Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[pmcd9]

The Monica Lewinsky scandal is when I realized that the republicans were out of their minds. The election of George Bush only confirmed that fact.

Romney was the best choice the Republicans could make. It's the same strategy they used in 2004 with McCain. Nominate the moderate and choose someone from the far right as a running mate. It didn't work with McCain because he was a senile cranky old man and Palin was laughably stupid. Romney killed his chances because he had to repudiate everything he accomplished as governor in order to get the nomination.

[jay-ell]

Have we decided that healthcare is a basic human right and that it should be provided to all, not necessarily earned via purchase?

'Cause I'm cool with that concept and all, especially if it means I can ditch that coupla hundo a month I'm pitching at that right now.

I'm actually a little surprised to see you say this, Ash. I'd have figured you for the "get the guv'mint's hands off my prostate" kind of guy.

[wombat]

Romney was the best choice the Republicans could make.

Romney killed his chances because he had to repudiate everything he accomplished as governor in order to get the nomination.

Those seem to me like contradictory statements. To me the amazing thing about Romney is - in a country of millions of people, the party couldn't find a single candidate with a record that was just a teensy bit more consistent with what they were going to say in the campaign? He was really the best choice they could make, someone who had done the opposite of what they wanted him to do as President?

[Doc]

The thing I don't get, as an outsider again, is that when you look at McCain and Romney the party obviously didn't want to elect fringe candidates, they wanted moderates (as close to as they've got anyway) but then as soon as they've got the nom they hitch their wagon to a star full of crazy like Palin and Ryan. I would have thought republicans are nominating moderates because they don't want those kinds of nutbars?

[Choop]

Those seem to me like contradictory statements. To me the amazing thing about Romney is - in a country of millions of people, the party couldn't find a single candidate with a record that was just a teensy bit more consistent with what they were going to say in the campaign? He was really the best choice they could make, someone who had done the opposite of what they wanted him to do as President?

do you remember the rest of the candidates? the only one romney didn't outclass and outqualify was just like him on paper but without the funding; was actually quite different from romney on policy and experience; and was probably the only good contender in the republican field this year: John Huntsman. also mormon, also utah, also governor, also businessman. however, he's also a chinese-fluent former ambassador with more public service experience than i think every other candidate in those giant "debate" sideshows. unfortunately he couldn't get any money behind him because he's fairly moderate and seemed so romney-like. maybe in 2016 he'll make the field again and we'll actually see a republican party candidate who's not just a malleable creeper without convictions or recall or forethought.

what i'm saying is, if he runs as a republican, i might consider voting repubican. depends on the rest of the parties' nominees.

The thing I don't get, as an outsider again, is that when you look at McCain and Romney the party obviously didn't want to elect fringe candidates, they wanted moderates (as close to as they've got anyway) but then as soon as they've got the nom they hitch their wagon to a star full of crazy like Palin and Ryan. I would have thought republicans are nominating moderates because they don't want those kinds of nutbars?

play to the center of the party for the primaries, bring in the fringe of the party for the general. standard strategy. the tea party has taken such a hold over the GOP that the nominee is beholden to their INSANE wishes and demands, and can't afford not to appear far-right so as to keep those votes.



to be honest, i'm kind of hoping for a GOP/Tea party split in the republican party, which might be what the left needs to break into smaller parties (green, etc). we might be able to find ourselves evolving into a more parliamentarian representation in the house and senate, which would really alleviate a lot of the gridlock that d.c. is so full of (and introduce innovative new forms of gridlock to replace that)

[pmcd9]

Those seem to me like contradictory statements. To me the amazing thing about Romney is - in a country of millions of people, the party couldn't find a single candidate with a record that was just a teensy bit more consistent with what they were going to say in the campaign? He was really the best choice they could make, someone who had done the opposite of what they wanted him to do as President?

What I meant is that his positions had the most appeal the electorate at large, but he had to swing hard to the right to get the nomination. This is a major problem for the Republican party.

[pmcd9]

do you remember the rest of the candidates? the only one romney didn't outclass and outqualify was just like him on paper but without the funding; was actually quite different from romney on policy and experience; and was probably the only good contender in the republican field this year: John Huntsman. also mormon, also utah, also governor, also businessman. however, he's also a chinese-fluent former ambassador with more public service experience than i think every other candidate in those giant "debate" sideshows. unfortunately he couldn't get any money behind him because he's fairly moderate and seemed so romney-like. maybe in 2016 he'll make the field again and we'll actually see a republican party candidate who's not just a malleable creeper without convictions or recall or forethought.

I predict that 2016 will be Chris Christie's year. He's got that down to earth everyman quality about him that George Bush had. He's a guy you would want to go have a beer with is what they used to say about Bush and you could say the same about Christie. Plus he doesn't seem to be nearly as dumb as Bush (not that it matters much to the republicans).

[jaydub]

The essential formula in American politics is complicated by the fact that we can stay home and not vote if we're not feelin' it.  The Republicans are hooked on the cheap votes the Religious Right guarantees if you spout the nonsense they want to hear.  Mandatory voting for every citizen would reveal what a minority the nutjobs actually are; its also un-American.  Bleah.

[pmcd9]

Mandatory voting for every citizen would reveal what a minority the nutjobs actually are.

If the non voters were forced to the polls it would be the mightiest force in American politics.

[miles]

Mandatory voting for every citizen would reveal what a minority the nutjobs actually are; its also un-American.  Bleah.

That's a thought. Would it be compelled speech? It may also violate the free exercise clause. I suppose that one could argue that allowing all voters to cast blank or written-in ballots would solve the first problem. And I guess there could be allowance for a kind of conscientious objection.

[wombat]

My gut reaction is that there is nothing more un-American than requiring people to vote.

I'm also not sure it's a good idea. You can force people to vote but you can't force them to do it thoughtfully. I think it's OK with me if people who are ignorant of the issues stay home. Speaking from personal experience, my mother has never voted, and from what little she says about what little she knows about politics, it's probably just as well.

[CortJstr]

The essential formula in American politics is complicated by the fact that we can stay home and not vote if we're not feelin' it.  The Republicans are hooked on the cheap votes the Religious Right guarantees if you spout the nonsense they want to hear.  Mandatory voting for every citizen would reveal what a minority the nutjobs actually are; its also un-American.  Bleah.

I read an article earlier this year with some people win SW Virginia that normally vote a strict religious right ticket but were learning towards Obama because of something to the effect of "they say he might be a Muslim and might be Christian but Romney is definitely Mormon and that's like a cult."

[pmcd9]

Cort, did you mean to post this in the Shit my ___ says thread? It could go either way. Ha ha...

[Doc]

Just caught this off Fark, particularly struck by this passage:

I think, this is an unusual election because Romney was a transitional figure. I think he ran as honorable a campaign as he could. He did moderately well. He came pretty close, but he was a northeastern liberal and that’s not where we’re going. The two northeastern liberal Senators who ran as moderates in New England lost. That’s not where the future of the party is.

So, you got hosed because you didn't run 'conservative' enough? (quotation marks because I don't think he and I agree on what that word means) After it was demonstrated that the brains trust of the party are just spectacularly out of touch with reality the plan going forward is to double down and just push it even harder next time? Really?

[Carlos del Vaca]

Sadly, yes.
http://secotm.tumblr.com/post/35530036625/following-my-post-yesterday-heres-a-summation-of