in it, he's going to get the credit. If you don't cooperate, even if you believe in it, very often you can pass on the blame - he didn't make an effort with you, he didn't concede enough or want to be bipartisan and when he blames you can accuse him of petty party politics :lol:
Of course - that is always the tough part about being the minority party, or even the majority with another party President.
That is tolerable to some extent, even expected. Such is politics.
In my opinion though, there are times when that is NOT tolerable - it is not ok to try to get the Executive to fail in times of crisis, for example. FDR might be President, but that doesn't mean that it is acceptable for the Republicans to try to throw WW2 in order to get him out of office.
I saw (and complained) about this with the Iraq War - where some Dems seemed willing to see the US fail in wartime rather than see Bush succeed at a war they opposed. Or even the very basis of opposition being primarily driven by the politics, rather than the actual issue. So this happens even when you don't want to see it happening.
It is the job of the guy trying to get things done to overcome it though - that is what is the mark of a excellent leader. Arguing that there was nothing Obama could do? Of course there were thing she could do, he could lead, he could win the political war, he could do the things that politicians do to convince people, he could use the legislative process to his advantage, rather than letting others use it to theirs, etc., etc.
I'm okay with Obama, he's a moderate Democrat President. I wouldn't vote for him but I'm actually not that turned off by his policies. But I'm super turned off by him as a leader. As you said, Obama could have waged the political war and won it against the Tea Party. Why didn't he? To me it strikes at the core of what Obama is about, he has been extremely concerned, perhaps even slavishly concerned, with his reelection since about his 13th month in office and that's why he didn't go to war with the Tea Party. That would put him "out there" it would expose him to potential defeat, criticism etc. Obama doesn't tolerate that kind of thing very well, and he's obviously avoided it whenever possible (with the exception of during the actual campaigns, when it was unavoidable.)
Quote from: dps on November 06, 2012, 07:44:53 PM
Do what Clinton did to Gingrich--let the government get "shut down" and then blame Congress.
And how exactly would this work in the debt ceiling fight? The US defaults on it's debts, and then be king of the rubble?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 06, 2012, 07:41:33 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 06, 2012, 07:18:57 PM
It is the job of the guy trying to get things done to overcome it though - that is what is the mark of a excellent leader. Arguing that there was nothing Obama could do? Of course there were thing she could do, he could lead, he could win the political war, he could do the things that politicians do to convince people, he could use the legislative process to his advantage, rather than letting others use it to theirs, etc., etc.
Berkut overestimates the House Republicans' ability, or desire, to be reasoned with. They are not a particularly rational political species at this moment in history.
Huh?
I am pretty sure I did not say anything about reasoning with them.
Quote from: Berkut on November 06, 2012, 09:58:01 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 06, 2012, 07:41:33 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 06, 2012, 07:18:57 PM
It is the job of the guy trying to get things done to overcome it though - that is what is the mark of a excellent leader. Arguing that there was nothing Obama could do? Of course there were thing she could do, he could lead, he could win the political war, he could do the things that politicians do to convince people, he could use the legislative process to his advantage, rather than letting others use it to theirs, etc., etc.
Berkut overestimates the House Republicans' ability, or desire, to be reasoned with. They are not a particularly rational political species at this moment in history.
Huh?
I am pretty sure I did not say anything about reasoning with them.
What else would a"strong" President do? The days of LBJ arm-breaking are over.
When he's used the power of his office to bypass the Congressional boundaries, it's "shameless partisanship".
Yeah much better to admit that there is nothing to be done to fix Washington. :yes:
Quote from: garbon on November 06, 2012, 10:18:13 PM
Yeah much better to admit that there is nothing to be done to fix Washington. :yes:
Sure thing, Mitch McConnell.
Oh no that was your bud who said that. :console:
Quote from: garbon on November 06, 2012, 10:27:43 PM
Oh no that was your bud who said that. :console:
The only way Congress is going to get "fixed" is if constituents stop sending douchebags, who in turn nominate bigger douchebags to lead them. That goes for Pelosi, Reid, Cantor, Boehner, the whole fucking lot.
But as long as they're allowed to draw their own districts the way they want, that won't happen.
Many more Senators now come from the House than used to be the case. I think that's had a damaging effect.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 06, 2012, 10:33:30 PM
Many more Senators now come from the House than used to be the case. I think that's had a damaging effect.
17th Amendment.
We should get rid of that thing.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 06, 2012, 10:54:45 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 06, 2012, 10:33:30 PM
Many more Senators now come from the House than used to be the case. I think that's had a damaging effect.
17th Amendment.
We should get rid of that thing.
Because our state legislatures do a great job with the tasks they already have? :yeahright:
Quote from: garbon on November 06, 2012, 10:56:36 PM
Because our state legislatures do a great job with the tasks they already have? :yeahright:
They're doing better than the US Congress. At least mine is. I think the states could decide for themselves how the Senators were selected before the 17th though, so not necessarily the legislatures.
IIRC in some cases they were appointed by the Governor.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 06, 2012, 10:59:07 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 06, 2012, 10:56:36 PM
Because our state legislatures do a great job with the tasks they already have? :yeahright:
They're doing better than the US Congress. At least mine is. I think the states could decide for themselves how the Senators were selected before the 17th though, so not necessarily the legislatures.
