good points.
US Presidential Election: Tuesday November 6th, 2012
- Thread starter Team Brian GB
- Start date
- Status
"basically Governor Romney gives flip floppers a bad rap. I don’t think we really know what his position may or not be. I certainly have doubts about what he really stands for."
I think that's a very important point. Some flip-floppers are very transparent -- you know that the candidate personally holds one position, but it's clear that for political reasons he or she may not be able to state that position clearly, or even must appear to take a contrary position. President Obama's stance on gay marriage is a case in point -- he seems to be personally open to it (and that would be consistent with his other positions) but faces political difficulties in saying so openly. We can understand this predicament even if we don't approve of the response -- it's a problem all politicians face.
But with Romney we really have no idea who the real candidate is. We know that he ran, and governed, as a much more moderate candidate in Massachusetts. But that was a departure from his earlier conservatism. Now he's gone to the far right again. Who's the real Mitt Romney? Was moderate Governor Romney a fiction, pandering to the liberal Massachusetts electorate? Or is conservative Presidential candidate Romney the fiction? Or are all the Romneys equally fictional, and the candidate lacks any principles whatsoever?
But regardless of how you interpret Romney's history, one unanswerable question seems to take precedence over all others regarding him: Can anybody truthfully say that he or she knows what the politics of a Romney administration would be? I admit I have no idea. But it seems like a really bad idea for any of us -- liberal, moderate, or conservative -- to just cross our fingers and hope for the best.
a good post about Romney from TPM
I think that's a very important point. Some flip-floppers are very transparent -- you know that the candidate personally holds one position, but it's clear that for political reasons he or she may not be able to state that position clearly, or even must appear to take a contrary position. President Obama's stance on gay marriage is a case in point -- he seems to be personally open to it (and that would be consistent with his other positions) but faces political difficulties in saying so openly. We can understand this predicament even if we don't approve of the response -- it's a problem all politicians face.
But with Romney we really have no idea who the real candidate is. We know that he ran, and governed, as a much more moderate candidate in Massachusetts. But that was a departure from his earlier conservatism. Now he's gone to the far right again. Who's the real Mitt Romney? Was moderate Governor Romney a fiction, pandering to the liberal Massachusetts electorate? Or is conservative Presidential candidate Romney the fiction? Or are all the Romneys equally fictional, and the candidate lacks any principles whatsoever?
But regardless of how you interpret Romney's history, one unanswerable question seems to take precedence over all others regarding him: Can anybody truthfully say that he or she knows what the politics of a Romney administration would be? I admit I have no idea. But it seems like a really bad idea for any of us -- liberal, moderate, or conservative -- to just cross our fingers and hope for the best.
a good post about Romney from TPM
Obama is a hell of a flip-flopper too though, he's become more vigorous at it closer to the election.
Certainly:
1) He promised to make government more transparent by giving the public 5 days to examine any executive orders or pieces of legislation that were proposed - he broke that promise within the first month of being in office.
2) He promised to shut down Guantanamo Bay - Gitmo is still open for business today.
3) He had promised to reach out to the Arab world and to mediate a fair peace arrangement between Israel and Palestine - he's only acted as a shameless mouthpiece for the Israelis vetoing any of their warcrime condemnations from the UN and blocking any legitimate Palestinian statehood aspirations.
4) Was looking to renegotiate NAFTA after describing it as a 'mistake', changed his mind a year into office instead denying any concerns for it.
Those are the ones I could think of at the top of my head.
Now you might say "give him more time", but I've specifically picked issues he could have easily addressed within his first term.
I agree that Romney turns flip-flopping into an art, add to that his constant whoring himself to different corporations, lobbies and think-tanks left, right and center, but to exclude Obama of the same indecency would be naive.
The term Flip flopping is basically just a political pejorative. Politicians change their minds all the time based on ever changing political realities, as well they should. Its the ones who aren't willing to consider other options out of "principle" that are ones who are more dangerous.
Don't you think that constant lying and changing initial promises sticks two fingers up at the electorate who have voted for the candidate on the back of these pledges? If I voted for Obama I would have liked to him to honor his personal manifesto, not tell me to get stuffed once in office.
Firstly, its not lying. Politicians do lie on occasion, but changing a position isn't tantamount to lying because running on a platform to implement a particular policy can be usurped by domestic or international conditions at a later date, that make it appropriate to change the original position. Secondly, voting for politicians and expecting them to implement every policy that was campaigned for is naive, and reflects a rather shallow lack of insight as to how political decisions are made.
Most of the things you mention would have needed Congressional approval, which Obama is not going to get.
He spent his political capital on healthcare, which is now being dismantled in the courts. You can only spend that capital once, especially with the Tea Party dominating the GOP.
