|
|
| Post Number: 1
|
geophagous 
Group: Members
Posts: 1753
Joined: Apr. 2007
|
 |
Posted on: Sep. 28 2012, 12:28 pm |
|
   |
So since this is my thread I am going to take:
"Romney was not a conservative enough"
Any one else want to place a bet that if he does in fact lose this will be what EVERY SINGLE one of the "true" conservatives will be saying?
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 2
|
TehipiteTom
Group: Members
Posts: 5276
Joined: Jul. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 28 2012, 12:36 pm |
|
 |
He totally coulda won if he'd just demanded Nobama's college transcripts.
/wingnut
--------------
If tautologies are outlawed, only outlaws will use tautologies.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 3
|
cweston
Group: Members
Posts: 1408
Joined: Mar. 2009
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 28 2012, 12:40 pm |
|
|
Of course that will be the reason. Or that Romney was just a poor candidate. Not, of course, that the underlying ideas that he espoused (or, at least, pretended to: it's hard to tell with politicians these days) were unappealing to voters.
Of course, it is true that Romney has been a fairly inept candidate. Rs will come to feel about this election the way that Ds did about the 2004 election: "How could we possibly have nominated someone who couldn't beat THAT guy?"
But I think part of the issue is that Romney has simply been too honest about what the current republican mainstream thinking is. Too honest about wealth transfer to the 1%. Too honest about his disdain for the little people. Too honest (especially by way of Ryan) about wanting to finance tax cuts for the rich on the backs of debt for future middle and lower income people.
And people don't like those ideas. (Duh. They are repugnant ideas.)
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 4
|
High_Sierra_Fan
Group: Members
Posts: 39533
Joined: Aug. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 28 2012, 12:41 pm |
|
|
He totally could've won if he'd just revealed Bush's secret demolition system that brought down the World Trade Center towers.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 5
|
Marmotstew
Group: Members
Posts: 8683
Joined: May 2006
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 28 2012, 12:50 pm |
|
|
Because he's not black?
--------------
I'd rather be Facebooking watching videos of cats licking themselves
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 6
|
|
|
| Post Number: 7
|
ScotH
Group: Members
Posts: 1693
Joined: Feb. 2009
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 28 2012, 12:53 pm |
|
|
He will lose because he is so difficult to relate to and does not appeal broadly enough across the spectrum of voters.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 8
|
Hungry Jack
Group: Members
Posts: 1292
Joined: Nov. 2002
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 28 2012, 1:24 pm |
|
|
I think at heart Romney is a centrist who does not care that deeply about the social issues that dominate the Republican agenda (to a fault). He has proven he is a capable business manager and can cross the aisle to get policies enacted.
But he's a lousy campaigner and his party is a mess on issues that are critical to winning the middle third of the electorate. He's toast, IMO.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 9
|
|
|
| Post Number: 10
|
Old Frank
Group: Members
Posts: 624
Joined: Sep. 2007
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 28 2012, 1:49 pm |
|
|
Romney is a protective problem-solver to those close to him, and to those for whom he feels a sense of responsibility and kinship.
But, he never demonstrated that Sense spread very far or deep. His comments suggested the opposite.
--------------
My favorite compliment: "GrandPa, I've seen other old men, and their faces are a whole lot cruddier than yours is".
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 11
|
cweston
Group: Members
Posts: 1408
Joined: Mar. 2009
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 28 2012, 1:50 pm |
|
|
(Hungry Jack @ Sep. 28 2012, 12:24 pm)
QUOTE I think at heart Romney is a centrist who does not care that deeply about the social issues that dominate the Republican agenda (to a fault). He has proven he is a capable business manager and can cross the aisle to get policies enacted.
I agree and disagree.
I think that Romney clearly was, at one time, much more of a centrist. Who knows what he is now--was he pretending to be a centrist in order to get elected in Massachsetts, or is he pretending to be a wingnut now in order to rev up the current GOP base.
But I disagree some about your social issue comment. I think where Romney has turned off a lot of voters has been more with his economic beliefs than his social positions. The revelations about what Bain Capital actually did to make money, the fundraiser secret video, etc. I think *this* is the stuff that has really hurt him, not the social positions.
In a sense, the "occupy" movement has had more impact on this election cycle than one might have predicted. The 99%/1% framing of the American economy has become a household concept in this election, and everything Romney says and does shows his deep allegiance to the cause of the 1%.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 12
|
|
|
| Post Number: 13
|
Drift Woody
Group: Members
Posts: 5300
Joined: Feb. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 28 2012, 1:59 pm |
|
|
(cweston @ Sep. 28 2012, 11:40 am)
QUOTE Of course that will be the reason. Or that Romney was just a poor candidate. Not, of course, that the underlying ideas that he espoused (or, at least, pretended to: it's hard to tell with politicians these days) were unappealing to voters.
