Seriously? You don't think Democrats could have done anything differently to chance the outcome? That's crazy. They gave in at every possibly opportunity. They should have stuck to their guns and forced the GOP to cave. Boehner more or less said he would have, but they gave the store away. They're just terrible negotiators, and the GOP knows it, so they treat them with zero respect. Whether it's Obama or Clinton or whoever, all I know is that Reid and Co. suck at this.
She's only be as effective as Obama would allow. If Clinton had stepped into the role made for Biden, I imagine should wouldn't have done much at all.
I don't so much mind that he doesn't force his caucus into damaging votes as I mind his never forcing the GOP to do anything. He always plays on their terms, and he's always afraid to put anything to a vote to force THEM into making an unpopular move. Just because you can't win doesn't mean you don't try. You have to want the issue. He never does.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: natural mystic -
Seriously? You don't think Democrats could have done anything differently to chance the outcome? That's crazy. They gave in at every possibly opportunity. They should have stuck to their guns and forced the GOP to cave. Boehner more or less said he would have, but they gave the store away. They're just terrible negotiators, and the GOP knows it, so they treat them with zero respect. Whether it's Obama or Clinton or whoever, all I know is that Reid and Co. suck at this.
I would be very interested in hearing what other outcomes you think were possible with different negotiating tactics. Boehner did not have the votes to cave. Do you not think that Bachman et al. were sincere in their willingness to see a default due to not raising the debt ceiling? Do you think that there was some way to persuade enough of the House Reps to raise taxes?
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm dubious that any man or woman could get this Congress mobilized. I think only some sort of disaster of incredible magnitude (war, famine, epidemic) occuring could all the grime in the gears get fished out.
Even in the aftermath of such a disaster, congress would drift back to what it is now, and probably quicker than we'd like to think. The GOP has shown how to break the two-party system and reap short-to-medium term political benefit from it. The pressure will always exist for them (or whatever fiscally conservative party follows) to do it again.
I'm not really sure how to fix it short of a constitutional amendment of fairly epic proportions. Unfortunately, I would only have the slightest idea of what would go in it, nor would I trust any of the current leadership to decide it.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: natural mystic -
Seriously? You don't think Democrats could have done anything differently to chance the outcome? That's crazy. They gave in at every possibly opportunity. They should have stuck to their guns and forced the GOP to cave. Boehner more or less said he would have, but they gave the store away. They're just terrible negotiators, and the GOP knows it, so they treat them with zero respect. Whether it's Obama or Clinton or whoever, all I know is that Reid and Co. suck at this.
She's only be as effective as Obama would allow. If Clinton had stepped into the role made for Biden, I imagine should wouldn't have done much at all.
I don't so much mind that he doesn't force his caucus into damaging votes as I mind his never forcing the GOP to do anything. He always plays on their terms, and he's always afraid to put anything to a vote to force THEM into making an unpopular move. Just because you can't win doesn't mean you don't try. You have to want the issue. He never does.
I think your disappointment may be misdirected here. I grant that President Obama fairly consistently caves to the demands of the GOP. But that in its own right isn't reason to be be angry with President Obama. Look at the nature of the negotiations. President Obama wanted to extend unemployment benefits. The GOP refused to go along with it unless it was coupled with an extension of the Bush tax-cuts. President Obama caved to that.
Why? Because he didn't want to let the unemployed be the victims of partisanship. The GOP have held our credit hostage, they've held the unemployed hostage, and they've held the military, disaster victims, elderly, and poor hostage to their agenda. President Obama is not negotiating on a level playing field. No president could negotiate with the kind of opposition that President Obama has faced.
The question isn't why hasn't Obama done a better job negotiating, it's why are we allowing the GOP to take hostages to further their agenda? I'm not advocating vote democratic or give your unqualified support to President Obama. I'm saying that we need to hold the GOP accountable to what they've been doing and not blame President Obama for that. If you want to be angry with his foreign policy, his ideology, his lack of transparency, anything that can actually be tied to the choices of his administration, be my guest. Just don't be angry with him for the actions of others because that further condones what they've done.
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
In a two party system this means voting democrat.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: In a two party system this means voting democrat.