While you're correct that it's not an itself meaningful term, when used on someone like Romney it certainly tells a story. Though I suppose that might have been the point you were making. I wouldn't call Obama a flip-flopper. I certainly wouldn't compare him to Romney.
flip-flopping means to hold the opposite position to one you were holding before.
None of these fall under flip-flopping.
the 1st 2 he needed congressional approval which he did not have.
he did reach out to the Arab world..to the point he was accused of apologizing at home.
He can only recommend...he cannot force the two parties to agree to a settlement. He has supported the two state settlement...but cannot force this. If anybody has scuttle the process is the PLO who went to the UN to get recognition while not recognizing Israel.
Please get real about the relation of the US to Israel. Are you condemning Hamas for their atrocities?
He has put a hold on NAFTA renegotiation and resist protectionism accusations at a time of global recession.
Obama is not a political opportunist like Romney is. to accuse both of flip-flopping is ridiculous.
Romney does not believe in anything...except that he wants to be President. He will say anything that he thinks will help him to that end.
I'm not as naive as to expect that a politician would honour every manifesto pledge upon being elected into office, however when you chose not to honour a considerable number of pledges immediately upon entry into office, then naturally people are going to call you out for it. There's a reason why the Obama election campaign is heaps less enthuisiastic then it was 3 years ago - heck, he's lucky that his opponents have the intellectual prowess of a tomato (minus Dr. Paul of course
), otherwise those who ruthlessly campaigned for him in 2008 might not return to bail his ass out vs a credible opponent.I'm not as naive as to expect that a politician would honour every manifesto pledge upon being elected into office, however when you chose not to honour a considerable number of pledges immediately upon entry into office, then naturally people are going to call you out for it. There's a reason why the Obama election campaign is heaps less enthuisiastic then it was 3 years ago - heck, he's lucky that his opponents have the intellectual prowess of a tomato (minus Dr. Paul of course
You're missing the broader point. He didn't arbitrarily chose not to implement certain policies that he ran on just because he felt like not doing it. The domestic conditions inside the US prevented him from following through because he would have had to blow a lot of political capital on one or two issues, when he needed as much of it to apply to his broader agenda. All in all, he's been quite successful on foreign policy in contrast to some of his predecessors. The three big issues of his time (Iraq, Afghanistan, and Al-Qaeda) are all ramping down.
Those domestic barriers I assume you're referring to are GOP objections in congress Frosty and Red Dreams have touched on. What about in the first two years of his term where the Dems had both the House and Senate? Surely he would have at least tried to push the agenda through instead of sticking to just giving it lip service.
It had nothing to do with having both houses in his first two years. Nearly all of his political capital was spent on pushing health care through and trying to revive the economy at a time when the tea party were surging towards tipping Congress back towards the Republicans. He didn't have any more room to push any controversial issues like Israel/Palestine or Gitmo. Had he attempted, it would have undermined the more important domestic issues that Americans care about.
I'm not so clued up on the mechanics of congress and the US presidency in general so help me out here - I'm still having a hard time buying this idea that he's 'used up' or exceeded this so called 'political capital' on healthcare reform/Economy revitalisation to the point where all other issues take a back seat. I was always under the assumption that a President would and should be able to tackle the whole multitude of different problems simultaneously and not just stick to the big one or two for the first term.
Taking Gitmo for example I fail to see why it would be so troubling to close down a torture camp which he himself described as being a 'sad chapter of US history'. I remember you mentioning how it would be illogical for him to risk incensing certain aspects of the public with the decision so close to an election but surely its something he could have wrapped up in his first two years. And on the issue of the Palestinian/Israeli question it wasn't so much the lack of effort he put into, but the fact that he actually continued his predecessor's policy of blatantly favouring one side over the other (using the veto to condemn legitimate condemnations of Israeli settlement programs and vetoing legitimate Palestinian statehood aspirations in the UN) which has irked me. Its not like I would have expected him to finalise the peace process but It would have been OK had he simply chosen not to use the veto or threaten to do so...for example.
That's true, only when the smaller issues don't undermine the bigger ones. He could have easily implemented smaller, less sensational policies that had bipartisan support, but not ones that would have created a climate that made pushing healthcare through the Congress less likely. Had he tried to close Gitmo at such a sensitive time, he would have lost the support of others whose support he needed on other policies, as well as brought his poll numbers down to where public confidence of his domestic policies would have diminished. At the end of the day, he realized there was no positive cost benefit to closing GITMO, so he did what most other politicians would have done - he changed his mind. Policies that seem unrelated are always related because they affect the way Congressional members vote on other policies. Example - Obama closing Gitmo could have turned off blue dog Democratic members of congress whose conservative districts blamed them for closing Gitmo. In response, those blue dogs would have felt constraints from within their districts to push back on other Obama policies (health care etc).