Of course, it is true that Romney has been a fairly inept candidate. Rs will come to feel about this election the way that Ds did about the 2004 election: "How could we possibly have nominated someone who couldn't beat THAT guy?"
But I think part of the issue is that Romney has simply been too honest about what the current republican mainstream thinking is. Too honest about wealth transfer to the 1%. Too honest about his disdain for the little people. Too honest (especially by way of Ryan) about wanting to finance tax cuts for the rich on the backs of debt for future middle and lower income people.
And people don't like those ideas. (Duh. They are repugnant ideas.)
Without a doubt the Romney/Ryan platform of redistributing wealth upwards is repugnant, but I think you give them far too much credit in the honesty department. Fact-checkers had a field day with their speeches at the RNC, and their fiscal claims fail basic math.
They can't completely hide the fact they want to cut taxes on the rich while cutting programs for the elderly & poor, but the rightwing noise machine constantly depicts tax-cutting as primarily benefitting average Americans & small business (rather than the 1% & big corporations) and they characterize people who pay no income taxes or receive unemployment, food stamps, and earned benefits as a bunch of lazy moochers unmotivated to work.
How they get so many low-information voters to be useful idiots for the elites of wealth & power and to vote against their own best interests is about as far from "honesty" as you can get.
--------------
We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children.
-- Native American proverb
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 14
|
cweston
Group: Members
Posts: 1408
Joined: Mar. 2009
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 28 2012, 2:15 pm |
|
|
Yes. To clarify, what I meant by "too honest" was "too unintentionally honest." Of course they always try to portray their economic policies as for the benefit of hard-working Americans (as opposed to those leaches like the retired, college students, teachers, pubic employees of all kinds, etc).
But I think they have let the truth slip out a little too often: people have started seeing through it and they don't like what they see.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 15
|
hbfa
Group: Members
Posts: 7073
Joined: Feb. 2002
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 28 2012, 2:33 pm |
|
|
"Romney Lost Because..."
President Obama is not as bad as the right-wing fringe would like you to believe.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 16
|
Land Rover
Group: Members
Posts: 6529
Joined: Sep. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 28 2012, 2:35 pm |
|
|
Did anyone take liberal media conspiracy yet?
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 17
|
WalksWithBlackflies
Resident Eco-Freak Bootlicker
Group: Members
Posts: 8747
Joined: Jun. 2004
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 28 2012, 2:44 pm |
|
|
All the good one's have been taken, so I'm left with... Obama's Chicago-style politics (funded by unions, of course).
--------------
When I let go of what I am, I become what I might be. - Lao Tzu
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 18
|
TehipiteTom
Group: Members
Posts: 5276
Joined: Jul. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 28 2012, 2:51 pm |
|
|
Because Zombie ACORN came back from the grave and, with the help of the New Black Panther Party, stole the election.
/wingnut
--------------
If tautologies are outlawed, only outlaws will use tautologies.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 19
|
High_Sierra_Fan
Group: Members
Posts: 39533
Joined: Aug. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 28 2012, 3:18 pm |
|
|
...The United Nations is just that powerful a force for evil.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 20
|
buddero
Group: Members
Posts: 777
Joined: Jan. 2009
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 28 2012, 5:56 pm |
|
|
Glad you asked the question. It gives me a chance to get something off my chest: When the 47% video came out there were days of the most intense media coverage. I found myself reading everything I could. It was like I was on a 2-3 day some kind of drug binge. IT WAS SO GOOD! And it's still good - for days now. Actually there's been a lot of good and mightily entertaining things happening - beginning with the Republican debates: Bachmann, Cain, the freakish Gingrinch, Santorum (now there's a scary guy).
These guys are really bad news - Romney-Ryan, Romney-Ryan, Romn ... oh never mind.
Anyway, the Republicans went to bed with the Tea Party and the Christian conservatives and they got clapped up and everyone with eyes and the ability to think can see it. That and the lies, the fakery, the Akins, the heartlessness, and, "They can't completely hide the fact they want to cut taxes on the rich while cutting programs for the elderly & poor, but the rightwing noise machine constantly depicts tax-cutting as primarily benefitting average Americans & small business (rather than the 1% & big corporations) and they characterize people who pay no income taxes or receive unemployment, food stamps, and earned benefits as a bunch of lazy moochers unmotivated to work."
