Printable View
A bit of study into contemporary US political history will show that this not unusual the first election or two after losing power. I had much the same impression of the Dems in 2002 and even 2004. Is Gingrich really that different in campaign behavior *leaving aside his penchant for tantrums* from Dean?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
They both have a tendency of saying stupid things, but Dean had more of a track record as an executive and had no record of trying to run the country into the ground. Even if we treat the two as the same, what about the rest? The two crazies in the Democratic primary in 2004 were Kucinich and Sharpton, who polled at 5% combined. If you add Dean, that goes up to about 30%. Meanwhile, the crazies in the GOP (Trump, Bachmann, Cain, Paul, Gingrich, and to a lesser extent Santorum) have consistently polled at over 50%. While Democratic field in 2004 was fairly left wing, most of the candidates were actually capable of running a country without running it into the ground. I don't think I could say that about anyone other than Romney, Huntsman, and perhaps Perry from the current GOP field.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Did Gingrich not have a track record (with Clinton) of balancing the US budget? Just the sort of track record you'd think the US needs right now - shame he's batshit insane crazy.
The UK Tory party elected Hague and then IDS. When a party loses power, it can also lose touch with reality thinking the problem was they weren't authentic enough and one more push more extreme will win back power.
Rather than saying that their base is 'insane' it's probably more helpful to say that they subscribe to narratives which are... somewhat divorced from reality ("insane"). The source of these narratives has pretty much been the GOP itself. For example, they used the "elitist" stick on Gore, Kerry and Obama. They pushed hard the idea that anyone who is too smart, to educated, who knows too much is somehow "not one of us" and should therefore be instinctively distrusted by Proper Americans... because it was useful to them. Well, their base has brought the idea and now won't let them put anyone forward as a candidate who can tie their own shoelaces. Likewise with the culture wars crowd. So, really, they've no one but themselves to blame.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Hilariously, Hague and IDS seem to be two of the Tory ministers that people have the most time for at the moment, a far cry for the joke the were when party leader. Either they've grown since they were party leader or they're just much better their current roles than in the spotlight. Though I guess foreign sectary is an easy job in that respect since you don't need to take decisions that will directly affect people's lives.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
IDS should never have been leader but I do think he's grown dramatically. He was famous for being a reactionary anti-European, then after being leader founded a charity and did a lot of charity work which has since fed into being a minister. I think he opened his eyes as leader but it was too late.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Hague was quite young when leader and wasn't actually so bad. He led an appalling election campaign was against an incredibly popular PM and couldn't out-moderate Blair so I think he got desperate. Hague could have made a good PM in other circumstances.
Of course one big difference between the US and UK is that the US doesn't have opposition Presidents like we have our opposition leaders between elections.
A rapidly growing economy was mostly responsible for balancing the budget. I won't deny that Gingrich had a major role, but he also went about getting results in an overly confrontational manner that ended up in a government shutdown. Gingrich is the guy your team puts out to convince the other team that you're insane and therefore to give in. He's not the guy you'd want running things.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/15/us...lp-him.html?hp
Predictably, these attacks are backfiring on Gingrich and Perry. Hint: when you're running a campaign as a pure conservative, don't attack people for running a business.
Honestly, I came to these views on my own. It wasn't taught to me this way, I've never had a passion for republicans or democrats growing up. Currently, I'm favoring the Democratic party, and Obama. My second choice at the moment would be Ron Paul, because while i disagree with some of his goals. You have to understand he WON'T accomplish any of his extreme goals, all he can do is push the country toward those goals, and I think that's the right direction. Reduce spending, reduce wasteful agencies, reduce military spending. I agree with all of these things.Quote:
Can you stop it with your hyper-partisanship just for a day? Are you really going to claim the Democratic Party isn't a conglomeration of special interest groups?
The results worked so I'm not going to complain about the method. So what if there was a government shutdown, better than the alternative and it didn't stay shut down for long.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Far better than the facade of the last year.
