Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
disco

2012 Election

Recommended Posts

They're still reaching to define the cause of the defeat, because defining the cause creates the solution.

 

I also notice that most of them don't blame the conservative message, instead blaming the messenger (Romney), the circumstances of the campaign (Obama smeared Romney), the ground game, demographic shifts, and so on. Most of those explanations are attempts to keep intact the conservative philosophy by explaining their failures on other factors.

 

I personally think that the issue wasn't delivery or technology or turnout, although there were failures there. I think America rejected the small government philosophy. They also rejected Romney, his vagueness, and other things, but both sides portrayed this as an ideological referendum - and conservatives lost. Someone on the Republican side needs to be saying that, loudly and often, to prevent the party from drifting into complacent explanations which place blame on everything but the philosophy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a stupid phrase and I'm rather annoyed that you used it. "Adjust your philosohpy" != "become Democrats."

 

Both sides took great efforts to make this an ideological referendum, and Republicans lost. Obama was a very weak incumbent President with low approval numbers and a barely-growing economy. And despite that, Republicans, running on their most ideological campaign in my lifetime (my dad, a Republican, said he thought it was the more ideological than Carter v Reagan in 1980), failed.

 

Now, why is that? Was it a perfect storm of circumstances? Romney happened to be incompetent, the ground operation happened to be insufficient, Republicans happened to not use technology well, Obama happened to be effective at campaigning, a hurricane happened to provide a PR op at the right time, minority voters happened to turn out in large numbers, people happened to vote for "gifts" (Romney's a goddamn idiot for using that phrase), Obama happened to have a money advantage early, stupid Republican Senators happened to say shit about rape which scared people? And all these things just happened to occur in this election, at this time?

 

Or was it that Americans saw the Republican philosophy and rejected it?

 

Occam's Razor gives the answer. Adjust the ideology or become irrelevant.

 

While we're at it. Romney's "gift" use points out the prevalence of the Republican belief system. He said the reason he lost is that Obama gave "gifts" to various specific groups who then voted for him. That phrase assumes that social programs are "gifts" and simultaneously assumes that government shouldn't be involved in such activity. That ahistorical idiocy is what was rejected, and his inability to see that they're not "gifts" shows just how fully that his ideological blinders (and by extension, Republican ideological blinders) limited him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a stupid phrase and I'm rather annoyed that you used it. "Adjust your philosohpy" != "become Democrats."

 

Both sides took great efforts to make this an ideological referendum, and Republicans lost. Obama was a very weak incumbent President with low approval numbers and a barely-growing economy. And despite that, Republicans, running on their most ideological campaign in my lifetime (my dad, a Republican, said he thought it was the more ideological than Carter v Reagan in 1980), failed.

 

Now, why is that? Was it a perfect storm of circumstances? Romney happened to be incompetent, the ground operation happened to be insufficient, Republicans happened to not use technology well, Obama happened to be effective at campaigning, a hurricane happened to provide a PR op at the right time, minority voters happened to turn out in large numbers, people happened to vote for "gifts" (Romney's a goddamn idiot for using that phrase), Obama happened to have a money advantage early, stupid Republican Senators happened to say shit about rape which scared people? And all these things just happened to occur in this election, at this time?

 

Or was it that Americans saw the Republican philosophy and rejected it?

 

Occam's Razor gives the answer. Adjust the ideology or become irrelevant.

 

You're annoyed at it, but this is exactly what you just said. In one paragraph, you completely rejected every reason why nearly everyone- even David Axelrod- is saying why Romney lost and Obama won- it was all those reasons, actually, not just one of them. In doing so, you're saying that Republicans need to adjust their philosophy and that is the only reason why Romney lost. Adjust to what? No matter what they say or how they campaign, they already spend and behave like moderate Democrats, with the exception of refusing to budge on raising taxes. Heck, this cycle we had Republicans actually defending Medicare because of the ACA, and then talking about "saving" it, instead of cutting it and/or gutting it. There was barely any discussion about SS and very little discussion about welfare, except the controversy over whether or not Obama wanted to "gut" it or not.

 

You say that Republicans need to adjust the ideology, but to what? Stop embracing tax cuts and vote to raise taxes? Hello, Democratic party, as everyone already knows that the GOP spends money like Democrats. Look at some of the criticisms of the GOP- by liberals- in this thread alone.

