General Political Thread

[Mr. Heartbreak]

Let's debate ideas, not people.  I could cite someone, like Christie or McCain or lots of other people, but I don't understand the point.  It's the ideas that are important.

 

 

Why would any of us feel limited to debating ideas, not people? Politics in America is incredibly juvenile, much more akin to a high school presidential race than a true debate between grownups. It seems to be more adult in Europe, but I've never lived there, so who knows...

 

I don't delude myself into thinking that President Obama won election and reelection solely on the basis of his better ideas. Many voted for him because of the "historic" nature of being the first black President, his "Hollywood" like aura, and his gleaming white smile. Let's be honest here. And plenty of people would vote for Rubio mainly because he would be the first Latino President, or for Hillary because she would be the first woman President. Not that many people watch the debates, much less read the paper, blogs, or even forums like this.

 

In fact, I can easily foresee Rubio being the nominee, with the idea that "he is our Obama" (young, dynamic, telegenic, blah blah blah). And it might seem like pandering...well, it would be...but it would also be an historic first.

 

[LouieB]

 

 

It's a shame that a nasty wench like Maureen Dowd has a voice there, though. (Her latest piece: "Barry's War Within," in which she continuously refers to our President as "Barry." Pretty damned disrespectful, but par for the course with her.)

She has become a pretty shitty columnist.

 

LouieB

[KevinG]

I must admit, IRDB, had a pretty salient point, which was unfortunately overshadowed by whatever craziness went around his postings.  

 

There are major voices on the right, not necessarily party leadership, but prominent voices that have said some pretty out there things about the President and Democrats.  These things are tinged with racism, and pure misinformation.  Now, people on this board have gone so far as disavow or refute much of what is said from these people.  But the point is there are some (I would go so far and say many) conservatives who listen, believe and support these out there notions.  

 

Yes there are crazies on the left, but in general they are not given the prominence that the crazies on the right have.  

[Mr. Heartbreak]

 

Yes there are crazies on the left, but in general they are not given the prominence that the crazies on the right have.  

I would take it a step further. I'd be hard pressed to come up with a list of prominent people on the left who have said off-the-wall stuff anywhere near what the crazies on the right have.

 

Bill Maher? He's a stand-up comedian with an HBO show. Jon Stewart? Again, Comedy Central. Keith Olbermann? Has faded into obscurity, but isn't he mainly known as a sportscaster to most?

 

Sure, people listen to Maher and Stewart, but I don't think anyone takes them all that seriously as political commentators or even "prominent" lefties. Love those guys, by the way.

[bleedorange]

I don't know of any rational Conservatives or Republicans who don't have a serious problem with the direction the party has been going in over the last decade. Unfortunately, the money is with that part of the party I find reprehensible. It really shows up locally, where state senate and state house seats are won by relative nobodies who are able to attach themselves to the faction of the party with the most money. This part of the party is also the most vocal and motivated to vote, which is why Ted Cruz can sneak away with a win in a primary runoff.

 

It's frustrating. But the presidential elections don't help any. The last two Republican nominees have been John McCain and Mitt Romney. Neither one of which could ever be described as far-right Republicans. This leads to a few different conclusions:

 

1) The majority of the party nationwide does not skew as far to the right as its most vocal members.

2) You see these candidates have to unnaturally move that way to placate a large, rich, vocal portion of the party anyway.

3) The fact that these more moderate Republicans have not fared well in the last two elections only fuels the fire of the far right, which leads to its growing voice.

 

It's a vicious cycle. This may be a bit of a stretch, but I think if the Democrats moved closer to the center as a whole, one of two things would happen: either the Republican party would come back that way too, and the political process would be restored; or the Republican party would move so far to the right that it would become marginalized.

 

That's probably just wishful thinking, though.

[bjorn_skurj]

I don't know of any rational Conservatives or Republicans who don't have a serious problem with the direction the party has been going in over the last decade. Unfortunately, the money is with that part of the party I find reprehensible. It really shows up locally, where state senate and state house seats are won by relative nobodies who are able to attach themselves to the faction of the party with the most money. This part of the party is also the most vocal and motivated to vote, which is why Ted Cruz can sneak away with a win in a primary runoff.

 

It's frustrating. But the presidential elections don't help any. The last two Republican nominees have been John McCain and Mitt Romney. Neither one of which could ever be described as far-right Republicans. This leads to a few different conclusions:

 

1) The majority of the party nationwide does not skew as far to the right as its most vocal members.

2) You see these candidates have to unnaturally move that way to placate a large, rich, vocal portion of the party anyway.

3) The fact that these more moderate Republicans have not fared well in the last two elections only fuels the fire of the far right, which leads to its growing voice.

 

It's a vicious cycle. This may be a bit of a stretch, but I think if the Democrats moved closer to the center as a whole, one of two things would happen: either the Republican party would come back that way too, and the political process would be restored; or the Republican party would move so far to the right that it would become marginalized.

