quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: What smaller changes do you suggest?
And I try not to buy into hype about Americans from Americans. The only thing exceptional about American Exceptionalism is the volume with which we proclaim it.
For changes, I think the conversation has already moved onto one of the ideas that I alluded to in my first post: a non-partisan elections entity that draws up riding boundaries. We do one commission on the federal level, but commissions on the state level are reasonable as well.
Once that is fixed, if conservatives such as Dan_Frank still want a compromise between the first-past-the-post EC and a fully proportional system, then I would suggest looking at shrinking the the aggregation. Rather than lumping all votes together by state, I would be more familiar with the Canadian system where votes are lumped by each riding (districts).
Swing states become swing ridings, but swing ridings are much less predictable and move around much more often. It's not perfect, but I still think it's an improvement. Even for conservatives (for example, our conservative party doesn't just throw up their hands when it comes to major cities, they *compete* well in cities).
As for exceptionalism, that may be a discussion for another day. I do actually think that the US does have unique attitudes. "Can-do" optimism is (was?) one of them. kmbboots has spoken pursuasively about the link between prosperity and virtue in the American mind which is another example that comes to mind.
Blayne Bradley:
Ok, so two of the countries you listed, Mexico and South Korea don't even use FPTP in the way that we're talking about. They mix in proportional representation to give representation to third parties. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_voting
The countries you're left with are Canada and the UK. The UK has ten parties in Parliament, Canada has five.
We've gone from your claim that "the system eventually averages out to just two parties" to where the only real examples found have more than two parties (with seats). I think I'm satisfied and won't be going into the shifting goalposts of what "vibrant" means to you.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:We've gone from your claim that "the system eventually averages out to just two parties" to where the only real examples found have more than two parties (with seats). I think I'm satisfied and won't be going into the shifting goalposts of what "vibrant" means to you.
posted
I'm perfectly clear in my meaning in the context of our discussion, if I see a parliament or a senate or congress dominated overwhelmingly by two parties its a two party system that pressures voters into voting for the lesser of two evils and consistently so.
I was actually looking at Presidential elections by mistake and not parliamentary elections; but stating that because Canada has 5 parties and UK having 10 is disingenuous because how many of those parties actually matter if one party has the majority needed to no longer worry about opposition?
Simple election analysis of Canada shows the problem perfectly. The Conservatives have a majority, voting by your conscience in a close election may result in a spoiler effect in which the Conservatives, by virtue of being an "open tent" party will recieve the majority of majority votes will always win a majority government; because all the other voters are split up among all of the other smaller parties.
The result of this is that rational voters will strategically vote for the party that is more likely to win that somewhat better reflects their interests as per the video.
So in Canada this means less for the Liberals and more for the NDP if the principle goal of the average non Conservative voter is to prevent a Conservative majority then your vote is clear, vote for any party in your riding that is NOT the CPC that is most likely to win.
So the Bloc having a few seats and the Liberals having seats mean absolutely nothing, because a majority government in Canada means you can do pretty much anything and the only real opposition is the Courts.
If your definition of "multiparty" is that a country only needs to possess more than 2 party's having seats then not even the United States would qualify as there's seats held by Independents.
Again, there's also the undeniable example of the United States which has FPTP and is a two party system; we haven't "gone" from anywhere, merely examples of where the system is conspiring to divide up politics between two major parties is the point and the theory is a compelling reason as to why FPTP is undemocratic.
I don't understand why you feel that theory is to be tossed out of the winds but certainly in the context of American elections there's a two party system and the spoiler effect a compelling reason as to why the status quo is god.
IP: Logged |
quote:For changes, I think the conversation has already moved onto one of the ideas that I alluded to in my first post: a non-partisan elections entity that draws up riding boundaries. We do one commission on the federal level, but commissions on the state level are reasonable as well.
I won't even bother with your subsequent idea (which I think is a non-starter), because I think this idea alone will take decades to happen.
You know how many states have non-partisan commissions? You can count them on one hand. That number jumps to 11, I believe, if you count bi-partisan commissions. And numerous states have tried and failed over the last couple decades to expand that to a more meaningful number.
You're decades away from it being done on a national level.
I think the NPVIC has a better chance of becoming the practice of the land well before your idea does. I also think you dramatically underplay just how big a change your minor change is in the eyes of the parties who wield the power.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: There's still a difference between institutional discouragement and literal disenfranchisement, where people do not have the right to vote.