You can still vote republican if you primary out your representatives to someone who would be willing to work in good faith. You know. In theory.
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Or vote for the dude you will won't win the election, also works. Split the vote! c'mon!
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: natural mystic -
Seriously? You don't think Democrats could have done anything differently to chance the outcome? That's crazy. They gave in at every possibly opportunity. They should have stuck to their guns and forced the GOP to cave. Boehner more or less said he would have, but they gave the store away. They're just terrible negotiators, and the GOP knows it, so they treat them with zero respect. Whether it's Obama or Clinton or whoever, all I know is that Reid and Co. suck at this.
I would be very interested in hearing what other outcomes you think were possible with different negotiating tactics. Boehner did not have the votes to cave. Do you not think that Bachman et al. were sincere in their willingness to see a default due to not raising the debt ceiling? Do you think that there was some way to persuade enough of the House Reps to raise taxes?
The Tea Party caucus is a minority WITHIN the GOP. Both Boehner and McConnell repeated several times over that there would not be a default. Now the GOP knows that they just have to stall to the last minute every time because the Dems will simply cave every time.
If you give a mouse a cookie...
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: natural mystic -
Seriously? You don't think Democrats could have done anything differently to chance the outcome? That's crazy. They gave in at every possibly opportunity. They should have stuck to their guns and forced the GOP to cave. Boehner more or less said he would have, but they gave the store away. They're just terrible negotiators, and the GOP knows it, so they treat them with zero respect. Whether it's Obama or Clinton or whoever, all I know is that Reid and Co. suck at this.
She's only be as effective as Obama would allow. If Clinton had stepped into the role made for Biden, I imagine should wouldn't have done much at all.
I don't so much mind that he doesn't force his caucus into damaging votes as I mind his never forcing the GOP to do anything. He always plays on their terms, and he's always afraid to put anything to a vote to force THEM into making an unpopular move. Just because you can't win doesn't mean you don't try. You have to want the issue. He never does.
I think your disappointment may be misdirected here. I grant that President Obama fairly consistently caves to the demands of the GOP. But that in its own right isn't reason to be be angry with President Obama. Look at the nature of the negotiations. President Obama wanted to extend unemployment benefits. The GOP refused to go along with it unless it was coupled with an extension of the Bush tax-cuts. President Obama caved to that.
Why? Because he didn't want to let the unemployed be the victims of partisanship. The GOP have held our credit hostage, they've held the unemployed hostage, and they've held the military, disaster victims, elderly, and poor hostage to their agenda. President Obama is not negotiating on a level playing field. No president could negotiate with the kind of opposition that President Obama has faced.
The question isn't why hasn't Obama done a better job negotiating, it's why are we allowing the GOP to take hostages to further their agenda? I'm not advocating vote democratic or give your unqualified support to President Obama. I'm saying that we need to hold the GOP accountable to what they've been doing and not blame President Obama for that. If you want to be angry with his foreign policy, his ideology, his lack of transparency, anything that can actually be tied to the choices of his administration, be my guest. Just don't be angry with him for the actions of others because that further condones what they've done.
If he had stuck to his guns and offered a repeal of all but the middle class tax cuts, they would have gone along with it.
And if they hadn't, Obama should have railed into every microphone possible that the GOP was responsible for middle class tax hikes AND for killing jobless benefits. He prolonged a longterm problem for a short term benefit. I sympathize with him, but it was the wrong move.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: natural mystic -
Seriously? You don't think Democrats could have done anything differently to chance the outcome? That's crazy. They gave in at every possibly opportunity. They should have stuck to their guns and forced the GOP to cave. Boehner more or less said he would have, but they gave the store away. They're just terrible negotiators, and the GOP knows it, so they treat them with zero respect. Whether it's Obama or Clinton or whoever, all I know is that Reid and Co. suck at this.
She's only be as effective as Obama would allow. If Clinton had stepped into the role made for Biden, I imagine should wouldn't have done much at all.
I don't so much mind that he doesn't force his caucus into damaging votes as I mind his never forcing the GOP to do anything. He always plays on their terms, and he's always afraid to put anything to a vote to force THEM into making an unpopular move. Just because you can't win doesn't mean you don't try. You have to want the issue. He never does.
