Politics Who's Gonna Win?

Ahhh, must be true conservatism as all the Rep candidates evoke his name somewhere in the answer to every debate question.

 

Oh, I don't agree with that. Great leaders get people to follow by choice not force. I could have followed Obama's lead, I was ready for the wars to end, I was ready for healthcare reform, I was ready to fix the tax code, I was ready for a modern new age energy strategy, etc, etc. There are many ways Obama could have got people like me saying yes to his agenda. It was his choice to be combative.

What are you talking about? People have not voted. Virtual votes have no meaning.

That was pretty funny.
--- merged: Jan 25, 2012 11:54 PM ---

No this is just me. I am an arrogant SOB. Many conservatives are shaking in their boots thinking Obama can not be beat. That is the root of the problem, hence they try to water down true conservatism.

 

i am so tired of hearing about reagan. its getting right up there with 'but the terrorist are going to get us if we dont (insert insane policy here)' and other nonsense. he wasn't a particularly good president or even good conservative for that matter. in fact i dont even remember anyone talking that highly of him until he died. on that day he someone reached george washington and abe lincoln status. it's getting nauseating.

 

once upon a time conservatives were focused on concrete reality. sometimes they were like edmund burke and thought that people really couldn't know anything in a transcendent sense so looked to history to show how things should be because it represented the accumulated practical wisdom that humans had been able to accumulate to that point---plus it kept the little people in their place(s) and provided a basis for conservative arguments that hierarchy is natural. not because it IS---no-one can tell that sort of thing---but because history shows it and for a "real" conservative in the old sense (which you'd think conservatives would be conservative about) that's all you can know about. so revolution is necessarily bad because it runs counter to this whole history thing in the name of abstract principles. that was what the conservative framing of their opponents centered on---conservatives were about the concrete, the others about the abstract. this runs for a very long time through many delightful twists and turns in conservatism, including everyone's favorite of a few years ago carl schmitt who outlined a theory of dictatorship and a state of exception that turned this whole conservatives like the concrete thing into conservatives like deciders who decide thing in a decisive way during the inevitable state of emergency that democracy triggers because its about abstractions and debates and conservatives are about deciding stuff and that's why dictators are consistent with conservatism even though they're kinda revolutionary in a backward way and so. but there's also this nationalism thing that's cropped up since nation-states were invented in their modern form starting in the middle 19th century and becoming dominant after world war 1 (look at the delightful history of turkey in the early 20s---or ask a greek person), which is a transcendent idea and dictators like nationalism and so that woulda been a problem had conservatives been conservative about being conservative but they aren't so much. reagan got turned into a Signifier once he was dead enough to stop saying stupid things and get with the program. but it's also an index of the transformation of contemporary conservatism into its present reality-impaired ultra-right wing evangelical dominated nutjob organization that it's by degrees become. some conservatives are conservative about reagan but about conservatism not so much at least not in the way you'd expect conservatives to be so. "real" conservatives these days are largely neo-fascist. and newt has no hope whatsoever of getting elected. but i digress.

 

The ironic thing is, they are not truly voting against Obama as few of them know anything about his record as a President. They are voting against a caricature of him painted by the likes of Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. This is partially Obama's fault as he and his party have failed to provide a true picture of him. As usual, the Democrat's offensive game lags behind.

I suspect though, even some of those with full knowledge of what Obama has accomplished would not vote for him based on principles and prejudices that have nothing to do with whether or not he has been an effective President. His being a Democrat for one. His being black for another.

The extremist base of the Republican Party will vote for the candidate who speaks loudest to their rage, bigotry and greed. It's been this way for years and I foresee no change. Newt seems to be the hate flavor of the moment. If Rick Santorum weren't so soft spoken about his bigotry, he might find greater favor with the haters. Romney's out, I think, unless he can up his hate game in this arena.

 

I think the Tea Party reflects those who believe government spending is out of control. it represents those who do not believe the legacy to our children and grand-children should be a mountain of debt. I believe there is a strong case to be made that come November we will see Reagan type Democrats becoming a major part of the movement. I agree some want to emphasize social issues, but that is not at the core.

Yes.

I remember a saying, used in different ways to fit context:

Compromise is two wolves and a sheep coming to agreement on how to divide lunch.

Good luck with your desires to compromise.
--- merged: Jan 26, 2012 4:25 PM ---

Perhaps, Reagan would adopt his views to address the current circumstance. Every President would adopt. Envision Lincoln today. Envision FDR today. Envision Washington today. I bet even Clinton would approach today's issues different than he approached the issues during his administration.
--- merged: Jan 26, 2012 4:31 PM ---

If you listened to the SOTUA, I thought I heard Obama say something along the lines that he wants some type of regulations that will prevent the type of financial sector problem we just faced. Given you brought up past financial problems, do you believe it possible for some kind of super duper set regulations can be put in place that will prevent any type of future financial sector problems on a large scale? History tells us we go through something major every 30 years or so, just at about the time when memories of the last financial catastrophe fades. Clearly Obama can't think he can forever solve the problems involving greed and excessive risk taking.

 

gee, ace, by that "logic" on regulating the financial sector, we should throw out laws that prohibit murder because they don't stop all murders. in fact, we should just throw out all laws because they can't stop people from breaking them. police too, because they just follow lawbreakers around. replace them with the Inquisition because in that case, thanks to the whole christian soldier thing, jesus makes sure that the law is drawn to the guilty.

 

First, perhaps he did not need "most" Republicans. Perhaps all he needed was "enough".
Second, perhaps a good leader takes a moment to understand conditions, adversaries, allies, etc. and then formulates a winning strategy.
Third, Obama had the wind at his back, so to speak, a past unpopular President, a super majority, a motivated base, media support, international support, and extremely high popularity ratings - wasn't he consistently in the 60's% in his first year?

At this point it doesn't matter, 2012 nothing of significance will get done. I just wonder what his tone and future strategy is going to be. It is his responsibility to change the tone and rhetoric, he is the President, he may be the President another 4 years. At some point he needs to get this problem fixed or end up being totally ineffective.
--- merged: Jan 26, 2012 4:44 PM ---

I, for one, am getting less and less interested in history. I am beginning to care less and less about conservatives of the past and what they did or did not do, what they thought, etc. My focus is on this moment in history and the view of the future.
--- merged: Jan 26, 2012 4:50 PM ---

Correct. There is no law that stops murder. There will never be such a law. At best, we need to make sure the consequences of murder are true, firm and consistent. If you murder you will be put to death or serve a life prison sentence. What more do we need? If you commit financial fraud you will compensate your victims, serve time in jail commensurate with the level of fraud, and never be allowed to engage in said activity for life! what more do we need? Is it your view that the more complex laws are the better they are? Seems convoluted. White noise.
--- merged: Jan 26, 2012 4:59 PM ---

That sums up the problem the Tea Party faces. Many different interest groups are trying to tag their agendas on to the Tea Party's simple and effective message. If these special interest groups succeed the Tea Party will fail.

Perhaps the message is simply understanding when and what can be compromised based on who (or is it whom) you are compromising with. for example if I do not trust you, compromise is not possible. I do not trust that if I agree to tax increases, government will cut spending. Hence no compromise is possible. Government must cut spending before I would even think about any type of a tax rate increase. The odd thing is, I can explicitly tell you and the world what my position is, what will work for me, and it is ignored. Why? I am not the only one who feels this way.

 

Why does it have to be only two options: increase taxes or cut spending? Why not the third option: increase the tax base by creating jobs?

 

wow i hope the general election debates aren't this retarded. every other question is about who's the biggest scumbag romney with his offshore banking and millions or newt for lobbying fannie and freddie. this is sad.

 

it seems in this debate gingrich and romney are grasping for the please dont boo me position, which is agreeing with ron paul.

 

Reminiscent of Obama, H. Clinton, and Joe Biden. (I agree with Joe). If this similarity stands, then it must mean Ron Paul is a shoe-in for a VP pick.

The debates have gone right over the edge. Probably due to the number of them. All the issues have been addressed already. They now look more like an episode of Jerry Springer.

 

Romney and Newt's petulant bickering managed to make Santorum look good, which I thought was impossible.

Watching them eat each other alive last night was so very very satisfying

 

maybe those fine individuals at news corporation will figure out that this much exposure is not helping any of these republican fuckwits.

 

Cutting taxes will contribute to increasing the tax base as it did with the bush Tax cuts.