I agree, and think the difference is huge. If we had a strict popular vote, and had a margin of 10% based on polling, supporters of the behind candidate could equally claim to be disenfranchised. And it would equally be poppycock.
I am particularly dismayed by a history grad student, who should have a good grasp of what true disenfranchisement is, using that word and concept for this.
Additionally, given usual voter percentage turnout, it's particularly nonsense. In any state, if enough of the other party's voters turned out, the state would tip.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I feel you missed the broader point I was making; in that I am pointing out the historical allegory with the pre-WWII world economic environment which resulted in protectionism, which further harmed global trade and thus the global economy. A trend that may have very likely helped prompt the second world war among other factors, but one that is very important for world stability.
The evidence of this is in fact within the goals of founding the Bretton-Woods System along with GATT (General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade) various economic organs and specialist institutions of the United Nations; the goal of which broadly speaking was to provide for a stable world economic environment to prevent the instability and protectionist measures that contributed to the causes of the second world war.
The point is that if the United States went protectionist, then so would China, and then others would follow if it happened. This is why I made the implicit point that this is foolhardy for the hypothetical Romney administration, because it would possibly trigger a global crisis.
You said this,
"Romney says he'll raise tarrifs on China, HAHAHAHAHAHA! *Smooch* WWIII Anyone? Time to invest in weapons. WWII probably has a lot to do with the turn to protectionism by most of the world's nations; just need to throw in currency zones and we're all set."
You were saying WIII would eventually result from higher tariffs. I'm contending that is not the likely outcome.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: There's still a difference between institutional discouragement and literal disenfranchisement, where people do not have the right to vote.
I agree, and think the difference is huge. If we had a strict popular vote, and had a margin of 10% based on polling, supporters of the behind candidate could equally claim to be disenfranchised. And it would equally be poppycock.
I am particularly dismayed by a history grad student, who should have a good grasp of what true disenfranchisement is, using that word and concept for this.
Additionally, given usual voter percentage turnout, it's particularly nonsense. In any state, if enough of the other party's voters turned out, the state would tip.
As a history grad student, I've seen enough cases in history where someone made the argument you're both making, and it was effectively a distinction without a difference.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I feel you missed the broader point I was making; in that I am pointing out the historical allegory with the pre-WWII world economic environment which resulted in protectionism, which further harmed global trade and thus the global economy. A trend that may have very likely helped prompt the second world war among other factors, but one that is very important for world stability.
The evidence of this is in fact within the goals of founding the Bretton-Woods System along with GATT (General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade) various economic organs and specialist institutions of the United Nations; the goal of which broadly speaking was to provide for a stable world economic environment to prevent the instability and protectionist measures that contributed to the causes of the second world war.
The point is that if the United States went protectionist, then so would China, and then others would follow if it happened. This is why I made the implicit point that this is foolhardy for the hypothetical Romney administration, because it would possibly trigger a global crisis.
You said this,
"Romney says he'll raise tarrifs on China, HAHAHAHAHAHA! *Smooch* WWIII Anyone? Time to invest in weapons. WWII probably has a lot to do with the turn to protectionism by most of the world's nations; just need to throw in currency zones and we're all set."
You were saying WIII would eventually result from higher tariffs. I'm contending that is not the likely outcome.
That is not what I said, or rather you seem to have missed my explanation; WWII resulted from the world partaking in protectionist measures that further excabated the Great Depression, the current Bretton-Woods system exists to prevent that; thus if the US abandons Bretton-Woods and partakes in protectionism then WWIII could be a likely outcome from the economic instability and crisis that follows.
Do you at least see the point I am getting at? That I used :goonsay: hyperbolism within the post shouldn't actually obscure the broader point.
IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:For changes, I think the conversation has already moved onto one of the ideas that I alluded to in my first post: a non-partisan elections entity that draws up riding boundaries. We do one commission on the federal level, but commissions on the state level are reasonable as well.
I won't even bother with your subsequent idea (which I think is a non-starter), because I think this idea alone will take decades to happen.
You know how many states have non-partisan commissions? You can count them on one hand. That number jumps to 11, I believe, if you count bi-partisan commissions. And numerous states have tried and failed over the last couple decades to expand that to a more meaningful number.
You're decades away from it being done on a national level.
I think the NPVIC has a better chance of becoming the practice of the land well before your idea does. I also think you dramatically underplay just how big a change your minor change is in the eyes of the parties who wield the power.
There's also nothing to stop "bipartisan" commissions from simply drawing the lines in such a way that the same representatives get elected in each election and other backroom deals.here.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: ... because I think this idea alone will take decades to happen...
That's very possible. Apparently, Canada went from you guys primarily have (ridings drawn by government) to bipartisan in 1903. That changed to non-partisan in 1963. But I guess what I'm saying is that it did happen and it happened in a significantly less progressive country than the Canada of today.
I guess we will see, but I think that with the US following us slowly in making same-sex marriage legal or allowing gays in the military (or making really baby steps toward universal healthcare), I think that reforms we did decades ago should be doable (translation might be "yes, we can").
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: There's still a difference between institutional discouragement and literal disenfranchisement, where people do not have the right to vote.
I agree, and think the difference is huge. If we had a strict popular vote, and had a margin of 10% based on polling, supporters of the behind candidate could equally claim to be disenfranchised. And it would equally be poppycock.
Rivka said here one of the things I was going to say to you, Lyr.
You say the votes of people in, say, CA, don't "count" if they are voting for Romney. But by that logic, in a popular election, the votes of 49% of voters don't "count."
Voting on the losing side doesn't mean your vote didn't count, or that you were disenfranchised. It just means a majority of your neighbors disagree with you!
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote: and I'm not yet convinced the EC is so bad it ought to be destroyed.
I'm a pragmatist. Traditions that serve no positive purpose should be done away with. I don't see how any one can look at modern elections with the EC and say "yeah, we should keep that." I don't get it at all. The EC is disastrous and disenfranchises tens of millions.
I'm a liberal (in the Burkean sense, a conservative if we're just looking at the American nomenclature). I think that progressive reform should be handled carefully, because otherwise we're liable to destroy valuable traditions. Radical change should only be done in the most extreme cases, if at all. And I just can't see the EC as such an extreme case.
Earlier in my post I explained a substantive way we disagree about how much the EC "disenfranchises" people. I'm with Rivka on that one. All of this isn't too say I'm somehow adamantly opposed to reforming the EC at all, by the way. Just seems like there's a bit of overzealousness here, from you and others.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:I generally think that the idea that people should have their "interests" defended is sort of erroneous. Elections should be about ideology, not about defending interests or making jobs or whatever.
I generally agree with this as well, which is perhaps why your above statements really confused me and I objected to them. Perhaps this would be easier, if you're so inclined, if you'd actually state what you like about the EC, what service you believe it provides, and why it's better than the alternative? Since I'm apparently just shouting at the wind here.
My answer is below, because it has to do with 3rd parties.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:I don't get why people talk about it empowering 3rd parties as a good thing.
Why would it be a bad thing? If we had ranked voting or viable third parties, I'd be voting for Jill Stein. Since I want my vote to matter, I'm voting for Obama. He's not my first choice. But any other vote would be like not voting at all.
The main reason I think the EC is valuable is for precisely this reason. I know there was a side-argument about this issue, so let me say: I definitely assume that if we did away with the EC, 3rd parties would gain traction and popularity. I don't understand why that wouldn't be the case, eventually. Though it may take a while for the two parties to really start fracturing.
So...
An election should be about an ideological struggle over the major issues of the time. When one side wins, it is rightly seen that the country wants to move towards that side's ideology. I think the standard Libertarian line about Romney and Obama being the same is malarkey. They're not.
But lots of parties in a popular vote system can deeply confuse this ideological struggle, and also have really nasty side effects.
Here's a concrete example: Let's say the Affordable Care Act is a major issue of the day. Obama will keep it as it is. Jill Stein will dramatically increase its funding and influence. Romney will dismantle it.
If Obama gets 30% of the vote, and Jill Stein gets 30% of the vote, and Romney gets 40% of the vote, Romney wins. He dismantles Affordable Care Act.
But in such a situation, a majority of the country actually wanted it to, at minimum, stick around. So the majority of the country is unhappy with this. It's a lousy outcome.
The ideological battle wasn't clear enough. There were too many sides.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
You presume some sort of FPTP system where the first person to get a plurality wins; if you had instant run off where people get also alternate candidates to apply their vote to you would have most of the Jill Stein votes go to Obama to avoid Romney winning from the vote splitting.
Your also not considering what the House/Senate would look like with viable third parties, third parties by virtue of being smaller can have much more discipline and organization that even the GOP would be amazed at; just look at the Libertarians conspiring to get Ron Paul elected by planting agents as Romney voters.
So you would avea case of 40% GOP seats, 30% Democrat and 30% Greens, the Democrats and Greens only need to form a coalition with 1 or 2 GOP and the ACA can't be dismantled.
As long as you can avoid the Spoiler Effect then you can have third party's capable of better reflected choices and preferences without also having a candidate the majority do not want winning.
quote:Radical change should only be done in the most extreme cases, if at all. And I just can't see the EC as such an extreme case.
The EC makes the country more vulnerable to voter fraud, is the absolute most troublesome contribution to voter apathy in the country, presents the non-negligible risk of creating an EC outcome which literally results in riots and an entire presidency being considered completely illegitimate in the eyes of most of the country, and is in all ways a perfect candidate for proactive removal.
It will be removed one way or another. Its days are numbered. The question is whether this happens before it has a chance to really, REALLY supremely dick up an election.
It is not even really that radical a change. The EC has already had "radical change" (The vice president used to be the candidate with the second most EC votes) and weathered this kind of perfectly valid change perfectly fine.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Rivka said here one of the things I was going to say to you, Lyr.
You say the votes of people in, say, CA, don't "count" if they are voting for Romney. But by that logic, in a popular election, the votes of 49% of voters don't "count."
Voting on the losing side doesn't mean your vote didn't count, or that you were disenfranchised. It just means a majority of your neighbors disagree with you!
Really? Tell that to Gore voters in 2000.
Furthermore, we'll never know, because large numbers of people across the country don't vote because there's no point. We always cry about how low voter participation is a big problem, but what's the point of voting if you know when you wake up that morning exactly how the vote in your state is going to go? If we all voted right now, today, there's no way of knowing how the national election would go. But in the vast majority of states, we'd know exactly how our state would go. Do you really feel like you have a vote if every election is already a foregone conclusion?
If everyone had an equal say and someone loses, then that's just how it works. But that's not how our system works. We have a mechanism in place that can award the presidency to the loser. It happened 12 years ago. We have a mechanism in place that essentially takes the votes for the loser and throws them out.
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank The main reason I think the EC is valuable is for precisely this reason. I know there was a side-argument about this issue, so let me say: I definitely assume that if we did away with the EC, 3rd parties would gain traction and popularity. I don't understand why that wouldn't be the case, eventually. Though it may take a while for the two parties to really start fracturing.
You'll have to explain why you think this would happen. Because I don't see it at all. Switching to a popular vote would have no effect at all on the strength of third party bids. In fact, I think the electoral college actually helps them. A candidate could conceivably spend all their time in Vermont and at least get the support of a single state. In a popular vote with people spread all around the country, the job becomes herculean. I don't know what mechanism you think the EC performs that stifles third party votes.
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank An election should be about an ideological struggle over the major issues of the time. When one side wins, it is rightly seen that the country wants to move towards that side's ideology
I'm with you right up until you suggest the best way to solve this is by forcing people to choose between Democrats and Republicans. They aren't my first choice. I don't want them. I'm stuck with them. Lots of people feel that way. But you think it's a good thing that we're stuck with fewer, crappy choices? That's terrible.
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank If Obama gets 30% of the vote, and Jill Stein gets 30% of the vote, and Romney gets 40% of the vote, Romney wins. He dismantles Affordable Care Act.
But in such a situation, a majority of the country actually wanted it to, at minimum, stick around. So the majority of the country is unhappy with this. It's a lousy outcome.
The ideological battle wasn't clear enough. There were too many sides.
To continue what I was saying and to steal from Blayne, yeah, there's a really, really simple solution: Ranked voting/Instant run-off.
Fewer choices is stupid. There are common sense solutions that result in a clear winner without allowing the situation you described and without forcing people to choose from the narrowest of possible choices.
Because the ultimate problem with your stance is that the ideological divide between Democrats and Republicans, while real, is incredibly thin relative to the broader political spectrum. The difference between Romney and Obama is like the distance between The Mississippi and the Atlantic Ocean. "Oh my!" you might say, "that's so far apart!" until you realize how far away Asia is. Our choices are incredibly limited, and that's very demoralizing to a lot of people.
Every year we're forced to choose between two people that we hyperfocus on to pretend the daylight between them is more like a solar flare than a flashlight. And that choice is even more limited if you live in a certain state. It's demoralizing. Inclusiveness is highly discouraged because people are pigeonholed before they ever reach the ballot box.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Furthermore, we'll never know, because large numbers of people across the country don't vote because there's no point.
Correct. The EC takes the vast majority of the population and effectively tells them that their vote in the presidential election is completely irrelevant. Mattering in a presidential election is limited to a specific handful of swing states, who effectively become a special interest that commands the electorate.
I live in Colorado. My vote matters in this election. Most of you suckers realistically don't count at all, and don't kid yourselves about it. At least you can take solace in the fact that the presidential election campaigns rightfully ignore most of you; you're meaningless. The EC ensured it. But I'll take the ads in exchange for being meaningful to the election and in turn being on a short list of states that the executive has to care about and service more than you. Enjoy.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:who effectively become a special interest that commands the electorate.
This is something we haven't talked about as well, but it's equally problematic. Candidates only have to speak to the interests of a few states, which often don't at all match up with many others, order to secure an election.
Does anyone think the conversation on lifting the embargo on Cuba would be the same of kowtowing to the Cuban vote in vitally important Florida weren't an issue?
What about the issue of ethanol and corn subsidies to farm states?
Promising Ohio and Pennsylvania blue collar workers we're get them back their mining and industrial job. My god, we're setting NATIONAL energy policy based on the demands and desires of a few tens of thousands of people in a handful of states who want to keep their jobs!
It's a terrible way to govern. It's a stupid way to govern. It ensures that some people matter more than others.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
even ignoring special interests ENTIRELY and imaging a fantasy fairlyland where all of the states still matter to the election even just a little (as opposed to now where something around 10% of the population ultimately matters at all), you would STILL have the massive disparity. Live in Wyoming? Congratulations! Your vote outvotes literally four Californians.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
In this instance I am proud to have been mugged
IP: Logged |
posted
If I lived in a different state, say Florida, I would never consider voting for a third person candidate. So, if I wanted to vote third party living in Florida, I would logically convince someone in say Texas to vote for third party and I would vote for one of the two parties. The idea that two people would swap votes and that could actually affect the election says that those people do not have equivalent votes or swapping would have no effect.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's a question: who would, today, if conceiving of a system to handle Presidential elections, would craft something like the EC? Because really, I don't see anyone doing it if it didn't already have the inertia of tradition pushing it along.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I would craft it only if I wanted an election where I kinda sorta wanted to gouge popular will but then have my appointed buddies decide the election for me but keeping the result close enough that people don't complain.
IP: Logged |
posted
Does anyone else besides me see something suspicious in the fact that the moderator of the second presidential debate, Candy Crowley, happened to have on hand a transcript of Obama's September 12 Rose Garden speech, which she held up and sided with Obama, saying he did say from the very start that the attack in Benghazi was a terrorist attack? It turns out that she had to admit later that Romney was correct "on the main," because as everyone knows, for the next week or two the president and his administration were continuing to emphasize the story that the attack was a demonstration reacting to a You-Tube video that got out of hand. What Obama actually said in the Rose Garden speech on September 12 was that America would never give in to terrorism. He did not say that the Benghazi attack that resulted in the deaths of four Americans, including the American abassador to Libya, was a terrorist attack. That is what Obama claimed in the debate, but that was an obvious attempt at deception, considering his repeated claims for almost two weeks that the deaths were not the result of an organized terrorist attack.
The apparent ambush was signalled when Obama looked to the moderator and asked about the transcript. Which she just happened to have on hand. Tell me that was not a pre-planned act of collusion to ambush Romney!
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't remember her actually having a paper copy of the transcript on hand.
She corrected him, and I'm not sure the crux of her correction was wrong, then she sort of backed off and allowed him some space.
I think she realized she's stepped over the line and tried to back off, but the damage was done, which is also why it's difficult to see it as anything but unplanned and accidental.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It was not a pre-planned act of collusion to ambush Romney, however passionat your exclamation point was. But then you see Obama conspiracies literally everywhere, so I'm sure if you decide to don your heavily scrawled signs again, we'll at least be entertained.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was surprised the moderator knew something that specific, but then maybe she listened to the speach. It's not like it was a secret.
Romney tried to setup Obama and used the wrong statement to do so. Are you frustrated he had the wrong topic or that it didn't work?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
OMG! A journalist knew a fact. I can understand why people are suspicious. She not only knew the questions ahead of time but had conducted at least one interview about the speech.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I was surprised the moderator knew something that specific, but then maybe she listened to the speach. It's not like it was a secret.