He is President of the United States, so why should issues that are low priority to Americans be top of his list. The logistics of closing Gitmo pretty much prohibit it closure. Same goes for the Israeli/Palestine issue, most Americans are 100% on the side of the Israelis. There is no way one President no matter what their will could push any real change through.
One thing is for sure Gitmo and Israel will be absolute non-issues for 99% of Americans on voting day.
Romney's Extended Family Could be a Problem
While everyone thinks Mitt Romney's family to be picture perfect, it is not quite what it appears, as discussed by a story in Politico. To start with, Romney's sister, Jane Romney, is an outspoken Democrat who would like a role in Romney's campaign, something he is not keen on. She also had a bitter divorce from the nephew of the President of the Mormon Church. One of Romney's brothers, George Romney, has been divorced twice and the timing of his second marriage relative to the birth of the first child in that marriage has upset people. Finally, three of Romney's sons have used in vitro fertilization (which pro-life activists strongly oppose) and one used a surrogate mother. While Gingrich's baggage is well known, these new relevations could put Romney in the awkward position of having to either defend or reject the behavior of his close relatives.
hmmm. interesting.
While everyone thinks Mitt Romney's family to be picture perfect, it is not quite what it appears, as discussed by a story in Politico. To start with, Romney's sister, Jane Romney, is an outspoken Democrat who would like a role in Romney's campaign, something he is not keen on. She also had a bitter divorce from the nephew of the President of the Mormon Church. One of Romney's brothers, George Romney, has been divorced twice and the timing of his second marriage relative to the birth of the first child in that marriage has upset people. Finally, three of Romney's sons have used in vitro fertilization (which pro-life activists strongly oppose) and one used a surrogate mother. While Gingrich's baggage is well known, these new relevations could put Romney in the awkward position of having to either defend or reject the behavior of his close relatives.
hmmm. interesting.
Israel will always be an issue so long as there are Evangelical Christian voters. Considering Obama got a good proportion of them in 2008, such foreign policy decisions regarding Israel does protect him from being attacked on his stand.
Guantanamo will remain open as it is a naval base. Strangely holding 500 odd prisoners there are 2001 did not get the same press as holding 40,000 refugees there in the 90's, including separating HIV positive refugees and holding them in a Camp Delta like scenario. It was set up by Reagan, then Bush, then Clinton in turn.
Besides, after Boumediene, the inmates can bring habeus proceedings, so it is politically safer to turn this matter over to the courts
Really? Does it even matter, in the way that no-one cares about Obama's half-brother and half-uncle being arrested? This stuff is not important.
Sons are different from half-uncles and half-brothers.
We are talking about a Republican base. Obama's base would not care about such things.
We are talking about a Republican base. Obama's base would not care about such things.
I have been looking at the statewide polling for the republican primaries, the one thing that is clear is that the polling is still very erratic and is bouncing around all over the place and will continue to do so.
Saying that, the numbers in Iowa and New Hampshire have been fairly steady in recent weeks - Gingrich has been polling in the high twenties/low thirties ahead of Romney who has been at 20 percent or there about for months now, Ron Paul is consistently around third/fourth in the low teens ahead of the likes of Perry and Bachmann in the mid single digits.
New Hampshire is where the numbers are interesting. It is the one state of importance where Romney is consistently cruising, no doubt he is basing his strategy around winning New Hampshire and taking it from there and in doing so avoiding Iowa which is what Giuliani tried to do last time round and ended up failing miserably. In the last six weeks second and third in polling a long way behind has been Paul and Gingrich and directly behind them is Huntsman though they are all at the 10-15% threshold with Romney at 40%, everybody else is polling around 5% or less.
Rick Perry is faltering across the country, when the sitting governor of Texas isn't clearly leading the polling in the Texas primary that isn't saying much, this combined with single digit polling in the early states rules him out unless he does something dramatic very quickly. Bachmann is in a similar position, and is a long way behind in polling in Minnesota and in Iowa.
Hermain Cain's support is regional, he is leading in parts of the south and is going toe to toe with Perry in Texas though everywhere else he is largely struggling, the one part of the south he is notably not winning in is South Carolina which is the most important state in the south to lead in.
Gingrich's support is interesting also, in that he leads nationally on aggregate though again his support is regional - he has strong leads in Iowa and South Carolina, and commanding leads in Pennsylvania and California - the sort of states you'd imagine Romney would be scrambling for with an eye on the race for the presidency itself.
Saying that, the numbers in Iowa and New Hampshire have been fairly steady in recent weeks - Gingrich has been polling in the high twenties/low thirties ahead of Romney who has been at 20 percent or there about for months now, Ron Paul is consistently around third/fourth in the low teens ahead of the likes of Perry and Bachmann in the mid single digits.