From your articleQuote:
Originally Posted by Loki
That shows what Steely, Fuzzy and I have said as the answer to your earlier question. The Tory phrasing of this under IDS etc was "Clear blue water" [double meaning with blue being the colour of the Conservative party conservativism].Quote:
Originally Posted by Santorum
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/15/us...l?ref=politics
This is more worrying. I just hope that Gingrich is stubborn enough to stay in the race and continue splitting the loony right vote. I'd say the same about Paul, but I get the feeling that most of his supporters wouldn't vote for any of the other candidates were he to drop out.
The gold bugs/libertarians could try running a 3rd party alternative, which'd really throw a spanner in everyone's gears. They'd probably be more effective than Nader, anyhows.
I'm not sure it would make much of a difference. The kind of people who'd vote for them are the kind of people that usually wouldn't vote at all, and they're centered in states (particularly Texas) where the GOP is likely to trounce Obama anyway.
Shame, really. I like the gold bugs, they're so...Whimsical.
Casting about for a new candidate now that Bachmann's out, Nessie?Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
Oh, I don't like the gold bugs that way. Bachmann was a fascist, so I liked her. There's no real ur-fascists left in the field at the moment. I guess Santorum kind of, but well you google his name and tell me he's a serious candidate. No, the reason I like the gold bugs is their particular anachronisms and the damage they could do to US society if only someone let them.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Rumor is, Huntsman is dropping out tomorrow :(
I don't believe it matters much who the final GOP candidate is since they will be overshadowed by the nonpartisan candidate (which could turn out to be one and the same).
Will be interesting to see how this changes politics...I'm hopeful. The two parties have too much control and need to be judged by the circumstance rather than creating it.Quote:
American voters are tired of politics as usual. They want leaders that will put their country before their party, and American interests before special interests. Leaders who will work together to develop fresh solutions to the serious challenges facing our country. We believe a secure, online nominating process will prove that America is ready for a competitive, nonpartisan ticket.
http://www.americanselect.org/about
Can you tell me which of Huntsman's policies you support? Because as far as I can tell, he doesn't depart from any significant Republican policy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Loki's right, Huntsman seems to favour most of the awful grind-poor-people-into-fuel policies of the GOP, he just looks almost like a human being contrasted with the rest of the clown car crew. Don't be fooled! He's no Nixon.
I can't wait for Lewk to bash Romney for being so elitist.
Publicly believing evolution and climate change.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
To put it more plainly, as Ness said, he almosted seemed like a rational human being.
He back-pedalled on the climate change thing pretty early in his campaign. Dunno about evolution. He's still def. eat-the-poor.
I remember this tweet. Did the base get to him too? :(
What do beliefs have to do with policy? The same reason I'm not particularly afraid of a Gingrich or Perry presidency *not that I'd likely vote for either in a general election* is the same one you shouldn't be in the least favorable about Huntsman. They're all experience Republican politicians which means there really aren't going to be too many deviations from the status quo. It's the other side of what Being is griping about, of what most of us have griped about every now and then, about there being no real difference between the parties. There actually are some pretty major differences between them and within them but when it comes time for actual policy-making they don't have much more than wiggle room and most of that wiggling isn't done by the President but by the appointees under them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
policy was Loki's attempt to pigeon hole. sorry if I ignored the dishonesty of it immediately without going into that.
I'm under no assumption that the parties are vastly different, which is why I like it when politicians at least base some of their beliefs in reality, sooner or later that may influence policy.
Policies are a bit more than just pigeon-holing in politics.
Well, from your self-described affiliations....the bolded part would mean the importance of SCOTUS appointees.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
As for Being's "griping", I agree with his condemnation of our two-party political system that has such a stranglehold on candidates and elections. Their one common goal is continuing their own power, instead of representing The People or our Nation as United States. In that sense, there's no difference between the parties. Hooray? :(
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...-on-evolution/Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Regardless, you're seriously telling me that you base your support of a candidate mainly on his views about evolution?
Define rational. Surely Romney, the guy who changes his political positions whenever it's politically expedient, is the more rational of the two...