 

If this is not what you're saying, please tell me what you are actually saying? What do you think the GOP needs to adjust in their philosophy? I personally think they need to change their outward attitude toward "the 47%" because it's killing them. Maybe that's what you mean, but you need to make that point, instead of assuming that I know what you mean.

 

I previously mentioned the "makers vs. takers" attitude of the GOP, which is reflected in Romney's "gifts" comments. This is specifically one of the comments that has disappointed me. There really isn't any need to discuss that as we agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not saying they should become Democrats. They can adjust many things without becoming Democrats. Axelrod was Obama's campaign manager, so he isn't inclined to see a campaign's ideological component because that isn't really his job. His job is technical, getting out the vote, etc, and so he's going to describe campaigns by their technical components.

 

A quick metaphor I can think of is the rolling out of a new sports car. Ask the head designer, and he'll say the car is about some esoteric notion revolving around movement. Ask the head engineer, and he'll rattle off specs. They're both right. One's description doesn't overrule the other's. What I've been trying to say here is that Republicans are trying to blame the engineer, and aren't paying attention to the designer.

 

So, what can they become?

 

On social issues, as we've already discussed, they're generally going against the momentum. I view discussing their social stances as pointless, because they're going to have to adjust them. This includes stances on abortion and gay marriage.

 

Immigration policy is a great place for them to start adjusting. Leaving behind Romney's laughable self-deportation, they can bring to the table concerns about fairness future policies. There should be a debate about how to design a system which deals with the realities of immigration while not punishing those who have followed the legal process. Democrats aren't concerned about the second concern, but Republicans are - and they should continue doing so.

 

Economically, they can still retain their (newfound) emphasis on balanced budgets and open-ness of trade. They just need to expand what they consider essential roles of government to be more than only the military. They need to realize that social programs are a priority, and then we can have a discussion about which ones are more important than others, how to strengthen / save them, etc.

 

However, I don't have to define a new Republican platform. They have to. What's the alternative? Double down and hold on, hoping that the country's mind changes in 4 years?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And this is why America needs to get back to 3 parties. You get 2 parties that don't work at all or they begin to share their ideas and "reach across the isle" and we're down to one party. If republicans would drop the religious stuff and raise taxes they might as well be moderate dems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

geez....haven't been on here in forever and I randomly dropped by and read the political thread.

 

and...I found myself agreeing with almost everything disco wrote. I read several pages hoping I'd find something I disagreed with and I couldn't....

 

I think I hurt a little inside now....

 

Anyways-I'm really hoping the country can move forward and work together (now that they don't have silly goals like "Make Obama a one term president" to worry about).

 

 

I also found the short discussion on political spectrums interesting, I'd really like to see some non-crazy politicians in the running next election (unlike the Republican primaries this year that were like a clown show on stupidity), so we can move past these "hot" topics that are basically no brainers like womens healthcare, RAPE, gay marriage, etc. I've read a few places where they bring up the concept that Obama is one of the best moderate Republican candidates we've ever had (fiscally conservative, socially moderate, and put into effect a healthcare system that Republican thinktanks invented instead of pushing through single-payer). The question then was "Why wasn't he a Republican candidate? What has gone so wrong in the Republican Party that their winning candidate wasn't actually theirs?" and "When are we going to get an actual liberal candidate?" or even a normal liberal party? Because we didn't have a liberal candidate, we had a bunch of crazy people v. Obama, and Obama is very similar to some pre-Reagan Republicans like Eisenhower.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends on your definition of those labels. I would say that you might dispute the fiscal conservative (although he gets credit for his attempts at deficit reduction, even if they went nowhere), but the socially moderate is probably accurate.

 

He's really not an extremist, despite what opposition media thinks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those "attempts" were nothing more than political positioning. He has no desire to decrease the deficit or the debt and everything he's done has increased both, or will.

 

His position on abortion is not moderate. Additionally, government-funded abortions is not a moderate position, which he takes. I know there is debate about his position concerning post-abortion-attempt births and we've discussed it here. Obama's consistent answer is that he votes against these banning these procedures because he doesn't want to infringe upon abortion rights. One can interpret that however one likes.