I think your disappointment may be misdirected here. I grant that President Obama fairly consistently caves to the demands of the GOP. But that in its own right isn't reason to be be angry with President Obama. Look at the nature of the negotiations. President Obama wanted to extend unemployment benefits. The GOP refused to go along with it unless it was coupled with an extension of the Bush tax-cuts. President Obama caved to that.
Why? Because he didn't want to let the unemployed be the victims of partisanship. The GOP have held our credit hostage, they've held the unemployed hostage, and they've held the military, disaster victims, elderly, and poor hostage to their agenda. President Obama is not negotiating on a level playing field. No president could negotiate with the kind of opposition that President Obama has faced.
The question isn't why hasn't Obama done a better job negotiating, it's why are we allowing the GOP to take hostages to further their agenda? I'm not advocating vote democratic or give your unqualified support to President Obama. I'm saying that we need to hold the GOP accountable to what they've been doing and not blame President Obama for that. If you want to be angry with his foreign policy, his ideology, his lack of transparency, anything that can actually be tied to the choices of his administration, be my guest. Just don't be angry with him for the actions of others because that further condones what they've done.
If he had stuck to his guns and offered a repeal of all but the middle class tax cuts, they would have gone along with it.
And if they hadn't, Obama should have railed into every microphone possible that the GOP was responsible for middle class tax hikes AND for killing jobless benefits. He prolonged a longterm problem for a short term benefit. I sympathize with him, but it was the wrong move.
I don't believe that when someone holds a person hostage that you try and call their bluff. "Oh yeah? You're really gonna hurt them? Prove it."
Particularly when the GOP can play the card, "It's not our fault! We offered a fair compromise that if we're going to extend benefits for the unemployed, we need to ensure that the job creators have the capacity to hire those folks. Raising taxes right now would have just made the problem worse. We were willing to compromise and this president wasn't."
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the current situation in congress is kind of unique in there being a majority of one party in the House and a majority of the other in the Senate (do I have that right?) Honestly, how old were most of you during the Clinton admin? GHW Bush? Heck, I probably watched more news during the Reagan administration than I do now. These are not GOP dirty tricks. It's just folks being folks. Well, white male fraternity bro folks being folks.
While I seriously doubt Obama would replace Biden, I do think Clinton could make a difference (suspending reality to the degree I could imagine that as a good thing). I mean, I don't even understand how a football coach can make a difference to how a game is won or lost, but some people just have a quality of leadership. I don't think Hilary is a great or even a fine example, but I am certain she has more of it than Biden. Biden is a weasel, and not just because he's a democrat; Orrin Hatch is also a weasel. Though for all of what some of you wish for in a GOP lawmaker, he's your guy.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: natural mystic -
Seriously? You don't think Democrats could have done anything differently to chance the outcome? That's crazy. They gave in at every possibly opportunity. They should have stuck to their guns and forced the GOP to cave. Boehner more or less said he would have, but they gave the store away. They're just terrible negotiators, and the GOP knows it, so they treat them with zero respect. Whether it's Obama or Clinton or whoever, all I know is that Reid and Co. suck at this.
She's only be as effective as Obama would allow. If Clinton had stepped into the role made for Biden, I imagine should wouldn't have done much at all.
I don't so much mind that he doesn't force his caucus into damaging votes as I mind his never forcing the GOP to do anything. He always plays on their terms, and he's always afraid to put anything to a vote to force THEM into making an unpopular move. Just because you can't win doesn't mean you don't try. You have to want the issue. He never does.
I think your disappointment may be misdirected here. I grant that President Obama fairly consistently caves to the demands of the GOP. But that in its own right isn't reason to be be angry with President Obama. Look at the nature of the negotiations. President Obama wanted to extend unemployment benefits. The GOP refused to go along with it unless it was coupled with an extension of the Bush tax-cuts. President Obama caved to that.
Why? Because he didn't want to let the unemployed be the victims of partisanship. The GOP have held our credit hostage, they've held the unemployed hostage, and they've held the military, disaster victims, elderly, and poor hostage to their agenda. President Obama is not negotiating on a level playing field. No president could negotiate with the kind of opposition that President Obama has faced.