Romney tried to setup Obama and used the wrong statement to do so. Are you frustrated he had the wrong topic or that it didn't work?
I wasn't surprised. I mean, I'm a news junkie, but the news is literally her job. And that wasn't exactly a small fact to know given what the media have been harping on lately.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
We can tell Obama is doing well when Ron steps up to claim there's a conspiracy.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: If I lived in a different state, say Florida, I would never consider voting for a third person candidate. So, if I wanted to vote third party living in Florida, I would logically convince someone in say Texas to vote for third party and I would vote for one of the two parties. The idea that two people would swap votes and that could actually affect the election says that those people do not have equivalent votes or swapping would have no effect.
QFT.
Can anyone convince me a vote for a third party here in Chicago matters, at all?
ETA:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: It turns out that she had to admit later that Romney was correct "on the main," because as everyone knows, for the next week or two the president and his administration were continuing to emphasize the story that the attack was a demonstration reacting to a You-Tube video that got out of hand.
You're right! But Romney messed up, he phrased his attack wrong and you could see it on Obama's face. It wasn't a conspiracy it was a unfortunate slip of the tongue.
Posts: 1574 | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
It wasn't just a random fact. She had personally been corrected on that point during an interview with David Axelrod.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Corrected in what way? Because from where I sit, she was wrong on the facts, and if Axelrod fed her the fact then he's wrong as well (or, you know, spinning).
The President referred generally to 'acts of terror' in his Rose Garden speech, but not specifically to the Benghazi attack as being an act of terror. He then spent two weeks steadfastly refusing to refer to the Benghazi attack as a terrorist attack, even when pushed on the issue by reporters, even after other elements within the White House and State were doing so. The President was very cautious about the application of the specific term to the specific case (and rightfully so, I would say). To assume that the general comment about "acts of terror" in the Rose Garden speech was referring specifically to Benghazi requires that you ignore the following two weeks of careful evasion of the issue by the President.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do agree there has been careful eggshell walking when it comes to how the attacks would be referred to-what reasons for that is up to discussion, but I can also like you mention see plenty of value in not necessarily describing in absolutely explicit, comprehensive, open terms what we know about the attack in, you know, a highly publicized press conference. I'm not saying incompetence and/or confusion might not also explain it, though, as both are certainly possible.
But what seems clear to me is that all of that aside, politically speaking Romney had an avenue of attack. Whether through diligent careful information management or bungling, a clear and consistent accounting for events hasn't been forthcoming. But what is also clear to me at least is that Romney chose to go about pressing that particular political attack in such a way that it permitted-invited!-Obama to pivot neatly aside from it with an easy to understand (and prove) pointing to the transcript.
If Romney (in the tradition of anyone running for President) is going to take a nuanced, tricky situation of national security and diplomacy and make a short easily understood highly abbreviated political attack out of it, well, it's on him to make sure it sticks. Obama performed a riposte to the attack with about as much thoughtful analysis as Romney offered it.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Candy Crowley lifted up a sheaf of papers when she said the transcript shows Obama was correct, so "We can call it terrorism."
But Romney was very clever in getting Obama to affirm several times he was claiming he said the attack on the consulate was a terrorist attack, so no one can reasonably claim that Obama merely misspoke. Obama has now been caught in a blatant lie to the American people, and it is documented. Look for Republican ads that show what Obama said in the second presidential debate, and the actual words he spoke in the Rose Garden on September 12, and the statements made by various administration spokespersons for the next two weeks following September 11, and Obama's own statements to the UN. No one in the history of American politics will be more thoroughly proven to be a deliberate liar.
What really matters is the question WHY Obama told this lie. Why for two weeks was he so determined not to admit that Al Qaeda was not virtually dead, but was in fact resurgent? Why does he care more about maintaining his idotic, utterly stupid theme about his foreign policy succeeding in bringing down Al Qaeda, rather than telling the honest truth to America?
And then when it is universally recognized that there was no demonstration at all at the consulate in Benghazi, but what happened was a deliberate, organized terrorist attack--Obama tries to rewrite history yet again and claim he said something he clearly did not say. How can anyone trust a person whose mind works like that?
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Not even the Republican Richard Nixon? Not even George H.W Bush who said he would not raise taxes?