 

His gay marriage position... I don't know that there is a far left or far right position there. People on both sides oppose and support it. It's sad that we have to label it a left/right position, but I understand why, as it seems the ultra-religious- which tend to populate the right- oppose it. But I can't see how one could translate the issue into a far-left position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's not a fiscal conservative, or at least his policies certainly haven't been. Whether or not he is that way because of Keynesian deficit spending or something else is unproveable.

 

Regarding abortion, define what you would consider a "moderate" position. Obama's opposition to the bill you mentioned is clearly stated 1/3 of the way through the article, and isn't on pro-abortion grounds, but is instead based in a concern that abortion-providing doctors will be responsible for ascertaining the motivations behind an abortion. Which, to me, makes sense. Doctors aren't judges, or investigators. And Obama isn't pursing government-funded abortions, unless you're buying into the anti-planned parenthood logic which involves some fairly intense contortions to arrive at a desired result.

 

Gay marriage - I think his position is the definition of moderate on that issue. He basically said that he has a strong personal viewpoint on the issue but won't pursue legislation on that belief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A moderate position on abortion is either no abortions except in the case of rape, incest, or endangering the life of the mother with full access (possibly even government-funded access, IMO) to contraception OR abortions provided at the expense of the woman desiring the procedure. I say that the former is a moderate position because more than 50% of Americans view that position as acceptable. I say that the latter is a moderate position because, as I have said/implied, I don't believe we should be taking rights away from anyone, no matter our personal opinion of those rights.

 

I somewhat agree with you on the definition of moderate WRT gay marriage, though I think that there's really not any kind of legislation that can be pursued at the federal level since marriages are handled at the state level. About the only kind of federal-level legislation I could see him enacting would be something that ensures that gay couples are treated the same way as hetero couples WRT to income taxes, wills, etc. I wouldn't be surprised to see that occur under Obama's last term. But, I don't think any of that can be considered a "moderate" position, because there aren't really "levels" to gay marriage. You either favor it or you don't. And if you favor it but don't want to see gay couples enjoy the same kinds of benefits as hetero couples, then I have to question whether or not you really favor it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, in this day and age, supporting abortion and gay marriage is 100% moderate.

 

It's only the religious and extremely socially conservative that oppose either.

 

On top of that, it's amazing that our country has people who want to shut down places like planned parenthood. Do you guys have any fucking idea how CHEAP birth control is everywhere else in the world? My gf gets the exact same name brand birth control medication in Thailand for 10 bucks WITHOUT having to spend $100+ for a retarded doctors visit to get an unnecessary prescription. Even planned parenthood itself cost her I believe 70$ for the nurses visit and then the medication about $70+ also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you defined as "moderate" was Mitt Romney's position this time around, and he went to great lengths to create that position's label.

 

"Moderate" on abortion means not restricting it, but not paying for it either. Or at least it did until recently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

disco: So, you stopped reading about halfway through my first sentence? Because your second sentence and the second half of my first sentence say the same thing. I even defined why I thought that way, and it was completely unrelated to Romney's position, meaning, I thought that way before Romney was the nominee.

 

Anyway, another article about Obama NOT being a moderate on abortion. Take into consideration that Clinton's "safe, legal, and rare" position is a moderate position.

 

Vain, I agree. It's completely stupid that we have a society that overall dislikes abortion, but doesn't want to take steps to curb it or prevent it through cheap birth control for women. There is OTC birth control available cheaply through places like Wal-Mart and other stores like that, but those pills can't be used by everyone. I like the idea of an organization like PP being able to provide BC for cheap or free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama governs to the center right on national/global issues and is largely just an extension of the status quo set by Bush II. If you ignore the things that cable news talks about (gay marriage in particular, which is 95% defined at the state level), his track record on war (4x as many drone strikes under Obama as under Bush), the war on drugs and the prison complex (spending on both has skyrocketed under Obama), and the war on terror/ the restriction of civil liberties (executive extension of the PATRIOT act) is largely in the footsteps of GWB.

 

Painting Obama as a socialist or a blue blooded democrat is just a narrative, he's anything but. We've been at war in multiple countries (and our own, by some extent) for a decade, so yes your taxes are going to go up.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kKZQyKJ3h8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't tell if you're simply contributing the conversation or trying to contradict something I said. I'm going to assume the latter.