The question isn't why hasn't Obama done a better job negotiating, it's why are we allowing the GOP to take hostages to further their agenda? I'm not advocating vote democratic or give your unqualified support to President Obama. I'm saying that we need to hold the GOP accountable to what they've been doing and not blame President Obama for that. If you want to be angry with his foreign policy, his ideology, his lack of transparency, anything that can actually be tied to the choices of his administration, be my guest. Just don't be angry with him for the actions of others because that further condones what they've done.
If he had stuck to his guns and offered a repeal of all but the middle class tax cuts, they would have gone along with it.
And if they hadn't, Obama should have railed into every microphone possible that the GOP was responsible for middle class tax hikes AND for killing jobless benefits. He prolonged a longterm problem for a short term benefit. I sympathize with him, but it was the wrong move.
I don't believe that when someone holds a person hostage that you try and call their bluff. "Oh yeah? You're really gonna hurt them? Prove it."
Particularly when the GOP can play the card, "It's not our fault! We offered a fair compromise that if we're going to extend benefits for the unemployed, we need to ensure that the job creators have the capacity to hire those folks. Raising taxes right now would have just made the problem worse. We were willing to compromise and this president wasn't."
The GOP took the country hostage, and then Boehner said "Yeah, but I have no intention of pulling the trigger." Maybe Bachmann wanted to pull the trigger, but Bachmann is part of a small minority of a big party. Boehner would have had more than enough votes from moderate and liberal Republicans and the left. Frankly, he might have enjoyed the chance to marginalize the Tea Party, since they're single-handedly making him look powerless and ineffective. He couldn't even get his own damned FEMA bill passed a couple weeks ago. He would have caved, he SAID he would have caved.
And he can sling that line all he wants. Polls how that more than 2/3ds of Americans agree that taxes for the wealthy should go up. It's a message that only works for a minority of the country, and it's a minority well outside Obama's and all Democrats main line of support, so who cares what he says?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: The Tea Party caucus is a minority WITHIN the GOP. Both Boehner and McConnell repeated several times over that there would not be a default. Now the GOP knows that they just have to stall to the last minute every time because the Dems will simply cave every time.
If you give a mouse a cookie...
The Tea Party^1 caucus is sufficiently big that they need either Tea Party votes or democratic votes to pass a bill. Remember the timeline of events. On Thursday 29 July, Boehner had to postpone a vote on his bill because he did not have the votes and needed support from either democratic or Tea Party. Boehner then moved the bill further to the right. Bear in mind, this is a few days before the deadline when one might have expected a softening of stances. If nothing else, this should dispel the notion that Boehner has control of his caucus (the cancelling of the vote was something of a humiliation).
Remember, also, that McConnell put forward a way to resolve the debt ceiling issue which was discarded by the House out of hand.
Anyhow, I don't doubt that Boehner and McConnell realized the importance of raising the debt ceiling. I suspect that Boehner was even sincerely trying for a grand bargain. I just doubt that their opinions mattered much. And I don't blame the democrats for being unwilling to risk a default. Whether they should be blamed for not raising the debt ceiling the previous year is another matter....
1. I have no idea who is formally in the Tea Party caucus. By Tea Party caucus I basically mean that subset of Reps who are philosophically aligned with Bachman, West etc.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: I think the current situation in congress is kind of unique in there being a majority of one party in the House and a majority of the other in the Senate (do I have that right?) Honestly, how old were most of you during the Clinton admin? GHW Bush? Heck, I probably watched more news during the Reagan administration than I do now. These are not GOP dirty tricks. It's just folks being folks. Well, white male fraternity bro folks being folks.
Actually, that's not really true, in terms of frequency. Holds and filibusters and other procedural moves have gone up substantially in number in the last decade, particularly in the last 3 years; orders of magnitude greater than during the Reagan era.
There are a ton of federal judicial vacancies because of these shenanigans. And the frequency of shenanigans has correlated quite well to when the Republican party is in the minority.
And I do remember the Reagan era (the only time I voted for a Republican was in a 2nd-grade mock vote, in fact ).
Posts: 7021 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm almost positive I voted for Ross Perot in our sixth grade election, but it was probably because his box was blue - my favorite color. Clinton was yellow, Dole was red.
