FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Presidential Election News & Discussion Center 2012 - Inauguration Day! (Page 3)

  This topic comprises 33 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  ...  31  32  33   
Author Topic: Presidential Election News & Discussion Center 2012 - Inauguration Day!
Bella Bee
Member
Member # 7027

 - posted      Profile for Bella Bee   Email Bella Bee         Edit/Delete Post 
I'm not touching the Israel issue - but why on earth is it important that politicians mention God as often as country singers do?

Ok, lots of people have a faith of one kind or another. Lots of people also enjoy reading, long walks on the beach and eating ice-cream, but you don't hear politicians banging on about any of that stuff.

Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Javert
Member
Member # 3076

 - posted      Profile for Javert   Email Javert         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Bella Bee:
Ok, lots of people have a faith of one kind or another. Lots of people also enjoy reading, long walks on the beach and eating ice-cream, but you don't hear politicians banging on about any of that stuff.

Some people are under the misapprehension that, to be American, one must also believe in a god. Particularly the Christian god. Particularly the version of the Christian god of the person who happens to be stating that opinion at any given time believes in.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
Israel is the only real democracy in the Middle East, and for that reason alone is crucially important to our foreign policy. Israel from its very creation as a recognized modern nation has enjoyed the recognition and support of the USA. To turn away from that long established policy in the least degree is a real cause for concern, and calls into question the basic judgment and faithfulness of the Obama administration.

What on earth are you talking about?

US policy going back decades has refused to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Romney's position is a dramatic, some would say unwise, shift in American policy.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
Israel is the only real democracy in the Middle East, and for that reason alone is crucially important to our foreign policy. Israel from its very creation as a recognized modern nation has enjoyed the recognition and support of the USA. To turn away from that long established policy in the least degree is a real cause for concern, and calls into question the basic judgment and faithfulness of the Obama administration.

O RLY?.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
To turn away from that long established policy in the least degree is a real cause for concern...
Which part of the policy, exactly?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sarcasticmuppet
Member
Member # 5035

 - posted      Profile for sarcasticmuppet   Email sarcasticmuppet         Edit/Delete Post 
Perhaps Ron is talking about the 1995 Jerusalem Embassy Act?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem_Embassy_Act

quote:
Since passage, the law has never been implemented, because of opposition from Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama, who view it as a Congressional infringement on the executive branch’s constitutional authority over foreign policy; they have consistently claimed the presidential waiver on national security interests.
...
U.S. presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and now Barack Obama have alluded to or explicitly stated the belief that Congressional resolutions attempting to legislate foreign policy infringe upon the Executive's authority and responsibility to carry out sound and effective U.S. foreign relations.
Regarding the status of Jerusalem specifically, President Bush had deemed Congress' role as merely "advisory", stating that it "impermissibly interferes with the President's constitutional authority".[26] The U.S. Constitution reserves the conduct of foreign policy to the President and resolutions of Congress, such as the ones found in the Authorization Act of 2003 that included the Jerusalem Embassy Act's provisions, makes the arguments in favor of legislating foreign policy from Congress extremely problematic if not arguably invalid for that Constitutional reason.

Oh, wait...
Posts: 4089 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SenojRetep
Member
Member # 8614

 - posted      Profile for SenojRetep   Email SenojRetep         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
US policy going back decades has refused to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Romney's position is a dramatic, some would say unwise, shift in American policy.

Romney's position (if by position you mean recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel) is the same as the official Democratic platform's position four years ago, as well as both parties' platforms at various times over the past 30+ years. Invariably (or, at least, in every case so far), when a President is elected on a platform that includes recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel (as Obama was four years ago), they have then refused to act on the platform, citing (rational) geo-political concerns.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
One correction: It was Senator Dick Durbin (Senate Majority Whip) I heard interviewed on Fox News Channel who got so defensive at the question why the word "God" was left out of the Democratic platform, and reacted by attacking the network, then tried to say that platforms don't matter that much, anyway. (They've been playing snippets of that interview repeatedly on Fox.)

