demagogue on 22/1/2012 at 07:04
I guess I wasn't wrong for staying out of this thread. Perry never impressed me since he became governor, so he certainly didn't now.
Seeing Gingrich rebounding is sort of a downer, but at least he's old establishment, which I probably have more respect for than most people, since I think politics is first about knowing how the game works & getting things done, and I trust establishment politicians before idealist newbies that think somehow the rules will work differently for them and they don't know what the word compromise means. I wasn't in favor of everything in the Contract for America era, but I could respect the political savvy of that Congress & how grounded it was in realpolitik (edit: & full disclosure I interned for Armey in that period so am biased), and I think it was worlds better than this Tea Party business we have now, which just seems derailed from reality, fiercely anti-intellectual and anti-establishment, everything I don't like. I guess I'm still in favor of Romney for the nomination though, since he's branded as the practical one that knows how to read the air & not veer too far right.
But I'll probably end up voting for Obama again since everything I've seen him do in his first term I thought was largely the right way to go, even (especially) the stuff he gets flak for. Actually he was a pleasant surprise in that respect, since I thought he was going to be much less pragmatic than he actually has been, not to mention he's from "my world" (technocratic). I don't really understand any of the shit people give him. I guess it boils down to: I loath dogma & purists, right or left, and the most practical guy wins. Since Republicans are like on another planet and have been for a while, and Obama is nothing but practical & a born technocrat, it's sort of an easy pick for me this election. (Never mind my natural tendency is a little right of center & soft-libertarian, but democrats have essentially taken the right-of-center slot anyway, to their credit.)
Rug Burn Junky on 22/1/2012 at 17:22
Quote Posted by demagogue
I could respect the political savvy of that Congress & how grounded it was in realpolitik [...], and I think it was worlds better than this Tea Party business we have now, which just seems derailed from reality, fiercely anti-intellectual and anti-establishment, everything I don't like.
Except that Newt was sort of the seedling for that brand of reactionary politics. I question just how "politically savvy" he actually was, since all he really did was ride the backlash against Clinton in '94. Because of that momentum, Clinton responded pragmatically (balanced budget, welfare reform), and Newt's caucus kept pushing for more until he pushed too far (gov't shut-down). That eventual deflection shows Clinton's political skills more than Gingrich's.
Yes, the contract for America was a brilliant crystallization of the resentment that enabled his rise, but he's no more responsible for that than Boehner is for '10 - right place, right time. And compared to Boehner, Newt overreached much farther, with much less pressure to do so. His savvy with respect to electoral politics is questionable, and there's no evidence whatsoever of him having a grasp of the governmental (getting stuff done) politics.
demagogue on 22/1/2012 at 17:49
Well the whole thing imploded and fast, and Clinton came out the winner with a 2nd term and the things you mentioned. I liked his political instincts too, even while I was interning for Armey. I guess what I recognized from the Republican party of that era was it was the last time it looked like it had its act together and the speaker & congress had some kind of agenda on its own steam; savvy isn't really the word. (I respected Pelosi for the same reason. She isn't getting the credit she deserves for the health care law.) It might have been coattailing on reaction, and I don't doubt it planted the seeds for today's rage politics, but it wasn't as much like the patients were running the asylum like today. The "Republican Leadership" meant something. Who's leading it now?
I mean I'm putting all this into relative context looking at the circus the Rep candidates have been so far this year. In the wider context, the Rep party has alienated me since Bush Sr. (the prudent one) was sucker punched by his own base going into the 92 election, led by Gingrich, especially for what I thought was the right thing for Bush Sr to do (new taxes) and he knew he'd be flogged but did it anyway; that was my early model for what statesmanship is. So I didn't really like Gingrich then either, I was just trying to find something to comment on.
Muzman on 22/1/2012 at 21:43
Quote Posted by demagogue
But I'll probably end up voting for Obama again since everything I've seen him do in his first term I thought was largely the right way to go, even (especially) the stuff he gets flak for.
What's your take on that stuff? : The leaving Guantanamo untouched, some unpleasant Bush doctrine in place. The usual criticism points where he's labelled disappointing by progressives etc?
(sorry, I can't be more specific at the minute)
demagogue on 22/1/2012 at 22:01
I was actually researching the military commissions for the detainees and the processes for dealing with them (trials, release processes, continuing extra-judicial detainment, to what extent POW norms apply & don't apply, etc), and even being heavily against them there were a couple of problems we had to deal seriously with and I didn't want to just shrug them away... What process *do* you have to release POWs that insist on maintaining a state of war with the US (the classic rule is POW detainment can last as long as the state of conflict lasts, so you see the problem) or have committed possible war crimes (which itself is tricky since the Taliban & Al Qaida are irregular forces so they were breaking the laws of war left and right as basic policy)? Or do you treat their behavior under criminal law (like traditional terrorism), which has its own problems (since it was really an armed conflict, and the commissions to try them are stained by Bush policies that may be hard to fix)? And if you want to continue holding them until you have a process that works, where else are you going to hold them? Or do you just have a program of blanket release without any process at all?
I'm not saying I was happy that more attention wasn't paid on closing Gitmo since it's an obvious stain on the US's reputation & values, and Obama I'm sure hates it as much as I do, but I completely understood Obama's frustration in dealing seriously with these kinds of tough issues and not just shrugging them off & being oblivious to them like his critics were so quick to do. Edit: In other words, I think it's the responsibility of the critic not just to point out what a travesty Gitmo is, and it's definitely been that, but to provide some process to shutting it down that works and deals seriously with the issues it raises. I wish Obama *had* focused more on it & he could have, and I wish he had had help to do it. I personally think it's possible and that's what I tried to do writing about it; I wish more critics would join that chorus since that's where the focus needs to be IMO.
I imagine my response to other "disappointments" would be in this same kind of neighborhood. He takes serious issues seriously, like a good constitutional law professor would, even if his response is different than the way I would go. (Well other problems are a matter of political capital; he clearly would like to change them but has so much opportunity. He got the health care law through, so things like that have to be taken into account measuring against what wasn't done.) But I don't like to speak generally; we could look at specific cases and each one should get judged on its own merits. My perception is he usually has a good case for his compromises, but obviously we'd want to look to the details to see what's really going on.
Pyrian on 23/1/2012 at 18:07
Just a week ago Romney was 2-0 and cruising towards 3-0, with little left in his way. Now Iowa's been Ret-Con'd for Santorum and Gingrich has won South Carolina, so it's just one state for each (yes that's oversimplification but whatever).
Get out the peanuts and crackerjacks, this thing's going extra innings! What happens if it goes to the convention and Ron Paul has the tie breaking delegates?
scarykitties on 24/1/2012 at 16:50
Quote Posted by demagogue
I don't really understand any of the shit people give him.
Well, how about the enormous jump in deficit spending, deepening the national debt to a point that it's nearly impossible for the USA to climb out of it without economic reform (by which I mean throwing away the dollar and starting anew), attempted jobs bills that really did nothing, attempts to crush things that WOULD make jobs, such as the recent pipeline that you may have heard of, and, on top of that all, ObamaCare, which my Economics professor, my uncle who works for an Insurance agency, and a friend who is himself a lawyer and whose family works in pharmaceuticals all assure me is an absolute, horrid failure that will ruin everything if it is not repealed as soon as possible.
On top of that, Obama does not come off as a strong leader in foreign eyes. He
asked politely for Iran to return a high-tech military drone that went down. Additionally, he doesn't seem to particularly support our ally Isreal.
I guess I fail to see what he's done
right. His social programs may assist people in the short-term, but they make them dependent in the long-term, all the while putting greater pressure on the working class to support the non-working class. It's so bad, illegal immigrants are moving BACK to Mexico because it's so crappy here.
Why would you re-elect that?
As for him acting like a Constitutional Law Professor, take a look at (
http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/04/president-obamas-top-10-constitutional-violations/) Obama's Top Ten Constitutional Violations.
EDIT: As a point of further research, if you're puzzled as to the details of what Obama did wrong, read (
http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/johnransom/2011/08/27/obama_is_a_bad_president_an_answer_to_jonathan_alter/page/full/) this article.