I think I was three during Reagan's re-election campaign.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I voted Clinton in the sixth grade, but it was San Francisco- I don't think dole got any votes.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't really develop a political identity until partway through high school.
My house was a political dead zone growing up. I don't recall my parents every saying a single word about ANYTHING political during my entire childhood.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I admit that the filibuster-by-default rule is stupid and I don't like it, and I believe it was enacted by a republican majority. I just thought "you boys are not always going to be in charge and then this stupid rule will bite you hard."
But one part of the tea party philosophy that I agree with is that going to Washington seems to turn lawmakers into careerist zombies. The alternative is to always have untried youths at the helm. :shrug:
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I didn't really develop a political identity until partway through high school.
My house was a political dead zone growing up. I don't recall my parents every saying a single word about ANYTHING political during my entire childhood.
That was exactly true for me. Then when I developed an identity very different from my mother, she suddenly opened the flood gates and I was totally unprepared for the deluge.
I suppose I should still applaud her for staying neutral until I graduated, came back from being a missionary for two years, and started voicing my opinions.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I supported Reagan in the elementary school election because Carter had been president for as long as I could remember and I thought someone else should get a turn.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:The alternative is to always have untried youths at the helm. :shrug:
I'm willing to volunteer.
Oh hush, you have none of the pre-requisites. Knowing you, you'd work hard, humbly ask questions, and in the end, make the tough decisions that you feel are necessary to lead us down the right path. Who wants that?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyrhawn's got my vote. Seriously, if you want to run for something in Nebraska after you establish residency, I'd chip in five bucks.
I'm starting to feel for Mitt Romney. People can't remember him, and Herman Cain is now, uh, surging? What happens if Perry ever has a good debate, or when people realize Cain's not keeping much of a campaign schedule, is a good question, but I'll be stunned if/when he gets the nomination while never getting over 30% in polls of the GOP electorate.
Posts: 100 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Tea Party^1 caucus is sufficiently big that they need either Tea Party votes or democratic votes to pass a bill.
I think this highlights the biggest problem the GOP is going to face in this election cycle. To win the nomination the GOP candidate has got to court the Tea Party because no matter how small a minority they are within the party, they are likely to constitute a majority of primary voters because they are activated. And to win the General Election, the GOP has got to get their base excited enough to show up at the polls in force.
But to win the General Election they are also going to have to appeal to middle and those two things are essentially mutually exclusive.
The GOP can either ignore the Tea Party and court the center (with the hope that Tea Party hatred of Obama will be enough to get those folks to the polls), or they can pay attention to the Tea Party and alienate the majority of Americans.
It will be interesting to see how it plays out and whether the democrats can capitalize on this divide in the GOP.
If Romney gets the nomination, I think there is a very real chance that one of the Christian Tea Party candidates will run as a third party candidate and split off enough of the conservative vote to swing the election.
[ October 07, 2011, 07:38 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
But honestly, I'm not terribly worried about 2012. I think the news and analysts are simply wrong. All the data they're looking at for likely voters already includes the votes of most conservatives, and even with that, any one of the candidates has far less support than all of them combined. When the election gets closer, all Obama will have to do is get out the vote- his base is simply a hell of a lot bigger than the conservative one. That, and none of his campaigning will have to focus on solid democratic states, as it did when he was fighting a primary battle last time around. So he has all the time in the world to focus on battleground states- and considering the victory he had last time around, I think Republicans would have a hell of a time catching up.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If Romney gets the nomination, I think there is a very real chance that one of the Christian Tea Party candidates will run as a third party candidate and split off enough of the conservative vote to swing the election.
I highly doubt it. I think a lot of them are three eggs short of a carton, but none of the candidates are that stupid. Even Palin outright said that running as a third party candidate guarantees a win for Obama. Ron Paul is probably the only one of them with enough individual support to even try, and I don't think he would.
Either a Tea Party favorite will get the nomination, or Romney will make one of them the VP candidate.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Either a Tea Party favorite will get the nomination, or Romney will make one of them the VP candidate.
That would be nice! It's (a) possible, and (b) would hurt them (the tea party is anathema to any crowd outside of really serious republicans)
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
That's kind of the magic of the GOP though. They expel moderates and run to the right, so you're either going to get a Tea Party nominee, or you're going to get someone who is very aware of how un-conservative he is and will need to shore up the right flank, even if that's not actually true, it's the perception, and if it's Romney, he'll feel it even more because he's afraid of turning off evangelicals because he's Mormon. It's why McCain went for Palin, though in fairness I don't think he had a clue what he was getting himself into. He really should have chosen Kay Bailey Hutchinson if he wanted a woman VP.
On the bright side, if Romney is chosen and picks someone like Cain or Bachmann, it won't hurt him with moderates. He's a right-center Republican pretending to be a hard core righty right now, and as soon as the primaries are over, he'll tack right towards independents in swing states.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would put the odds of Romney choosing Bachmann at nearly zero. Cain, maybe a bit better than zero, but still quite low.
Rubio's protestations notwithstanding, I think he's the most likely VP candidate if Romney heads the ticket. Cantor is another candidate I'd say is more likely than either Cain or Bachmann. Other legistlators that I think are somewhat likely are Rob Portman or John Thune. I think Romney'd probably shy away from choosing another governor, otherwise I'd say Bob McDonnell or Nikki Haley or John Kasich or Susanna Martinez. All of these, with the possible exception of Portman, have some Tea Party credibility, but are establishment enough that I doubt they'd polarize the general election campaign the way Palin's nomination did.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:When the election gets closer, all Obama will have to do is get out the vote- his base is simply a hell of a lot bigger than the conservative one.
Because Obama's base is invisible to pollsters somehow? Yeah, I know you hipsters only communicate, when voice is necessary, by burner phone.
I think it can be equally argued that Democrats suffer equally from the issue that the most motivated constituents are a bit out to lunch. I'd even say it's traditionally the case with Democrats, while it is a newish situation for republicans.
I also don't think there are really that many tea partyers. Tea party is not really the same as Christian Right.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:“Many of them do have a level playing field,” Cain said. “I absolutely believe that. Not only because of the businesses that I have run, which has had the combination of whites, blacks, Hispanics - you know, we had a total diversity. But also because of the corporations whose board I've served on for the last 20 years. I have seen blacks in middle management move up to top management in some of the biggest corporations in America.”
As for African Americans who remain economically disadvantaged, Cain said they often only had themselves to blame.
“They weren't held back because of racism,” Cain said. “People sometimes hold themselves back because they want to use racism as an excuse for them not being able to achieve what they want to achieve.”
I'm going to call it at 2:30pm - Cain doesn't have a prayer with American's black vote.
And you know, it might just be a political ploy. He probably wouldn't have captured a great deal of the black vote anyway, and by channeling Booker T. Washington, he looks GREAT to the exact subsection of whites who might be leery about voting for him.
Of course, he's being ridiculous. While I think racism as a negative force in this country has been on a constant decline for decades, being black, especially, as he mentioned, in places like Detroit, means you grow up automatically disadvantaged because of a lack of education opportunities and urban decay. We live in a state of de facto housing and school discrimination because we never really desegregated, and efforts in the 80s to really try and force the issue collapsed. I really don't see how he could ignore that.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, he could if he were...what's the phrase...lacking in integrity?
Anyway, like you, I suspect this is more political ploy than honest autobiography on his part. Hearing from a successful black man that racism ain't no thing anymore is, afterall, something GOP primary voters would (and will) *love* to hear.
It's always interested me, the way human beings are willing to think we can just 'get over' problems such as racism. That's not a penetrating insight, far from it, but still often surprising to me. Fundamental, *built-in* aspect of our culture for nearly *half a millenium* here in our piece of North America. Swept aside in a couple of generations! Gone, no longer an impediment. Easy!
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
From the looks of things, Huntsman will be out when (and if) he fails to do well in New Hampshire. Cain is going to seriously contend in Iowa, South Carolina and Florida. Romney is looking at New Hampshire and Nevada for big wins. Perry appears to be the number two or three man, but if Perry and Cain split the uber-conservative vote, Romney might pop out ahead.
Hard to say, but it's odd that the new top tier is Cain, Romney and Perry, possibly in that order.
I think Cain will rise or fall in the coming weeks for a lot of reasons. His 9-9-9 Plan is finally coming under increased scrutiny, and a lot of it is bad. Most reviews I've seen have said two things: 1. It probably can't replace the current revenue structure. 2. It will shift some of the tax burden from the rich to the poor.
That will kill him in the General, and frankly I'd think it'd hurt him in the primary. Even the Tea Party has majority support for tax hikes on the rich.
But no one really knows anything else about him. That plan is the basis for his campaign. As his other positions come out, he'll rise or fall accordingly. His views on race are new and interesting (read: bizarre), though I expect that kind of stuff will help him in the primaries. I don't know. There's another debate tonight that is supposed to focus on the economy, where I expect Cain will play a much larger role than he has in the past, where the debates focused on Perry and Romney.
It will be interesting to see if the moderators make an effort to include Cain more and give him more face time. It's no secret they've played favorites.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Didn't realize Romney was on top in Iowa, or that Cain was doing even that well. If they got one/two in the first two states, then flip flop in Florida and South Carolina, it could turn into a real horse race, especially if Bachmann, Perry and Paul all drop out. I have to imagine most of their support flows to Cain, but there's no way of knowing. I'd love to see some polls where the lesser candidates drop out and it's just a two or three man race.
I think Romney has the advantage. He's a known entity, though I've seen some bizarre polls recently that say Romney is LESS well known now than he was in 2007/2008, which is odd. Cain on the other hand has a lot of room to make himself known, which could be received well or not so well. Look what happened to Perry when the shine wore off. I do, however, think that Cain is a lot more polished than Perry (which is surprising since pretty much every politico is shocked by how terrible Perry has been in debates when he's had so much practice at the state level). He appears fairly unflappable and confident.
Things are getting a little interesting.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Romney is moving quickly with the Christie endorsement, as he did with the Pawlenty endorsement. It seems a bit surprising as a strategy to me.
I don't think Cain has serious policy chops. His 9-9-9 plan has been pretty roundly condemned, as you say, and his pronouncements on other issues from foreign policy to social issues suggest a lack of in-depth understanding. I think his rise will ebb again within the month and Perry will again be the default anti-Romney candidate.
That said, I think Cain's got a more interesting biography than he's usually given credit for. A BA in Math, and MS in Computer Science; ballistics missile engineer for the Navy; published a paper in a top-tier, peer-reviewed academic journal (Interfaces); systems analyst with Coca-Cola; director of business analysis for Pillsbury; Chairman of the Kansas City Fed; associate minister at his local church; cancer survivor; married for 43 years. A lot gets left out when he's referred to exclusively as "the former CEO of Godfather's Pizza."
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am pretty confident that Romney will win Nevada. He won here in 2008 very easily. There is a large LDS population here and going to the primary in 2008 was like a huge Ward reunion.
I will vote for him simply because he is Right-Center, not because he is LDS. He has shown in the past he is willing to work with Democrats, and I think we desperately need this. Nothing against President Obama, I just think Romney would be able to work with both Republicans and Democrats a little better in getting stuff done.
Rubio would be a pretty good pick for any candidate, and there is also talk of Paul Ryan being on the short list. I guess we will see!
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Nothing against President Obama, I just think Romney would be able to work with both Republicans and Democrats a little better in getting stuff done.
As long as Republicans refuse to work with a Democratic president and Democrats try desperately to appear bi-partisan, this will remain a truism. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Getting stuff done" is not necessarily a good thing. It depends entirely on the stuff that is getting done. If one is getting stuff done that is bad stuff - say most of the stuff that got done under President Bush - then I hope that people are not better at getting stuff done.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find it deeply hypocritical when Republican politicians criticize Obama for not getting stuff done when republicans have been working their hardest to keep him from getting anything done.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I find it deeply hypocritical when Republican politicians criticize Obama for not getting stuff done when republicans have been working their hardest to keep him from getting anything done.
Of course it is.
But it's working so well.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I find it deeply hypocritical when Republican politicians criticize Obama for not getting stuff done when republicans have been working their hardest to keep him from getting anything done.