New Hampshire is where the numbers are interesting. It is the one state of importance where Romney is consistently cruising, no doubt he is basing his strategy around winning New Hampshire and taking it from there and in doing so avoiding Iowa which is what Giuliani tried to do last time round and ended up failing miserably. In the last six weeks second and third in polling a long way behind has been Paul and Gingrich and directly behind them is Huntsman though they are all at the 10-15% threshold with Romney at 40%, everybody else is polling around 5% or less.
Rick Perry is faltering across the country, when the sitting governor of Texas isn't clearly leading the polling in the Texas primary that isn't saying much, this combined with single digit polling in the early states rules him out unless he does something dramatic very quickly. Bachmann is in a similar position, and is a long way behind in polling in Minnesota and in Iowa.
Hermain Cain's support is regional, he is leading in parts of the south and is going toe to toe with Perry in Texas though everywhere else he is largely struggling, the one part of the south he is notably not winning in is South Carolina which is the most important state in the south to lead in.
Gingrich's support is interesting also, in that he leads nationally on aggregate though again his support is regional - he has strong leads in Iowa and South Carolina, and commanding leads in Pennsylvania and California - the sort of states you'd imagine Romney would be scrambling for with an eye on the race for the presidency itself.
The question ultimately is where the support will flow to when the lesser polling candidates bow out. If Romney is not in a commanding position when the likes of Bachmann and Perry do so then their support will largely go to Gingrich and send his numbers skyward, the only way he would be able to counter that is if he is performing so well it would appear futile to support anybody else when such candidates leave the race.
Gingrich as a Presidential candidate would be much, much better than Romney. Or rather, much more entertaining. If Romney has some baggage that would be exploited, he's nothing compared to Gingrich. Romney is the only one who has even the slightest chance of actually beating Obama, Gingrich isn't anywhere close.
Apparently Cain is going to drop out in the next couple of days due to the latest woman to come forward about a 13 year affair.
bye bye Romney...
I don't follow.
It's coming down to two it seems right now for the repubs. Romney and Gingrich.
I think that's why it might be bad for Romney. Only about a quarter of the GOP electorate actually likes Romney, (or at least considers him the best candidate,) with Perry's and Cain's flameouts, if the anti-Romney forces all coalesce around one person, (and Newt's not going to get any more unlikable than he already is), it's no longer Romney and the seven dwarves, but a two-horse race.
I don't know. Gingrich has a lot of baggage. I mean a lot. The only thing he offers is tangible DC experience over Romney. And people don't care enough about that (see the Obama election). In fact it might hurt him. He could be pointed to as one of the insiders, one of the problems.
Excal got it right.
Nwet is a 'hater'. The conservative base wants someone like that. Will it help in the general? Newt is a better debater.
Also with what is happenening in Europe, Obama may find it a lot harder than it seems now with that mess coming our way.
Honestly whoever wins the general may regret it
Nwet is a 'hater'. The conservative base wants someone like that. Will it help in the general? Newt is a better debater.
Also with what is happenening in Europe, Obama may find it a lot harder than it seems now with that mess coming our way.
Honestly whoever wins the general may regret it
Cain was never really going to win anyway, so its just the system self-regulating. Romney will come out of this with more energy because the establishment will slowly come to grips with the fact that he has a reasonable chance of winning it all, whereas Gingrich, who seems popular during the raucous GOP primaries, won't have a snowballs chance against Obama.
Yep. In addition to being unphotogenic, he's got a rather crude past marriage life, which in addition to his reflexive positions, will chase any independents away.
I so hope Gingrich wins. I was resigned to Romney winning, and providing an uneventful and obviously doomed campaign. Gingrich getting the nomination will mean an entertaining and even more obviously doomed campaign.
It's going to be great.
It's going to be great.
That's also what I was refrencing. He'll excite the base more and would probably prove a better challenge debate wise but moderates will have a hard time embracing him. I think no chance really.
Obama is teflon in debates. Some people seem to think he'll give Obama a run for his money when they square off, but it will more likely be similar to what happened with McCain when he attacked and Obama responded with some smooth quips leaving McCain looking like an angry old man and Obama as the reasonable alternative.
Too bad RufRT isn't around for this.
Too bad RufRT isn't around for this.
I wouldn't be so sure, be careful what you wish for when an incumbent president has an approval rating of 40% in a country with 9% unemployed.
Agreed. I wasn't saying he's an equal as a debater but he'd be better than the bunch out there. Obama is an incredible speaker without a doubt. But it's easier to be the challenger than the incumbent. Especially in the economic climate we're in.
Obama is a great speaker when giving a speech in front of a supportive crowd, but in debating, answering questions or in a press conference he is nothing special.
He was pedestrian in the debates with McCain in 2008.
Obama is smarter than any of these guys.
That should be enough.
That should be enough.
- Status