 

That's probably just wishful thinking, though.

That's a very good analysis. I think some on the left have decided to copy the Tea Party playbook, as it were, and in the same way reject centrism and compromise. (Or maybe this is just MSNBC's marketing strategy.) Either way, until moderate Republicans no longer have to live in fear of being primaried by a Tea Party person, they're still gonna, in most cases, stick with the no-compromise stance. 

[John Smith]

That's a very good analysis. I think some on the left have decided to copy the Tea Party playbook, as it were, and in the same way reject centrism and compromise. (Or maybe this is just MSNBC's marketing strategy.) Either way, until moderate Republicans no longer have to live in fear of being primaried by a Tea Party person, they're still gonna, in most cases, stick with the no-compromise stance.

 

I would be curious to know who on the left is aping the tea party. I would also be curious to know who among the lefts supposed friendly media actually drives policy and positions within the party the way Rush, Hannitty and others do. Also I would love to hear what radical voices are given credence on the left the way Nugent, Malkin, Hannity and others are on the right. Take the whole birther movement for example, what is a comparable psycho theory from the left that has gained as much traction within the party and or the media. How about the secession movement? And remember the democrats were the Conservative party in the civil war era.

 

Statements like " the left does it too" are BS to gain a false sense of balance where there is no balance. The left has nothing comparable to the rights media.

[Mr. Heartbreak]

I agree, excellent analysis, bleedorange.

 

Only one thing: the Democrats have moved closer to the center, and even past it. Can anyone really imagine Jimmy Carter signing off on NAFTA? People were incredibly pissed at Clinton at the time for "acting like a right winger." The same was true for welfare reform. And the Obama administration's willingness to put the pedal down on the gas in Afghanistan shows that the Democrats can be just as hawkish on national security as the Republicans.

 

Thing is, the whole country has shifted somewhat to the right ever since Ronald Reagan. I happen to think he was a total douche, but I give him props for his one horrible accomplishment: he changed people's idea of what was far right and what was just center-right. Consequently, everybody had to move toward the right (or "center," if you prefer). I don't think we have yet recovered from the Reagan Revolution.

 

Of course, in my fantasy world, the Republican party will move so far to the right that becomes marginalized. But I don't expect that to happen. I hope that, as the old, white, racist assholes die off, they will be replaced by more moderate younger Republicans who are cool with gay marriage, don't feel the need to get involved in theological debates about a woman's right to choose, etc., etc. Time will tell.

[bleedorange]

I agree, excellent analysis, bleedorange.

 

Only one thing: the Democrats have moved closer to the center, and even past it. Can anyone really imagine Jimmy Carter signing off on NAFTA? People were incredibly pissed at Clinton at the time for "acting like a right winger." The same was true for welfare reform. And the Obama administration's willingness to put the pedal down on the gas in Afghanistan shows that the Democrats can be just as hawkish on national security as the Republicans.

 

You're right as far as presidential elections go. I'm mainly talking about state and local levels of government, where there seems to be greater disparity between the two parties. I can only speak to Texas, but a lot of times, the biggest fight is in the Republican primary. There is rarely a Democratic candidate who can put up even the semblance of a fight.

 

In an ideal situation, a centrist Democrat might appeal enough to more moderate Republicans to encourage them to vote that way. But I'm sure I'm underestimating the pull of party affiliation where even the worst members of "your" party are better than the best members of the "other" party.

[Mr. Heartbreak]

I gotcha. I think the Dems currently have less of a problem in that regard than the Repubs. Local and state Dem politics seems to be the same messy big tent party it always has been...or at least as far back as I can remember.

 

I don't so much object to the moderate Repubs being "primaried." I am more concerned when the moderates lose...which leads to what I see as a big part of the current problem, what with Tea Party ideologues actually making it into Congress.

 

Years ago, I think people disliked politicians mainly because they were always willing to compromise. Ah, for those good ol' days when people could actually cut a deal and get shit done....

[bjorn_skurj]

I would be curious to know who on the left is aping the tea party. I would also be curious to know who among the lefts supposed friendly media actually drives policy and positions within the party the way Rush, Hannitty and others do. Also I would love to hear what radical voices are given credence on the left the way Nugent, Malkin, Hannity and others are on the right. Take the whole birther movement for example, what is a comparable psycho theory from the left that has gained as much traction within the party and or the media. How about the secession movement? And remember the democrats were the Conservative party in the civil war era.

 

Statements like " the left does it too" are BS to gain a false sense of balance where there is no balance. The left has nothing comparable to the rights media.

Come on up to Woodstock, N.Y., sometime and what I wrote may ring truer.

The problem is you CAN'T cut a deal and get shit done when you know that such deal-cutting will put your political career in serious jeopardy. THAT is what makes the Tea Party a real problem for the rest of the country.