Even if Obama DID save America from a depression (which I don't believe he did, but that doesn't matter), there is no evidence suggesting that he will be able to raise the USA out of its economic crisis. Perhaps he DID do as good a job as was possible, but that does not mean that he's fit to the task ahead, and all evidence suggests that he isn't. Perhaps it's time to retire Obama and let someone with a better grasp of economics take the reins to assist the USA in rising out of this economic crisis.
Pyrian on 24/1/2012 at 17:55
Quote Posted by scarykitties
...attempted jobs bills that really did nothing, attempts to crush things that WOULD make jobs, such as the recent pipeline that you may have heard of...
This sort of casual hypocrisy amuses me. First, they claim that stimulus fundamentally doesn't work, then they claim that we need to pipe oil/make fighter jets/insert right-wing priority here on precisely the stimulus grounds they just got done claiming doesn't work.
I don't blame
you, personally, scarykitties, at least not every much. I'm sure you're just repeating the nonsense you've been spoonfed. But with even slight critical thinking, you can easily see that the whole right-wing noise machine does not even bother with the slightest pretension of internal consistency anymore. It's like the phishing e-mails that are glaringly obvious. Why are they glaringly obvious? Not because the
makers are that stupid. It's because the makers only really want the stupid people... People who'd figure the scam out in time even if the initial pitch was perfectly crafted, are a waste of time.
scarykitties on 24/1/2012 at 18:36
Quote Posted by Pyrian
This sort of casual hypocrisy amuses me. First, they claim that stimulus fundamentally doesn't work, then they claim that we need to pipe oil/make fighter jets/insert right-wing priority here on precisely the stimulus grounds they just got done claiming doesn't work.
I'm not suggesting that the government should subsidize anything. I'm saying that they should step aside and allow the pipeline to be built. That's a private venture, not a government stimulus. Now, I don't pretend to know enough to understand Obama's jobs bill, but I trust my Economics professor, who has a PhD in this kind of thing, when he assures the class that government jobs bills don't really work, and in this case the money for the jobs bill just kind of disappeared, funneled to certain individuals who just kept it. The jobs bills Obama has put in place didn't make the jobs they were intended to.
Quote Posted by Pyrian
I don't blame
you, personally, scarykitties, at least not every much. I'm sure you're just repeating the nonsense you've been spoonfed. But with even slight critical thinking, you can easily see that the whole right-wing noise machine does not even bother with the slightest pretension of internal consistency anymore. It's like the phishing e-mails that are glaringly obvious. Why are they glaringly obvious? Not because the
makers are that stupid. It's because the makers only really want the stupid people... People who'd figure the scam out in time even if the initial pitch was perfectly crafted, are a waste of time.
While your condescending, yet vague rhetoric is cute, I'd like to see some evidence suggesting that allowing the construction of the Keystone pipeline is a bad idea, as you seem to be implying. It sounds to me like you don't understand the difference between government-created jobs and private-created jobs. To educate you on the differences, government jobs are paid for by taxpayer money. Private jobs are paid for by corporate revenue. The difference is that private jobs pay their workers with money that is given willingly (that is, people choose to pay for whatever it is that they gave the money for). Public (government) jobs pay their workers with money that is forcefully taken from the people through taxes. And money that goes to government workers is just money that
doesn't go into diminishing the national debt.
It basically comes down to this: The Keystone pipeline would diminish reliance on middle eastern oil reserves and would create thousands of (albeit temporary) construction jobs. The down-side is (
http://missoulian.com/news/opinion/columnists/keystone-pipeline-bad-for-the-u-s-and-the-earth/article_01ebc1f8-0a1b-11e1-a0fc-001cc4c03286.html) this. Essentially, that it enables the US to continue using fossil fuels. However, with no viable, clean alternatives, it is unreasonable and irresponsible to force the market with federal stimuli attempting to push the development of clean energy in an economic crisis. There is at least one solar company (Solyndra) that was given government (read: taxpayer) money by Obama that has since gone out of business. That is valuable taxpayer money wasted on a pipe dream during an economic crisis.