--------------
Reach out your hand, if your cup be empty
If your cup is full, may it be again
Journal and links to refugees, backpacking, travel in Asia, photos, honky-tonk angels, other beautiful things...
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 21
|
geophagous
Group: Members
Posts: 1753
Joined: Apr. 2007
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 28 2012, 6:56 pm |
|
|
Some actual interesting discussion has been happening. THAT is crazy talk.
I guess part of what I feel like is that they all said McCain was not "conservative" enough, and of course the same thing will be said of Romney.
I am hoping, somewhat futilely it would appear, that maybe just maybe they might get the hint that going to the far wacko right is NOT middle of the road America.
Middle of the road America is taking care of poor and middle class, good military, strong economy, the ability to succeed for all, fair taxes, and socially letting people make decisions for themselves.
Until they can at least get closer to this I just don't see them getting to the President. They do good at the more local level because of gerrymandering and regional politics. But our nation as a whole is not that extreme.
Does anyone think they just MIGHT run someone a bit more centrist in 2016?
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 22
|
Ecocentric
Group: Members
Posts: 3823
Joined: Jun. 2009
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 29 2012, 4:53 am |
|
|
Because America is not a "right wing country" and there are a lot of issues that separate a wide range of voters and not some monolithic group of extremist droids.
--------------
"Travel suggestions from strangers are like dancing lessons from God." -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 23
|
JimInMD
Group: Members
Posts: 3112
Joined: Feb. 2011
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 29 2012, 9:23 am |
|
|
(geophagous @ Sep. 28 2012, 6:56 pm)
QUOTE Middle of the road America is taking care of poor and middle class, good military, strong economy, the ability to succeed for all, fair taxes, and socially letting people make decisions for themselves.
Geo,
I'd respectfully suggest that both parties agree with you. The "how" is where things get interesting.
Both sides want to take care of the poor and middle class. One side favors government programs, the other side favors tax cuts and private charities. NEITHER side wants old folks freezing or school kids going hungry.
Both sides want a strong military. The Republicans assume that means a large, well funded one with the best technology. I think the Democratic version is a smaller, more focused one but still mission capable. How to pay for it and the size it should be are the difference.
Both sides want a strong economy where anyone can succeed IF they work for it. Despite claims to the contrary, I don't actually know any Democratic voters that like giving government money to people that can work, but won't. I don't know any Republicans that do either. The sides differ on HOW to make the economy strong.
Fair taxes I think is a matter of degrees again. My own perspective is that we should cut waste first and only after that is done should we consider raising taxes. I do also feel that leaving people more of their own money will GENERALLY allow them to spend more, and be good for the economy. The flip side is people that think I make enough that I can afford to pay some more in taxes to pay for what they believe are public necessities. Neither side wants the system inherently tilted though as there's plenty of millionaires in both camps and plenty of poor people at the bottom of both piles.
I do accept that Republicans are as a group more comfortable going against the "socially letting people make decisions for themselves" concept than Democrats are, at least until some decision bumps up against the local Democrats values, and then they get restrictive too. Gay marriage was never brought to a vote in very blue MD 2 years ago because black voters in the most heavily democratic districts opposed it.
Your mileage may vary. That's my perspective from the center right and wishing to hell that someone thought more about the good of the country than getting themselves elected or re-elected.
--------------
Checking out for a while, find me on FB.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 24
|
Land Rover
Group: Members
Posts: 6529
Joined: Sep. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 29 2012, 10:20 am |
|
|
(JimInMD @ Sep. 29 2012, 9:23 am)
QUOTE
(geophagous @ Sep. 28 2012, 6:56 pm)
QUOTE Middle of the road America is taking care of poor and middle class, good military, strong economy, the ability to succeed for all, fair taxes, and socially letting people make decisions for themselves. Geo, I'd respectfully suggest that both parties agree with you. The "how" is where things get interesting. Both sides want to take care of the poor and middle class. One side favors government programs, the other side favors tax cuts and private charities. NEITHER side wants old folks freezing or school kids going hungry. Both sides want a strong military. The Republicans assume that means a large, well funded one with the best technology. I think the Democratic version is a smaller, more focused one but still mission capable. How to pay for it and the size it should be are the difference. Both sides want a strong economy where anyone can succeed IF they work for it. Despite claims to the contrary, I don't actually know any Democratic voters that like giving government money to people that can work, but won't. I don't know any Republicans that do either. The sides differ on HOW to make the economy strong. Fair taxes I think is a matter of degrees again. My own perspective is that we should cut waste first and only after that is done should we consider raising taxes. I do also feel that leaving people more of their own money will GENERALLY allow them to spend more, and be good for the economy. The flip side is people that think I make enough that I can afford to pay some more in taxes to pay for what they believe are public necessities. Neither side wants the system inherently tilted though as there's plenty of millionaires in both camps and plenty of poor people at the bottom of both piles. I do accept that Republicans are as a group more comfortable going against the "socially letting people make decisions for themselves" concept than Democrats are, at least until some decision bumps up against the local Democrats values, and then they get restrictive too. Gay marriage was never brought to a vote in very blue MD 2 years ago because black voters in the most heavily democratic districts opposed it. Your mileage may vary. That's my perspective from the center right and wishing to hell that someone thought more about the good of the country than getting themselves elected or re-elected.
Jim. I think you have perhaps highlighted the traditional differences between the parties, but that is not really where things are now. Much of the GOP and the conservative movement has slipped the anchor of pragmatic market-based solutions to problems to become dominated by extremist ideologists.
Gone are the Reaganists to be replaced by the rand-reading lunatics out to wage ideological warfare on the moochers. You even heard what many thought was really a moderate conservative trotting this theory out to motivate donors.
You add in the hard core social conservative Christians trying to roll back the changes, the racist birthers, Wall Street and the greediest of CEOs and there's not much room left for the moderates. In fact the moderates are being ousted from the party at an alarming rate. The moderate republicans like Olympia snowe are leaving or being kicked out, while those that are left are frightened to say boo lest they be primaried
So while I see some elements of truth in what your saying there it's not so reflective of where we stand in 2012. The GOP is run by extremists out to force their ideological vision, usually based on a the narrative the picked up in a work of fiction, on America. If they don't get their vision then they are willing to take down America on the way.
The trouble is our political system is built on compromise. There can be no compromise if you are conducting ideological warfare.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 25
|
Drift Woody
Group: Members
Posts: 5300
Joined: Feb. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 29 2012, 10:25 am |
|
|
Kudos on your thoughtful reply. I hope you don't mind if I add my $.02.
(JimInMD @ Sep. 29 2012, 8:23 am)
QUOTE Both sides want to take care of the poor and middle class. One side favors government programs, the other side favors tax cuts and private charities. NEITHER side wants old folks freezing or school kids going hungry.
Yes, but one approach is more likely to produce those unfortunate results. In a nation of 300+ million people a safety net of private charity would have a lot of gaping holes. On top of that, cutting food stamps and changing Medicare to a voucher program to finance tax cuts for the rich would increase the number of people needing charity.
(JimInMD @ Sep. 29 2012, 8:23 am)
QUOTE Both sides want a strong economy where anyone can succeed IF they work for it. Despite claims to the contrary, I don't actually know any Democratic voters that like giving government money to people that can work, but won't. I don't know any Republicans that do either. The sides differ on HOW to make the economy strong.
One side (Republican) is offering trickle-down economics. Big tax cuts for the "job creators" would ostensibly spur them to hire more workers. Given that wealth has been steadily concentrated at the top over the last couple decades, how's that working out so far?
I've been working for the same mid-size corporation for 19 years, rising from an hourly employee to a manager reporting to a senior vice president. The focus at many of our weekly staff meetings is on controlling costs -- especially labor costs. The plain fact of the matter is that new workers are not hired unless there is increased demand for our products.
We live in a consumer-based economy. Our business depends on our customers (a wide range of income levels) having disposable income to spend on non-essentials. Austerity measures that impact the middle class on down would hurt our business.
The thing is, the austerity in the Romney/Ryan plan is not enough to offest their proposed tax cuts and increased military spending. They claim their plan would reduce deficits, but that depends on unspecified tax loophole closures that, if implemented, would further reduce the disposable income of consumers.
Realistically, their plan would hurt the economy and increase budget deficts.
--------------
We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children.
-- Native American proverb
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 26
|
Land Rover
Group: Members
Posts: 6529
Joined: Sep. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 29 2012, 10:41 am |
|
|
And I think DW has illustrated perfectly where this ideology has taken the GOP in policy terms.
The tax cutting focus right now prioritizes the mythical "job creators" over all others.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 27
|
|
|
| Post Number: 28
|
boogie
Group: Members
Posts: 1509
Joined: Apr. 2007
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 29 2012, 11:17 pm |
|
|
Doesn't the answer need to be in the form of a question?
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 29
|
|
|
| Post Number: 30
|
|
|
|
|
|
Survival Skills 101 • Eat Better