[Mr. Heartbreak]

He's ba-a-a-ack.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-custody-domestic-incident-involving-gun/story?id=20203329

[brownie]

I'm sorry to have to bring this discussion back to teacher salaries, but I thought I would put this up to make teachers who do not have the good fortune to work in New York envious of their Empire State colleagues:

 

Kingston, NY is the only New York town to crack the top twenty best places for teachers to work. Kingston beat them out with its affordable cost of living index of 108 and the second highest median salary in the Northeast of $78,040. The city was the first capital of the State of New York for twenty years before Albany. The school district covers 640 teachers over eleven elementary schools. - See more at: http://www.valuepenguin.com/2013/09/best-cities-teachers-northeast#sthash.IJdY0qbc.dpuf

Well, I guess if the only thing that puts a place to work in the top twenty is salary, then people might think this is okay.

 

Honestly, salary has become almost secondary in this job.  The harrassment from both students and administration outweighs any salary for me.

[uncool2pillow]

George Zimmerman something something.

[lost highway]

Wait that guy made a mistake with a gun?  Wha whaat?

[Beltmann]

Well, I guess if the only thing that puts a place to work in the top twenty is salary, then people might think this is okay.

 

Honestly, salary has become almost secondary in this job.  The harrassment from both students and administration outweighs any salary for me.

 

I agree that salary is secondary, but for me the primary concerns are workload (currently unsustainable) and lack of autonomy (our methods have been micromanaged by know-nothings to the point of paralysis, which is having a severely detrimental effect on student learning).  The financial hits due to Act 10 were painful, but there's nothing more demoralizing than having your once-rigorous classroom succumb to standardized mediocrity.  It makes good teachers feel like frauds, powerless to maintain integrity.

[IRememberDBoon]

http://mediamatters.org/video/2013/09/09/fox-news-questions-whether-syria-conflict-is-si/195799

[Sweet Papa Crimbo]

I wonder where the very vocal anti-war star contingent is hiding these days?

Seems like every yahoo with a book, record of movie out has always been extremely quick to decry America warmongering and grab some facetime from the media...until recently. Is it military action that is bad, or the President who proposes it?

 

(I know the real answer,  but I am tired of reading about poor teacher pay and the idiocy of the Public school bureaucracy...that stuff is so blatantly obvious that it is a part of the American psyche. Teachers are being screwed from above and below...understood. Nobody loves me and second guesses everything I do in my business also.)

[Guest Don Draper]

(I know the real answer,  but I am tired of reading about poor teacher pay and the idiocy of the Public school bureaucracy...that stuff is so blatantly obvious that it is a part of the American psyche. Teachers are being screwed from above and below...understood. Nobody loves me and second guesses everything I do in my business also.)

 

The difference, if I might make an assumption that you don't work in a similarly-loathed field, is that teachers aren't second-guessed by just their own field.  If you're not a teacher or a politician, then what you do for a living hasn't been discussed at length in this thread, and hasn't been dragged through the mud by pundits and blowhards and political candidates.

 

As for anti-war folks, my Facebook feed is lit-up with links to articles by all sorts of anti-war folks.  So while I haven't seen or read them myself, they are most definitely out there with force.  

[KevinG]

I wonder where the very vocal anti-war star contingent is hiding these days?

Seems like every yahoo with a book, record of movie out has always been extremely quick to decry America warmongering and grab some facetime from the media...until recently. Is it military action that is bad, or the President who proposes it?

 

 

http://news.yahoo.com/looming-syria-vote-prompts-protests-220155225--politics.html

 

Or is it that you have a preconceived narrative in your head and don't bother to take a look and find the answer.  

[lost highway]

Yeah, huffpost is all up on his jock about war talk, and they're supposed to be blind followers of all things Obama (of course they're not, they seem to be as devoted to Miley Cyrus as Obama).

[KevinG]

Yeah, huffpost is all up on his jock about war talk, and they're supposed to be blind followers of all things Obama (of course they're not, they seem to be as devoted to Miley Cyrus as Obama).

 

Speaking of HuffPo saw this:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/09/michelle-obama-syria_n_3896436.html

 

When was the last time a first lady voiced her opposition like this?

[Atticus]

 

 

"if you ask Michelle, 'Do we-- do we want to be involved in another war?' The answer is no."

 

as though the First Lady of the United States of America would answer "yes, yes, I would very much like for the country to be involved in another war.  As soon as possible, please."

[KevinG]

as though the First Lady of the United States of America would answer "yes, yes, I would very much like for the country to be involved in another war.  As soon as possible, please."

 

Of course she would answer yes.  If the war is justified and necessary.  Apparently she does think that way.  Though these were not public statements, just a comment from her husband.  It is a pretty big deal.  You didn't see comments like this about Laura Bush, Barbra Bush, Nancy Regan, etc.  

 

And I wanted to point out this comment to refute Crow's comment about being no vocal anti-war voices out there.  Which just proves he wanted to push a narrative rather than look at facts.  

[Atticus]

you realize that claiming you've proven someone's motive in making a post by posting links to, well, really pretty much anything is a logical fallacy, right?