 

I haven't talked about anything in your post, nor do I have a desire to, since his positions on those things are well known. I have never called Obama a socialist, neither here nor anywhere else in any other forum. I have never said he was weak on foreign policy WRT the war on terror, or whatever it's called now. I have not made any statements concerning civil liberties WRT domestic terrorism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok Cat. So, we're in agreement on abortion's "moderate" label.

 

Now. You said that Obama is an extremist on social issues, or is at least not "moderate." You pointed to gay marriage and abortion. Your abortion argument I still don't buy because you reference 3 votes he had while Senator without context or rationale, but let's say for the sake of argument, you win. Obama is an extremist on abortion.

 

However, he's not an extremist on gay marriage. I think we agree on that.

 

So, what makes him an extremist on social issues?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't tell if you're simply contributing the conversation or trying to contradict something I said. I'm going to assume the latter.

To assume makes an ass out of u and me. I just like posting links.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You said that Obama is an extremist on social issues, or is at least not "moderate." You pointed to gay marriage and abortion. Your abortion argument I still don't buy because you reference 3 votes he had while Senator without context or rationale, but let's say for the sake of argument, you win. Obama is an extremist on abortion.

 

First of all, we need to clear something up. I did not say Obama was an extremist and I am not making that point. I am disappointed with the current level of political discourse in this country and that statement is exactly one reason why. Just because a person is not a moderate does not mean they are an extremist. The word "extremist" has a specific meaning and should not be thrown around without specific qualifiers. Yes, one of the articles I posted used "extremist" in the title, but the way it was used is obviously in reply to the use of that word by Democrats, who consistently use that word to describe nearly every position that Republicans have, particularly WRT abortion. (I posted that article because it had the points in it I wanted to make concerning Obama's positions on abortions, not because of the title.)

 

If I wanted to say someone was an "extremist" on abortion, I would point to an individual that believes, say, that the government should forcefully abort only certain races or only a specific gender. If I wanted to say someone was an extremist on gay marriage... I'm not sure what I'd say, because there really are only two, maybe three positions. I could point to someone that wants to kill all homosexuals maybe. But you get the picture. The word extremist has a specific definition and should be used only when it applies.

 

I pointed to gay marriage and abortion because those are the two specific social topics that we have discussed in this thread... not any of that other stuff that Envy posted.

 

Concerning Obama's not-moderate position on abortion, you said,

 

"Moderate" on abortion means not restricting it, but not paying for it either.

 

Note the added emphasis. The Democratic platform specifically makes the point (emphasis mine),

 

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.

 

I can't think of another interpretation of this than to think that Democrats desire, if a woman cannot pay for her own abortion, that someone should step up and pay for it for her. This could mean governmental funding or private funding (through PP or whoever). By your own definition, this is not a moderate position.

 

However, he's not an extremist on gay marriage. I think we agree on that.

 

Disregarding the use of the word "extremist," we determined that Obama was a moderate on gay marriage, if there can be such a position. But, I'd like to see what happens in his current term WRT legislation passed on gay marriage. If he does pass legislation (though I don't know how with the GOP HoR; and I'm also of the opinion that he would use it as a wedge issue to keep homosexuals on the hook, instead of just doing everything he can to make their marriages equal) he would prove to be immoderate on that issue, also according to your own definition. So, we should likely shelve this debate until 2014 or so.

 

So, what makes him an extremist immoderate on social issues?

 

Since we've already determined that he's not a moderate on abortion and I don't necessarily think there is a moderate/immoderate position on gay marriage (just right and wrong, really), that leaves abortion, which we both agree he's not a moderate.

 

He's black, durrrr.

 

This is an irrational and very offensive reply. Racialism is nothing to joke about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

This is an irrational and very offensive reply. Racialism is nothing to joke about.

Yet they keep saying it on the news here in texas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you applying that accusation to my replies or description of Obama's positions?

wtf are you talking about? tired of your 'internets is out to gets me' tone. I'm applying that to exactly what I said im applying it to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama is neither fiscally conservative nor socially moderate. Whatever website you got that from, don't go there any more.

 

So far, you have raised one issue in which obama is arguably immoderate and another which you say cannot be judged on a moderate immoderate axis. So' what else do you base this statement on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×