Of course it is.
But it's working so well.
Yes, which makes me despair over the future of the country and the world. Are the American people really that dumb? Are their memories really that short? Are they truly so incapable of critical thinking? People have more access to information than at any time in the world's history and yet they are more poorly informed.
It's . . . I'm not even sure what word could capture it. I need a word that adequately encompasses annoying, disturbing, frustrating, alarming, demoralizing, depressing, and troubling.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is a serious question, Geraine, but I'm having a hard time thinking of a way to phrase it so it's not a gotcha or anything. Sorry about that.
The question is, why do you think it's a good thing to, well, reward the current Republican policy (admitted even by top Republican politicaisn) of ironclad obstructionism by electing a Republican politician who will 'work better' with Congress to get things done?
I'm not suggesting that ought to add up, for you, to 'Vote Obama!' or anything. But your inclusion of 'working better' as a reason just struck me as really strange. Republicans obstruct for the sake of obstruction. Result: people elect a Republican president to better work with Congress?
How is that not a transparent, extortionate political policy approach?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: [qb] [QUOTE]I find it deeply hypocritical when Republican politicians criticize Obama for not getting stuff done when republicans have been working their hardest to keep him from getting anything done.
People have more access to information than at any time in the world's history and yet they are more poorly informed.
On the latter part I'm dubious. I would say more people are better informed, than at any other time in our nation's history. I would also say though that to vote seriously on many political issues a person must reach a basic quotient of political knowledge.
We have a greater number of better informed sub-quotient voters, but we also have truckloads of lazy people who don't realize how much damage their apathy towards voting harms our nation as a whole. With voting around 30%, we need a new term for what our democracy is. Theoretically we could be called democratic, but 1 : 3 people voting isn't government by the people, it's government by some people, selected by other people, while most people don't participate. A minoritocracy so to speak.
It's more apathy, than ignorance I think that is getting in the way.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is a fair enough point Rakeesh, you phrased it well.
I am not saying what the Republicans have done in Congress is right and they should be "rewarded" with the presidency. Romney simply has a better track record when it comes to working with those on the other side of the isle. If he becomes the candidate, he will be the most moderate candidate between him and the president.
My voting republican in the presidential race has nothing to do with the republicans in congress. They are two different branches of government, and to be honest I haven't been pleased with the House or Senate republicans. In the next election, I will look at who is running and make my decision based on their records. If I feel they are not willing to work with democrats or play nice, I'll vote them out.
I am not someone that just chooses everyone with an "R" by their name. I voted for Harry Reid because I thought Sharon Angle was a horrible candidate. I may not like Harry Reid, but he is from my state and is the Majority Leader. I like having that.
One last point and I myself am going to have a hard time explaining it....
If any other Republican candidate OTHER than Romney wins the election, it won't help. Democrats in the Senate would be VERY careful about any legislation passed, and we would see more and more bills DOA in the Senate. They would do this because they wouldn't hold the executive branch, and frankly if someone like Michelle Bachmann were president I wouldn't blame them.
Likewise, if Obama wins re-election Republicans will without a doubt continue to obstruct any legislation written by a Democrat.
I see Romney as being the only person that is moderate enough to commit to working with the Democrats and (hopefully) strong arming the Republicans to work it out. He's done it in the past, and I think he would do it again.
I hope I explained that well.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's more apathy, than ignorance I think that is getting in the way.
I think the apathy is a result of the disfunctional, money driven two party system. Both parties are beholden the same monied interest and so the difference between them is very small and rarely of real consequence to the average citizen.
Take health care for example. People may care very much about getting affordable insurance and still not be motivated to vote because they don't believe either party will do anything that makes a real difference. Can you blame them? Health care reform has been being debated for over 3 decades. The party in power has changed several times and still nothing has really changed. Despite the viciousness of the fights over Obama care, its at best a baby step that may create more problems than it fixes. The same thing is true with lots of other issues. Voters aren't apathetic because they don't care about anything. They are apathetic because they don't believe the election will make a difference to the things they care about.
I also don't think apathy is the major problem. If we could get 90% of the people to the polls but they didn't have any better judgment than the current voters, we wouldn't be any better off.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
).