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I do agree there has been careful eggshell walking when it comes to how the attacks would be referred to-what reasons for that is up to discussion, but I can also like you mention see plenty of value in not necessarily describing in absolutely explicit, comprehensive, open terms what we know about the attack in, you know, a highly publicized press conference. I'm not saying incompetence and/or confusion might not also explain it, though, as both are certainly possible.
But what seems clear to me is that all of that aside, politically speaking Romney had an avenue of attack. Whether through diligent careful information management or bungling, a clear and consistent accounting for events hasn't been forthcoming. But what is also clear to me at least is that Romney chose to go about pressing that particular political attack in such a way that it permitted-invited!-Obama to pivot neatly aside from it with an easy to understand (and prove) pointing to the transcript.
If Romney (in the tradition of anyone running for President) is going to take a nuanced, tricky situation of national security and diplomacy and make a short easily understood highly abbreviated political attack out of it, well, it's on him to make sure it sticks. Obama performed a riposte to the attack with about as much thoughtful analysis as Romney offered it.
He'll get another chance on Monday, but he was already blunted on his best line of attack. Obama knows what's coming and how to parry it.
He'll have to come up with something better and more sustained, because the clock won't save him when 90 minutes are spent on basically Israel, Iran, Libya, and Syria.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
From what I gathered, Obama said in the Rose Garden, the day after the attacks, that we wouldn't be afraid/give in/some platitude to "these acts of terror."
In the debate, Obama referenced this, saying he remembered being in the Rose garden, calling it an act of terror.
Romney said that Obama never called it an act of terror, and that Obama was lying.
Crowley then said, after Obama and Romney bickered, that Obama did say "acts of terror," but that Romney was correct in his assertion that saying that the attacks were committed by terrorists didn't come until much later.
I don't know why conservatives got their panties in a bunch over it. Obama didn't lie, and neither did Romney. Romney just didn't understand the nuances of the English language very well in that moment. And came off looking dumb. And Crowley affirmed both candidates' stances and saved us a minute of useless squabbling.
Posts: 196 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The apparent ambush was signalled when Obama looked to the moderator and asked about the transcript. Which she just happened to have on hand. Tell me that was not a pre-planned act of collusion to ambush Romney!
It was not a pre-planned act of collusion to ambush Romney but you'll believe it anyway no matter what.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is the kind of "lie" Obama get's caught in? It's too bad Republicans are against closing Gitmo. Because Obama talked about doing that and never did. Of course, the Republicans would look a little stupid blaming him for it, but still. It would be kind of like a doddering old man making fun of Obama for getting us into a war in Afghanistan... because it didn't work out with the Russians. Wait what?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not aware of any school of thought that holds that it's a good idea to tax investment income at the same rate as earned income...
Is that the yardstick? I thought we were arguing over whether it was a consensus that taxing capital gains was bad, and higher capital gains taxes were themselves always also bad.
A bit of old news w.r.t. this thread, but I heard a story on NPR this morning (which was also old news; I didn't realize it at the time, but it was recycled from a few months ago) and it put me in mind of this thread of discussion.
quote:Three: Eliminate the corporate income tax. Completely. If companies reinvest the money into their businesses, that's good. Don't tax companies in an effort to tax rich people.
This may oversell the consensus, since I know there is at least one influential academic study that argues that due to finite markets there should be a lower bound on corporate tax rates. So rather than saying all economists agree there should be no corporate income tax, it might be fairer to say that the strong majority of economists believe there should be no corporate income tax, with a minority believing that it should be lowered but not eliminated.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Are we confusing corporate income tax with capital gains tax?
D'oh! If by we, you mean me, yes, yes we are. If I weren't morally opposed to the use of emoticons, I would add a blushing embarassedly smiley here.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think this is all moot until we have women in office. Lots of them, really. Binders full of women.
Posts: 1204 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
i mean i stopped and rewinded it. I was like "what did he just say?" and was doubly confused because he was concertedly ignoring the issue of gender pay parity to talk about how hard he worked to hire binders full of women and I'm like
"i think there were about a thousand better ways to frame that"
ofc i later find out it turned into a megameme
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm torn on that remark. On the one hand, it is precisely the sort of thing one would expect someone who had a guilty conscience with respect to including women would say. On the other hand, it is actually quite important politically that one present the correct appearance on that matter, such that I can see anyone-guilty conscience or not-being concerned about it.
But hopefully this will permit more discussion on just which Romney Mitt Romney *is* with respect to insurance coverage for contraception and abortion and other matters, since he hasn't been much called to account on it so far. It is interesting just how strikingly honest the Etch-a-Sketch remark was, and how little Obama has been able to hammer on it so far.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think I'll switch sides. I want Romney to win. Just so I can have one of those calendars that lists a gaff or a funny quote every day. Man, it was great when George was in office. Funny quote every day!
''I want you to know. Karyn is with us. A West Texas girl, just like me.'' —President George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., May 27, 2004
''It is clear our nation is reliant upon big foreign oil. More and more of our imports come from overseas.'' —President George W. Bush, Beaverton, Ore., Sep. 25, 2000
''I'm also not very analytical. You know I don't spend a lot of time thinking about myself, about why I do things.'' —President George W. Bush, aboard Air Force One, June 4, 2003
''Neither in French nor in English nor in Mexican.'' —President George W. Bush, declining to answer reporters' questions at the Summit of the Americas, Quebec City, Canada, April 21, 2001
''It's important for us to explain to our nation that life is important. It's not only life of babies, but it's life of children living in, you know, the dark dungeons of the Internet.'' —Presidential candidate George W. Bush, Arlington Heights, Ill., Oct. 24, 2000
Posts: 1204 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: No one in the history of American politics will be more thoroughly proven to be a deliberate liar.
What really matters is the question WHY Obama told this lie.
I'd ask why you don't care about Romney's much more frequent and brazen lying, but I doubt I'd get an honest answer, if I got an answer at all.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Candy Crowley lifted up a sheaf of papers when she said the transcript shows Obama was correct, so "We can call it terrorism."
But Romney was very clever in getting Obama to affirm several times he was claiming he said the attack on the consulate was a terrorist attack, so no one can reasonably claim that Obama merely misspoke. Obama has now been caught in a blatant lie to the American people, and it is documented. Look for Republican ads that show what Obama said in the second presidential debate, and the actual words he spoke in the Rose Garden on September 12, and the statements made by various administration spokespersons for the next two weeks following September 11, and Obama's own statements to the UN. No one in the history of American politics will be more thoroughly proven to be a deliberate liar.
What really matters is the question WHY Obama told this lie. Why for two weeks was he so determined not to admit that Al Qaeda was not virtually dead, but was in fact resurgent? Why does he care more about maintaining his idotic, utterly stupid theme about his foreign policy succeeding in bringing down Al Qaeda, rather than telling the honest truth to America?
And then when it is universally recognized that there was no demonstration at all at the consulate in Benghazi, but what happened was a deliberate, organized terrorist attack--Obama tries to rewrite history yet again and claim he said something he clearly did not say. How can anyone trust a person whose mind works like that?
Upset that Gov. Ronmey wasn't able to capitalize on tragedy? How can we trust a person whose mind works like this?
It's about 4 minutes into the first video. A partial transcript:
quote: Questioner: When Carter was president, we had hostages. Ronald Reagan was able to make a statement even before he became, he was actually sworn in, and the hostages were released…
Mitt Romney: On the day of his inauguration.
Questioner: Right. So my question is really how can you sort of duplicate that scenario?
Romney: I could ask you, I could ask you how you do I duplicate that scenario?
Questioner: I think it had to do with the fact that the Iranians perceived Reagan… That’s why I’m suggesting that something that you say over the next few months gets the Iranians to understand that their pursuit of the bomb is something that you would prevent. And I think that’s something that could possibly resonate very well with the American public.
Romney: I appreciate the idea. One of the things that’s frustrating to me is that in a typical day like this, when I do three or four events like this, the number of foreign policy questions I get are between zero and one. And the American people are not concentrated at all on China, on Russia, Iran, Iraq. This President’s failure to put in place a status of forces agreement allowing ten to twenty thousand troops to stay in Iraq- unthinkable! And yet, in that election, in the Jimmy Carter election, the fact that we had hostages in Iran, I mean, that was all we talked about. And we had the two helicopters crash in the desert, I mean, that was the focus, and so him solving that made all the difference in the world. I’m afraid today that if you simply got Iran to agree to stand down on nuclear weapons, they’d go, “Now hold on. It’s really a-” I mean, if something of that nature presents itself I will work to find a way to take advantage of the opportunity.
(Bolding mine)
Seriously. Between that and the 47% remark, he had better have raked in the big bucks at the fundraiser.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