That wasn't defensive; that was shutting down a stupid and irrelevant line of questioning. Sen. Durbin was fierce and absolutely right. I am proud that he is my senator (and also, that he attends my church when he is in town, good Catholic that he is.)
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SenojRetep
Member
Member # 8614

 - posted      Profile for SenojRetep   Email SenojRetep         Edit/Delete Post 
On the 'God' issue, referring to God in the party platform is a tradition of fairly recent advent (particularly for Democrats). Here are the total number of mentions* of 'God' in national party platforms for several previous years:

Democrats:
1920 - 0
1940 - 1
1960 - 1
1968 - 0
1976 - 0
1980 - 0
1984 - 0
1988 - 0
1992 - 0
1996 - 5
2000 - 4
2004 - 7
2008 - 1
2012 - 0

Republicans:
1920 - 0
1940 - 0
1960 - 1
1968 - 1
1976 - 3
1980 - 1
1984 - 3
1988 - 4
1992 - 4
1996 - 4
2000 - 1
2004 - 3
2008 - 2
2012 - 10

*A better statistic would be the frequency, given that platforms are much longer now than they were 100 years ago, but I only have so much messing around time.

Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Shigosei
Member
Member # 3831

 - posted      Profile for Shigosei   Email Shigosei         Edit/Delete Post 
Clearly, what we need is some sort of quantum superposition that lets both the Israelis and the Palestinians use Jerusalem as their capital.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 2872

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert         Edit/Delete Post 
The Democratic National Convention has voted to change its platform to put back into it the sentence about "God-given protential" that had been in the 2008 platform, and also the sentence about Jerusalem being the capital of Israel. It is always good to see common sense prevail.

I did not hear whether they added back the language calling for the continued isolation of Hamas unless it ceased supporting terrorism and accepted the right of Israel to exist, which also had been in the 2008 platform, but left out in the current one.

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bella Bee
Member
Member # 7027

 - posted      Profile for Bella Bee   Email Bella Bee         Edit/Delete Post 
Ron, honest question - does the mentioning of God by the DNC mean that you'll now be likely to vote Democrat?

If not, then why does it matter?

Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tarrsk
Member
Member # 332

 - posted      Profile for Tarrsk           Edit/Delete Post 
Whoa, lookie there - the Democrats outscored the Republicans in God mentions from 1996-2004. I'm assuming that means that Ron Lambert voted for Clinton, Gore, and Kerry in those years.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
It disappoints me that those of us whose potential was bestowed upon us by aliens will -- again -- be ignored by the Democrats.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
It disappoints but doesn't surprise me how willing social conservatives in this country are to insist that their party lie to them.

Trust in politicians is, across the board, low. Hardly anyone is ever really happy with them, and with few exceptions even the best loved politicians are graded on a different level of integrity. But Americans such as Ron insist on being pandered to, and their vote is cheaply bought (though this is true of many) by the mere mention of God in political life.

Of course it's also amusing because religious texts are rife with warnings to be wary of the person who uses the cloak of religion to achieve worldly power, but those advisements seem to be more guidelines. It's also strange that as more and more Americans come to identify with no specific faith at all, God (let's not kid ourselves, Christianity) becomes so much more central.

But anyway, just for fun, let's ask: Ron, why IS support for Israel so important to you? I know why it is, and I suspect more than few here do as well, but I am curious what you'll say.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
Hmmm, came across a strange bit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2diu7vYx_Sw

Are they really just doing a vocal vote based on how loud people are?

Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 2872

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert         Edit/Delete Post 
President Bill Clinton gave an excellent speech. If Dems follow his advice from a few months ago and lay off the personal attacks against Mitt Romney and his "sterling business record" (Clinton's words), and use the kind of arguments Clinton used in his speech--and the way he presented them--they might have a chance of winning. If they continue to rely on the personal attacks, then Romney will probably win by a landslide.

I look forward to the Romney/Ryan response to Bill Clinton's speech, to see how they counter his arguments.

Mucus, you raise a good point. It sounded to me like the "No's" were almost as loud as the "Aye's," all three times the chairman called for the vote. I saw one camara angle that captured the words "In the opinion of the chair, there is a two-thirds majority in favor of the proposal" on the teleprompter for the chairman to read; thus the outcome was a foregone, previously determined, conclusion. The whole thing sure looked confused and disorganized. No one seemed to want to call for a roll call vote, however, probably because of the length of time it would take. Cameras showed that Arab delegates from the Detroit area were loud in their opposition of returning the language from 2008 to the current platform.

It was reported that President Obama himself intervened and demanded that the "God" language and the "Jerusalem is Israel's capital" language be returned to the platform. And reportedly he said (at least about the God reference) "Why was it ever taken out in the first place?"

Oh, Rakeesh--just caught your question at the last minute. You are probably wrong if you think you know why I support Israel. I honestly think of the Israelis as the good guys, our only reliable friends in the Middle East. I do not have any particular "prophetic" reason, like you probably associate with mainstream fundamentalists and evangelicals. Their view of end times prophecies differs from mine. I don't see literal Israel as being of any real significance in the prophecies of Revelation.

[ September 06, 2012, 11:30 AM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
El JT de Spang
Member
Member # 7742

 - posted      Profile for El JT de Spang   Email El JT de Spang         Edit/Delete Post 
Your predictions are as bad as your reading comprehension. If you disagree, feel free to go reread the brief list of them that were dug up and posted in your thread last week from the previous election.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
Well, if your support for Israel is in no way tied up with religion or prophetic claims for the future, then my mistake and I withdraw the accusation.

--------

Nutty coworker on Obama's supposed huge weakness: vague ill define remarks about how Obama looks 'really weak'.

Me: It's actually polling at a very close race, with Obama marginally ahead, and Romney suffering some serious gaps in some pretty important areas and states.

NC: That's all subjective.

Me: Yes, subject to who they will actually vote for.

Nutty Coworker on illegal immigration and healthcare-

Me: Yes, it is a concern, but studies have shown it may be a much smaller problem than people think.

NC: What're you talking about?! *heavy use of sarcasm and incredulous voice and widened eyes*

Me: *points to a study by Arizona's department of health that indicates nearly half of unauthorized residents may have health care through their employers.*

NC: Well that's subjective, and I know five illegals and none of them have health care, and all of them have a bunch of kids.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
twinky
Member
Member # 693

 - posted      Profile for twinky   Email twinky         Edit/Delete Post 
It boggles my mind that God or Jerusalem are not only in the party platforms, but that their presence or absence is considered newsworthy.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Destineer
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for Destineer           Edit/Delete Post 
Wow, yeah, Clinton. What a rhetorical god.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
It boggles my mind that God or Jerusalem are not only in the party platforms, but that their presence or absence is considered newsworthy.
They're not, really. It's a proxy fight about who loves Jesus more.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:
It boggles my mind that God or Jerusalem are not only in the party platforms, but that their presence or absence is considered newsworthy.
They're not, really. It's a proxy fight about who loves Jesus more.
It really isn't. Or more accurately, that isn't the sum of the matter. The foreign policy implications can matter a big deal. Especially right now, where Iran and Israel are poised for a serious altercation. It's little things like what was in your party platform that inform the otherside as to how you should be treated when you end up at the diplomats table.

It also opens and closes doors in what other countries are willing to do for you ala Israel's neighbors. We are not privy to these conversations, but President Obama's staff has certainly had to provide intelligence and advise to Israel as to how close Iran is to nuclear weapons, and what options they have insofar as including us.

Jerusalem being the capital of Israel in the platform might not be the foundational beam of that state of affairs, but it's just one more tick box. I'm also certain Obama is having frequent dealings with Israel right now, so little gestures like this assist the State Dept and NSA/CIA in coordinating with Israel, so that one day, it won't be the Joint Chiefs doing it in a military encounter.

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
I didn't mean it entirely seriously. Should've added a [Wink] . I do recognize that the actual issues are seriously important to us on foreign policy and domestic fronts. What I strictly meant was that these issues weren't coming up due or even perhaps mostly due to their own importance or on their own merits, but for some other political reasons as well.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
I didn't mean it entirely seriously. Should've added a [Wink] . I do recognize that the actual issues are seriously important to us on foreign policy and domestic fronts. What I strictly meant was that these issues weren't coming up due or even perhaps mostly due to their own importance or on their own merits, but for some other political reasons as well.

Ah, I see.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
It also seems newsworthy to me in a different way.

The unreliability of having delegates just shout louder combined with the observation that the speaker does seem to be reading from a pre-determined script when he notices that the vote isn't what he expected (and then continues anyway) is just corrupt.

Politically, it may be a good idea to abuse democracy and screw over the non-religious and Arabs in that vote. But if you're going to pre-determine things, just kill the pretence and don't bother having a vote.

Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
Quite right.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
To be fair, anyone loud enough could have presumably called for a roll call vote. But, then again, both conventions have been ignoring Robert's Rules this year.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
If they continue to rely on the personal attacks, then Romney will probably win by a landslide.

If the Democrats continue to run this campaign the way they have so far, they will probably win. There has been no deviation in the strength of the current Democratic campaign versus Romney, and they've actually done a (tragically, ultimately) good job of learning lessons from Bush's campaign and they've co-opted the most effective lessons of a Roveian strategy: assault your opponent's strengths and turn them into liabilities.

Your predictions are, to a fault, terrible. None of the reasons that you have posited for Romney winning in a landslide are even remotely probable, and you keep ascribing vulnerabilities to Obama's campaign which are only about what you want to believe, rather than about what the numbers say. I'll dredge up a specific example from this campaign soon.

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
here we are.

Here we go:

quote:
FNC reported that early estimates were that Ann Romney's speech produced a 24 point "bounce" for Romney, and Christie's produced a 10 point "bounce." We will have to wait for further polling in the next few days to see what lasting effect the speeches really had. Of course, conventions always give a multi-point "bounce" to the candidate. That will probably be most pronounced after Mitt Romney gives his speech Thursday night. But it looks like the ticket is off to a good start bouncewise.
This is a PRETTY IMPORTANT question that I am going to harp on you until you answer: Do you even know what the bounce ended up being? What was the bounce percentage?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
Ooo...oooo... [Wave]

I know! [Wave]

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bella Bee
Member
Member # 7027

 - posted      Profile for Bella Bee   Email Bella Bee         Edit/Delete Post 
Zero, zilch, nada. Zip. [Smile]
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
I'm not even sure if Jesus giving a speech at the RNC would have produced a 24 point bounce.

That's just an insane number.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tarrsk
Member
Member # 332

 - posted      Profile for Tarrsk           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Bella Bee:
Zero, zilch, nada. Zip. [Smile]

Well, you're much (much, much, much) closer than Ron. [Smile] Nate Silver estimates the post-RNC bounce for Romney as roughly 2 points, which fell significantly below his model's pre-RNC expectation of a ~4-point bounce.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
What was his DNC prediction?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
CNN says 1%. Gallup says none at all.

edit: That was Gov. Romney's bounce.

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
Right, but remember that this is a question for Ron and Ron's followup assessment of his own predictions.

It is easy to think you are a good assessor of future events when you literally lack the capacity to analyze the shortcomings of your previous predictions.

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SenojRetep
Member
Member # 8614

 - posted      Profile for SenojRetep   Email SenojRetep         Edit/Delete Post 
I would first caution that it's very difficult to discern bounces this close to the events. Being able to differentiate between transient movement, spurious polls, and secular trends on a time scale of a few weeks is very tough, and so all bounce estimates should come with a healthy dose of uncertainty.

That said, the Pollster average would suggest that between the VP selection and the convention, the bounce was somewhere between 0 and 1.5 points (depending on whether you see the increase as part of a secular trend of improving Romney numbers extending back to February, or whether you view it as a temporary, transient effect). Silver had estimated that we should expect a bounce for Romney from the convention alone of about 3.5 points, and a similar gross bounce for Obama, which would be offset somewhat by the tailing off of Romney's convention bounce, leading to a net Obama bounce of about a point, tailing off by about a week after the convention. The estimate is necessarily quite noisy, because not only are there relatively few data points (only a dozen or so Presidential elections have reliable pre- and post-convention polling), there seems to be a trend in the bounce data itself, making the estimation problem that much more difficult.

<edit>Here's the Pollster estimates since mid-February when Romney turned the corner in the Primary. If I were making a narrative from the data, I'd say there was a period of a couple of months where he gained by consolidating Republican support, then a period from May until mid-August of relative stasis, followed by what is probably the front-end of a bounce, but may be futher movement toward Romney.</edit>

[ September 06, 2012, 07:34 PM: Message edited by: SenojRetep ]

Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
I'm not even sure if Jesus giving a speech at the RNC would have produced a 24 point bounce.

That's just an insane number.

If Jesus gave a speech at the RNC, he would have been selected by acclamation immediately, and Romney's support would have bottomed out since he'd probably have pledged allegiance.

Jesus would ride the wave of popularity into office, whereupon when he actually started governing, his popularity would start to drop steadily, since he wouldn't conform to what anybody else thought. Also, he'd make a lot of people angry by flat our refusing to deal with them.

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SenojRetep
Member
Member # 8614

 - posted      Profile for SenojRetep   Email SenojRetep         Edit/Delete Post 
Has anyone read "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" (Jennifer Granholm ripped Romney for writing it in her DNC address today). Besides the fact that the title was chosen by the Times, not Romney (he'd asked for it to be titled "The Way Forward for the Auto Industry") the content bears only passing similarity to what Democrats, including the President, construe it as. Taking an imaginary quote out of context and using it to bludgeon your political opponent? Well, obviously there's something about pots and kettles here, and given that Republicans have ridden the "You didn't build that" meme pretty hard I can't complain too loudly, but it's still worth pointing out.

Really, though, I found these paragraphs from the OpEd particularly unexpected given how it's been portrayed:
quote:
The need for collaboration will mean accepting sanity in salaries and perks... Get rid of the planes, the executive dining rooms — all the symbols that breed resentment among the hundreds of thousands who will also be sacrificing to keep the companies afloat.

Investments must be made for the future. No more focus on quarterly earnings or the kind of short-term stock appreciation that means quick riches for executives with options. Manage with an eye on cash flow, balance sheets and long-term appreciation. Invest in truly competitive products and innovative technologies — especially fuel-saving designs — that may not arrive for years. Starving research and development is like eating the seed corn.

<snip>

I believe the federal government should invest substantially more in basic research — on new energy sources, fuel-economy technology, materials science and the like — that will ultimately benefit the automotive industry, along with many others. I believe Washington should raise energy research spending to $20 billion a year, from the $4 billion that is spent today. The research could be done at universities, at research labs and even through public-private collaboration.

In the end, the difference between what Romney was proposing and what Obama did isn't really that great. Obama structured the bankruptcy by using federal money to buy auto company debt, which was different than Romney's proposal to use federal money to backstop private losses (which, according to some restructuring experts, wasn't very feasible). But the hit on Romney (and Granholm hits him hard) is doubly deceitful because (1) it misconstrues what he actually proposed and (2) Obama's course of action (which Granholm lauds) was broadly similar, if different in specifics, to what Romney actually proposed.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
Obama's speech in just a few moments.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
Senoj - The devil is in those details. Romney's plan would have caused the auto industry to be liquidated. The argument comes down to private versus public capital to backstop the managed bankruptcy. Romney's plan simply wouldn't have worked. Obama's did.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SenojRetep
Member
Member # 8614

 - posted      Profile for SenojRetep   Email SenojRetep         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Senoj - The devil is in those details. Romney's plan would have caused the auto industry to be liquidated. The argument comes down to private versus public capital to backstop the managed bankruptcy. Romney's plan simply wouldn't have worked. Obama's did.

That's what I meant about not necessarily being feasible. However, I think your statement assumes that Romney's plan was provide federal money as a backstop, but if not liquidate. It may be (he's never clarified) that if it became clear that the capital wasn't there even with the guarantees, that a more actively managed bankruptcy (similar to what actually happened) would be a better choice. Maybe not, I don't know, but I imagine he's too smart to not see what a bad deal liquidation would be and not accept other potential alternatives, especially those that only marginally differed from what he was proposing.

Regardless, I think it's highly disingenuous of Democrats to portray Romney's position the way they do.

Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
Senoj, I smell an awful lot of maybe, if, and imagine coming off your (quite reasonable, to my mind) analysis of Romney's 'plan'.

Given that, is there a reason Democrats ought to fill in those numerous blanks with the (in hindsight) most reasonable courses of action? Some wellspring of Republican assumption of good intent on Obama's part, perhaps?

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 2872

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert         Edit/Delete Post 
I was not impressed by President Obama's speech. It was not nearly so persuasive as Bill Clinton's on Wednesday night. Obama indulged too much in building straw men, mispresenting the positions of Romney/Ryan. His claim that somehow Republicans are "betting against the American people" is patently absurd, since Republicans are the ones who exalt individualism over dependence upon the government. Both Republicans and Democrats recognize that there are some things government must do; the dividing line comes over how much, how intrusive into individuals' private lives government should be allowed to be.

I said before that if Democrats continue to rely upon negative personal attacks against Governor Romney they will lose in a landslide. Samprimary asked how I could know this. What I base it on is the fact that a large portion of the electorate started out knowing very little about Romney, and at first the popular view of Romney was colored by the deliberate attempts of Democrats to demonize him and misrepresent his considerable successes in business (it was Bill Clinton who referred to Romney's "sterling business record" and said Democrats should not attack Romney on it). This tactic of personal attack has only worked somewhat up to now, but it is beginning to have an opposite effect, as more and more people learn who and what kind of man Romney really is. As the nastiness and untruthfulness of the Democrats' attacks against Romney become more and more apparent, that will lose them votes in a major way. This is precisely what Bill Clinton was trying to warn Democrats about.

Obama also repeated his cheap shot about Romney's giving offense to the Brits when he visited there just prior to the Olympics. Many experts had been expressing concern for a long time about security, pointing out that the security firm they hired did not have enough personnel. They also had a serious software problem right on the eve of the Olympics. Since Romney actually had experience running the 2002 Olympics, he should be respected as having the experience to know what he was talking about. The British should have listened to him as a qualified expert, and at least given a more intelligent response, rather than resort to nationalistic posturing designed to save face for the politicians involved. They were very lucky that nothing really bad happened.

I think that the Israelis were very welcoming of Romney, especially of his unequivocal declaration that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. The Israelis of course as a matter of policy refuse to officially announce their preference between U.S. cadidates. But come on, everyone knows they would prefer Romney--they know they can count on him to really be on their side.

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
And we must, of course, make it abundantly clear to Israel that we are come whatever may under any circumstances that we are on their side.
------
By all means, Ron, continue to predict a landslide loss for Obama. Perhaps when that almost inevitably proves to be incredibly, comically, predictably inaccurate the crow you'll be busy eating will keep you at the table and away from the computer long past November.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Xavier
Member
Member # 405

 - posted      Profile for Xavier   Email Xavier         Edit/Delete Post 
I'm curious, did Ron make a public prediction of the 2008 election?
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I said before that if Democrats continue to rely upon negative personal attacks against Governor Romney they will lose in a landslide. Samprimary asked how I could know this.
No, Ron. You are apparently also terrible at reading comprehension. I stated my question very clearly to the extent that it is mystifying that you have misjudged it so clearly and completely. I will put my question in bold and ask you to answer it again.

quote:
This is a PRETTY IMPORTANT question that I am going to harp on you until you answer: Do you even know what the bounce ended up being? What was the bounce percentage?
Do you even know what the bounce ended up being? What was the bounce percentage?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
Just to be extra abundantly clear, I am asking you if you understood at all what the bounce percentage from the republican convention ended up being. I did not at any time ask you at all how you knew that obama would probably lose in a landslide against romney if they kept relying on personal attacks. I didn't ask you how you knew this because I know you know no such thing.

Anyway, you should answer my real question. Not the one you invented in your head.

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Thesifer
Member
Member # 12890

 - posted      Profile for Thesifer           Edit/Delete Post 
The "bounce" for Romney, was the second time in history (from what I understand, and obviously from the time of polling), that a "bounce" didn't actually happen. At all.
Posts: 164 | Registered: Sep 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 33 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  ...  31  32  33   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2