You're going to have to be more clear in explaining why Romney's shifting stance on evolution has anything to do with Huntsman's stance on climate change, or evolution for that matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
You yourself claimed we shouldn't take certain policy statements made during primaries at face value. Can't argue much against that, as I also like to look a little deeper. Huntsman is a member of a party that is half jokingly known as the anti-science party. For someone to strongly come out and claim that stance is backwards and harmful, someone who shows an understanding of science...I can't help but feel that he may be the better choice for using said scientific means when deciding official policy while in office.
I can't argue with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
His stance on evolution hasn't really shifted. And actions (as governor) speak louder than words.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Do you have any evidence at all that Romney was anti-science when in office?
Bite me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
It doesn't, not at the level of the Presidency. At lower levels, in shifts in public opinion *including party rank-and-file* you can see beliefs entering into it. Expecting the President's beliefs to enter into it is an expression of that ridiculous thesis about "Great Leaders Making History," which is such simplified abstraction even in those rare cases where it has elements of truth. There's certainly nothing to indicate Huntsman, or anyone on the field, might be one of those rare individuals.Quote:
I'm under no assumption that the parties are vastly different, which is why I like it when politicians at least base some of their beliefs in reality, sooner or later that may influence policy.
I have to totally agree for once with OG here.
Yes overall there may not be total freedom to manoeuvre. But the decisions made on a regular basis are so important that a nudge here, a slight push there can add up tremendously.
I liked Rumsfeld's description of Known Knowns, Known Unknowns and Unknown Unknowns. To some extent stated policies deal with primarily the Known Knowns, while beliefs and ways of thinking/acting go primarily towards the Unknown Unknowns. Both influence the Known Unknowns.
If you truly think there's no difference, the whole primary process is redundant. I do not.
A) Some GOP candidates prioritize key GOP constituencies differently. Someone who's relying on the business community is likely to be more responsive to that community than to the Christian evangelicals once elected.
B) The primaries show which of the candidates are capable of beating the other party's candidate, as evidenced by their debate skills, ability to respond to criticism, fund-raising, endorsements, etc.
C) You get a good glimpse at the candidates' personalities and determine whether those personalities are well-suited for an executive role (this is less important if the candidate already has executive experience).
The general point about evolution is a dumb one, however. Bush was pandering to the evangelicals and even he didn't do anything about how evolution was taught (something over which the federal government has limited leverage anyway).
A and perhaps C show that some bodies beliefs matter.
If I was a yank from what I've heard I'd support Huntsman, but he has no hope so I'd vote Romney.
It's not redundant because the GOP still needs to find which candidate is the most electable even if underneath it all, effectually, they're all Identical. I will say that I do beleive that there is small differences between them, but as I said earlier the majority of the policies they will push for are pre-set and most of what each candidates does will be the same. Candidates who I would say would be really different would be Ron Paul. If he wins it'll be different than any of the other GOP candidates winning (granted only so much he can do, just because of the structure of government), but it'd be the most different. that's why when looking at the GOP candidates, aside from Paul, it's probably best to look at their social skills, critical thinking ability, ability to give spontaneous responses, body language. This will determine how they will come off abroad, how they'll charter any unscripted territory. Be the signs of the much better president when it comes to those nudges and pushes.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
There's more than just policy-making. I just don't see how anyone could think belief enters into those areas. Experience matters. That's where you can potentially see the sort of problems which I think OG sees arising from beliefs. Someone who doesn't understand how the system works in the top position can do a fair bit of damage trying to make it work how s/he thinks it ought to rather than how it does. Personality can matter. I'd totally understand someone being vehemently opposed to someone like Gingrich because they think he will take partisanship and polarization to new heights as President. And related, there's viewing the potential nominee as the head of the Party and being concerned with what s/he can do for the benefit of the party. But what they publicly profess to believe about various matters? No.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Considering that Huntsman dropped out of the race, supporting him wouldn't be particularly smart.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade