The 2012 Presidential Election Discussion Thread

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

I think the current Administration can be counted on to ensure a very strong Republican turnout ... with any of the prospective candidates.

I am also bemused by the outrage over "flip floppers". The exercise of power in the real wortld requires a flexible, pragmatic approach to most thorny problems. Abraham Lincoln had no problem suspending habeus corpus during a civil war fought to ensure individual liberty. One is reminded of Ralph Waldo Emerson's statement about consistency ....

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines."

I supposed you were bemused when the primary attack used by your party against Kerry was indeed that he was a 'flip-flopper' back in 2004?

While it may mean nothing to you, it resonated with a large percentage of your party's base, which is sort of a huge problem for Romney. And at some point, anyone must agree that a consistent record of CHANGING one's opinion on issues - not because of changes in the underlying situation being discussed, but because of political expediency - marks one as being fundamentally unserious about those issues. I mean, what has changed so much, between 2009 and now, to make Romney change so many of his political positions? The nature of the GOP electorate, which has increasingly radicalized - not any other issue being discussed.

Or is that how you define 'pragmatic' - the pragmatism of lying to the correct people in the correct way to bring about the desired result?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Many people and all the robotocans will have no problem voting for Mr. Romney... Wealth in our society is the equivalent of honor and few will admit that many poor are required to make anyone rich, so that leaves most people who rather admire the rich and who only hope in vain to be so rich as they some day..

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

I take it you are referring to the political fuss surrounding Kerry's statements to the effect that he voted for the Iraq war before he voted against it (or something like that). In my view that was merely a careless misstatement (Freudian slip) by Kerry describing an otherwise defensible sequence of votes in the Senate. However, it did reveal detectable elements of his character and behavior, namely vanity, self-absorption, and a remarkable inclination to have things both ways for himself. This attracted his political opponents who cynically used the event to illustrate what they saw as underlying traits. Interestingly it did resonate with the media and the public, both of which may have had similar impressions. Stuff like that is a common occurrence in politics and many aspects of life. Yes, I was bemused.

Occasionally changing one's opinions concerning what is desirable, effective public policy or is politically feasible under evolving external conditions is, in my view a mark of sanity and realism in a democracy. Certainly a rigid adherance to a political doctrine that seeks to define all matters of public policy in a rigid or unchanging way is both dangerous and contrary to our best political traditions.

In the matter at hand I believe Romney is being a bit self-serving and disingenuous. I do agree with his assertion that states properly should have more latitude in defining intrusive matters of public policy, such as this one, based both on the Constitution and our history of the primacy of local government in such matters. However, I think it is more likely that he is using that argument for political cover, and that he has chasnged his view about the overall efficacy of government-managed health care. Certainly the unfolding consequences of the Massachusetts health care system have since given the lie to its proponents concerning the cost and effectiveness of the program. Unfortunately public welfare programs such as this one, once enacted are very hard to undo.

Perhaps the core question here is whether it is possible for a thinking, reasoning political figure to subsequently alter his view concerning the desirability of a once very popular proposal for public policy, and do so honestly and for good reasons? I think it is possible. Whether this or a cybical search for political cover is the case with Mitt Romney, I don't know.

By the way the sainted Obama made a number of very emphatic statements, while in his previous political role in the Senate, concerning matters as far-ranging as the need to close the prision at Guantanamo to the need for domestic energy independence and excessive deficit spending, and other matters as well that all contradict his behavior while in office as President. Is that "flip-flopping".

1 Reply

@failures art,

failures art wrote:

The real problems is that tuition moves at a rate far far far greater than inflation. That someone could save up enough doing summer work etc two or three decades ago should not be projected onto youth today. As a percentage of the cost of college, teenage workers do not have a capability to raise enough funds as their parents made at their age.

Tuition is driven by demand, though.

By providing secured loans, the government has increased demand, which has raised the price of a college education.

College loans used to be considered "good debt." From casual observation, it appears to me that the concept of of "good debt" is going by the wayside, at least temporarily. "Good debt" is being reclassified as simply "debt."

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

By the way the sainted Obama made a number of very emphatic statements, while in his previous political role in the Senate, concerning matters as far-ranging as the need to close the prision at Guantanamo to the need for domestic energy independence and excessive deficit spending, and other matters as well that all contradict his behavior while in office as President. Is that "flip-flopping".

Every time you say something like 'the Sainted Obama' or 'the Annointed one' it just makes you look like a bitter ass, George. I would think you would wish to avoid looking that way.

Regarding the things you have written here, I don't believe you are correct in the slightest. Let us look at them individually:

Gitmo: Obama did indeed push hard to close gitmo, and was blocked from doing so by the GOP and some Dem senators. It's difficult to call that a 'flip-flop;' his position on the matter is unchanged.

Domestic energy independence: I would have to see the specifics regarding what Obama said in order to accept the validity of this. I don't recall Obama campaigning on increased oil or gas leases here in the US; he DID campaign on increased renewable energy usage, which he has pushed for. Unless you can quote some specific language of his, I can't agree that this is a change on his part.

Deficit spending: I'm sure you'll agree with me that the political and economic environment was changed tremendously by the financial crash of 2008. It was never going to be possible for either of the candidates to keep many of their campaign promises in light of the massive recession that we experienced. I would point out that candidate Obama and President Obama both stated that we should cut spending AND raise taxes in order to close deficit gaps; and that's exactly what Prez Obama has tried to do over the last few years. So, I think you've struck out on this line of attack completely.

I am glad to hear that you recognize that Romney is being disingenuous. As he is the only really viable candidate for your side, however, it's pretty clear that you simply don't care. It's not difficult to see why; he's a representative of your class and is quite likely to pursue tax policies which will benefit you (as well as himself), which is really what it's all about at the end of the day for your wing of the party... many of your fellow travelers, however, DO care about his lack of trustworthiness. It is the most common complaint about Romney put forth by Conservatives. This will be skillfully exploited to hurt him in the general election.

And, with regard to Romney's 'evolving views' on healthcare, I should point out that he still champions the Mass. model he instituted, and has specifically refused on several occasions to denounce it; all while continually bashing Obama for instituting a system which is extremely similar to the one he championed. It's hard to see that as an honest change of opinion in any way.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

failures art wrote:
The real problems is that tuition moves at a rate far far far greater than inflation. That someone could save up enough doing summer work etc two or three decades ago should not be projected onto youth today. As a percentage of the cost of college, teenage workers do not have a capability to raise enough funds as their parents made at their age.

Tuition is driven by demand, though.

Can you elaborate on this? Why should it be? And why have we seen tuition explode over the last decade, when student loans have been available for decades before that, and demand has been high for some time?

At least in TX, the answer to that question is Deregulation.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Gitmo: Obama did indeed push hard to close gitmo, and was blocked from doing so by the GOP and some Dem senators. It's difficult to call that a 'flip-flop;' his position on the matter is unchanged.

Yes, that's correct, if by "push hard" you mean "didn't push hard at all and backtracked almost immediately" and by "unchanged" you mean "completely the opposite of what he promised during his campaign."

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Gitmo: Obama did indeed push hard to close gitmo, and was blocked from doing so by the GOP and some Dem senators. It's difficult to call that a 'flip-flop;' his position on the matter is unchanged.

Yes, that's correct, if by "push hard" you mean "didn't push hard at all and backtracked almost immediately" and by "unchanged" you mean "completely the opposite of what he promised during his campaign."

Has he come out and stated that he no longer wants to have it closed? It was my understanding that they worked on it for the entirety of 2009 before giving up on it.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Considering that Guantanamo is a military prison, Obama has wide-ranging authority, as commander-in-chief, to close it, regardless of what congress wants to do. In other words, if he truly wanted to close it down, he could have done so in 2009. Instead, he pursued the same kind of timid, dithering, incrementalist negotiating with the intransigent opposition that has been the hallmark of his administration. As a result, when he encountered the inevitable pushback from the GOP and conservative/spineless Democrats, he folded like a sleeve. And now, instead of civil trials and the application of habeas corpus, it's back to military tribunals and indefinite detention -- the same criminal policies pursued by the Bush administration.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Regarding the things you have written here, I don't believe you are correct in the slightest. Let us look at them individually:

Gitmo: Obama did indeed push hard to close gitmo, and was blocked from doing so by the GOP and some Dem senators. It's difficult to call that a 'flip-flop;' his position on the matter is unchanged.

Domestic energy independence: I would have to see the specifics regarding what Obama said in order to accept the validity of this. I don't recall Obama campaigning on increased oil or gas leases here in the US; he DID campaign on increased renewable energy usage, which he has pushed for. Unless you can quote some specific language of his, I can't agree that this is a change on his part.

Deficit spending: I'm sure you'll agree with me that the political and economic environment was changed tremendously by the financial crash of 2008. It was never going to be possible for either of the candidates to keep many of their campaign promises in light of the massive recession that we experienced. I would point out that candidate Obama and President Obama both stated that we should cut spending AND raise taxes in order to close deficit gaps; and that's exactly what Prez Obama has tried to do over the last few years. So, I think you've struck out on this line of attack completely.

I am glad to hear that you recognize that Romney is being disingenuous. As he is the only really viable candidate for your side, however, it's pretty clear that you simply don't care. It's not difficult to see why; he's a representative of your class and is quite likely to pursue tax policies which will benefit you (as well as himself), which is really what it's all about at the end of the day for your wing of the party... many of your fellow travelers, however, DO care about his lack of trustworthiness. It is the most common complaint about Romney put forth by Conservatives. This will be skillfully exploited to hurt him in the general election.

And, with regard to Romney's 'evolving views' on healthcare, I should point out that he still champions the Mass. model he instituted, and has specifically refused on several occasions to denounce it; all while continually bashing Obama for instituting a system which is extremely similar to the one he championed. It's hard to see that as an honest change of opinion in any way.