States aren't human being and thus don't need to be represented.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 06, 2012, 10:59:07 PM
They're doing better than the US Congress. At least mine is. I think the states could decide for themselves how the Senators were selected before the 17th though, so not necessarily the legislatures.
I don't understand the comparison to congress. They'd be acting the same as people in deciding senators, not congress.
Quote from: Berkut on November 01, 2012, 02:56:38 PM
I realized that I wasn't really voting for Obama because I think he is all that great personally - really, he has been mostly a significant dissapointment. I always said he had potential to be a great President, but I high likelihood of just being mediocre. Well, I think he is a lot closer to mediocre than great.
I wanted to return to this thread when I'd a bit of time. But basically I think the base criteria to be a great President is two terms (or you get shot). If you're a one term President then I think the best you'll be judged is 'under-rated'.
Part of this is what I think we're going to see now with Obama, which is that the achievements of your first term are cemented and secure.
But I think based on what we can reasonably assume about his second term (ie. no massive fuck up) that Obama will be viewed as a great President. I've three reasons for this.
First of all I think history will place a lot more emphasis on the economic crisis when he entered office. I think with a sense of historical perspective remembering that he came into office at the height, and the very start of the biggest economic crisis since the 30s, he'll be judged as a good leader. Most Presidents have time to get used to office before they've got to deal with something of that magnitude. There were many other leaders who'd been in office far longer who reacted far less well. His personal characteristics - to go Kipling - that he kept his head while all about him lost theirs were a strength at that point. He got a stimulus plan passed that did help. The US economy has had one of the strongest recoveries in the developed world* and this despite the fact that the economic effect of a financial crisis, or a collapse in housing is always particularly strong: you've had both. By 2016 when the economy's growing at a reasonable clip, and it should be even in Greece, with new financial regulations in place I think Obama's record will look different.
Secondly his biggest reform hasn't taken place yet, Obamacare isn't in operation. I think it's bigger than 1986 tax reform (because a significant part of that was just shoehorning the 1952 Tax Code into a Tax Code labelled '1986', though there were important changes) and welfare reform. For me it's probably the biggest domestic policy reform since LBJ. It'll be noticed over the next four years and historically, especially in 2014 when the mandate and the subsidies for the poor kick in and there shouldn't be any more uninsured - which is what 30-47 million Americans. I think that's an impressive achievement.
Thirdly I think he's successfully managed American foreign policy in a difficult time. There's two reasons its difficult. One is that I think all future foreign policy decisions for the next few years will take place in a context of budget cuts or restraint, deficits and debt. The US's foreign policy, after Bush, must necessarily be less ambitious because it can't afford much else. Secondly I think what's happening in the Middle East is the most destabilising, worrying and hopeful change in many years. I think Obama's foreign policy has been cautious and conservative in the best sense - as I say he reminds me of GHW Bush. Which is what America can afford and probably the best policy. I also think he's identified and started pursuing long-term strategic goals which, frankly, include building security cooperation in the Pacific to deal with China's rise, rather than, say, attempting to establish democracy in the Middle East. The counter here is that I'm sure the left will sour on Obama over drones and civil liberties, but in my view the weakening of al-Qaeda and the death of Bin Laden are solid achievements that have been got relatively cheaply.
I think those three, from one term, secured in a second qualify as potentially great. If he does what I hope, which is to push for a grand bargain on taxes-social spending and goes for immigration reform then I think he'll definitely be great and will actually be the liberal Reagan that the left want him to be.
* The one worry with this is that there are reasons this recovery should be slow, but the slowest three recoveries in the US 20th century history have been the last three. Perhaps there's something to that idea that we're heading into a period of 'great stagnation'.
QuoteIt is the job of the guy trying to get things done to overcome it though - that is what is the mark of a excellent leader. Arguing that there was nothing Obama could do? Of course there were thing she could do, he could lead, he could win the political war, he could do the things that politicians do to convince people, he could use the legislative process to his advantage, rather than letting others use it to theirs, etc., etc.
Well I'd say that far more serious than any Democrat behaviour during Iraq was the Republican's debt ceiling stunt.
But this argument from you and DGuller to me sounds like the domestic equivalent to the argument that Obama should have used more forceful language ('magic democracy words' as Dan Drezner put it) during the Green Revolution, because that would make a difference. It's the argument that perhaps because he's a good speaker he could win the argument. If only he was more aggressive in his language he'd get the public on the side - he wouldn't, the Republicans would attack him for hyper-partisanship and people would, fairly enough, buy it. I don't know what legislative processes he had that he didn't use, maybe he underused recess appointments.
The best I can come up with is that he should have embraced Simpson-Bowles and that he should have spoke (and campaigned) as he governed, a successful centrist and not a disappointed leftie. But I don't think that would've got any more of his agenda passed or would've got any more cooperation from Republicans.
I think Republicans played the politics well and I worry it'll be a model for future Congresses with a President from the other party. But I think they're now paying a cost because it didn't work. As David Frum's pointed out many times Obama would've done anything for some Republican support on healthcare. They could've rewritten chunks of that bill and passed their own priorities. Instead they've let Democrats do it (with Baucus and Nelson as the rightie interlocutor) and now they'll have to deal with that law. I suppose it's tactics vs strategy. I think the Republicans got the right tactics but screwed up strategically.