Cycloptichorn

I use the term "sainted Obama" precisely because of the different standard you habitually apply to him compared to that which you apply to his opponents - something which you have amply illustrated in your comments above.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

This is what we in the industry refer to as a 'non-response.' A dodge designed to distract from actual discussion of the specifics of the situations you highlighted, which do not in fact match the rhetoric you applied to them.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Er...

Deregulation by itself does not mean that prices go up.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

This is what we in the industry refer to as a 'non-response.' A dodge designed to distract from actual discussion of the specifics of the situations you highlighted, which do not in fact match the rhetoric you applied to them.

Cycloptichorn

Are you "in the industry"? Rolling Eyes

There may be some delusions at work here.

I made a specific response to your criticism of my references to the sainted Obama. That was the issue I addressed, and there was no distraction whatever involved.

You repeatedly throw in a lot of extraneous detail and assume it becomes the subject we are discussing merely because you wrote it.

0 Replies

From Across The 'Pond'

Watching from the outside, Obhama's attempts to carry through his pre election promises have been scuppered by the opposition.

I believe that against massive opposition he has forced through the changes to the health system in the U.S. and in the future millions of people who have kidney failure or a heart attack or break a leg will feel the benefit of a free at the point of need system as we have in the UK. True we moan about it, we want it improved, we want more for less, but it is always the rich who can afford good quality private health care who promote the restriction of the free service.

For 95% of people in the U.S. Obhama's ideas will mean a better life if allowed through, he hasn't been given a chance to push through his agenda.

Don't forget, Iran's missile tests! Nuclear material production for ' purely peaseful intentions' You and us are going to need strong leadership over the next 12 months, 74 yr old folks aint gonna cut it.

Looking in from the outside, sometimes it takes more tha 1 term to turn things around.

Hope you dont mind me butting in.

2 Replies

@plcman,

Welcome, plcman. I started this thread and a few other ones aimed at political junkies. We do sometimes get off topic and perhaps disagreeable with each other, but we do slog on.
I would say that the U.S. election right now is all about our economy. Foreign affairs is pretty low on our list of priorities. That may be an over generalization but I am sticking to that notion.
I, perhaps we here, appreciate observations from folks like you.

0 Replies

@plcman,

But away but be ready to be attacked by the right wingers.

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

I agree that's preferable.
I was lucky, went to an excellent university that charged no tuition. Those were the days. Still, I had to live and my parents were often unemployed in those years. So, I worked nearly full time, say, 35/36 hrs./week not including bus times, to pay for food, pay some home 'rent', buy my books, once in a while clothes, mostly homemade but not always. At that time the university was strongly against working more than fifteen hours/wk. and they were right, at least re me.

Where I was a fool was in not trying for a scholarship - I went to a catholic college for my first year (went 5 total), applied for a california scholarship back then, and was refused since my father had earned too much money. Turned out he only worked something like six weeks that year and the money earned was virtually all owed the day he got it. My mother went back to work, not earning much. I was very stupid at university, never went to counselling, never tried for a scholarship again or other help. A loan was out of my radar. The upshot was that I was often exhausted. My grades ran from best in class to near worst (no kidding).

This is not a complaint - as I said, I was very lucky. I don't regret a minute of it.

Why I go on about this is that in my early education, I was never taught a thing about handling money or about decisions re further education. I strongly think there should be, if not classes as such, a series of presentations for students to get clues about all this while they are in high school at the latest.

That may be true in some places now, I don't know.

edit - re politics, I'm an odd one on education. I'm for good education that is basically tuition free. Not to get rid of private schools with tuition, but I want state schools without tuition. We spend billions on war materiel - this is a matter of priority setting. I'm perfectly aware states can't afford it presently, for myriad reasons.

0 Replies

@failures art,

failures art wrote:

The real problems is that tuition moves at a rate far far far greater than inflation.

I disagree enormously.

I think the real problem is the value we have mistakenly placed on a university education - and that we have allowed universities to expand in the way they have.

The world doesn't need that many people with university educations. The world could benefit from a lot more people with practical educations.

Get an apprenticeship, work, make a decent living, live a good life.

Go for higher academics later. I think it is an indulgence for society to allow so many to go to university.

2 Replies

@ehBeth,

I see your point.
But, for me, I'd like a broad range of free education available, including tech schools.
I've never been for dumbing down college (american word, I gather) or university education, so I've also been interested in possible places for people to tutor up to high standards, as well as practical training schools.

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

At the same time, I think there is a weird division between a lot of university educated folks and people who were trained by apprenticing as, say, carpenters.
Plenty of carpenters have really good minds and plenty of university folk could benefit by learning to work with their hands. It seems like a false division to me, but I've no idea what to do about it. I know it's a generalization, as people in both situations can be adept in the other mode, but the education system seems like one of too many lanes you can't switch back and forth on.

Re the election, this all is out of the picture, but I think the education system is part of the general have and have not angst going on.

0 Replies

The 2012 Presidential Election Discussion Thread

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know