The US Presidential Election 2012, we're off ... we debated ... and it's finally over. Options

[sanitynotincluded]

He said very little about healthcare reform during the general election campaign. There was a lot of discussion of it during the primaries, when he said, and I gave him credit at the time as it was one of the few things he was right about, that Hillary's policy of an insurance mandate was a pile of shite (his phrasing was somewhat more verbose).

He talked about energy security without giving any details. We now know that it meant giving billions to unviable companies run by his campaign donors while blocking a large supply of oil and associated processing jobs from a friendly and stable neighbour. (Depending on the gulf is obviously more secure than depending on Canada.)

Oh, and he promised to cut the deficit.

Mr R is of course wrong though, he didn't just talk about change, he also talked about being the ones we'd been waiting for and other such vacuous crap that got the mainstream media's legs tingling.

This post has been edited by sanitynotincluded: Jul 31 2012, 16:12

[Mister R]

What?!?! Do you not remember him putting healthcare reform front and centre in his campaign? What about ending the war in Iraq? Or how about his positions on energy security?

He didn't put healthcare reform front and centre during the campaign. A large part of the reason the reform was such an enormous mess when he finally got around to implicating it is because he (and the entire Democratic Party) had no idea what his actual policy was. Had it been front and centre during the campaign that probably wouldn't have been the case. There's every chance he would have lost as well...

Ending the war in Iraq wasn't a policy position. It was clear before the Presidential Primaries began that US troops would be withdrawing from Iraq regardless of who replaced Bush in the White House and by August (convention time) then President Bush agreed to a time table for withdrawal of US troops. A time table that Obama has followed. So basically Obama's policy position on this was – I'm going to do what America has already announced its going to do and the whole world has known we're going to do for a while now.

Energy policy barely featured in Obama's campaign and he certainly didn't (and as far as I can tell still doesn't) have a concrete position on it. Hell this a guy who couldn't even decide what his position was on gay marriage until he'd been in the job for 3 years the idea that he hadn't real and clear policy positions before entering the White House is pretty laughable.

Actually I take that back he did have one pretty clear policy position – closing GitMo. Remind me how has that worked out...

[Parsifal]

The implication of the above post is that the Democratic Party is one of substance.

A very meager amount of substance compared with no substance could be called "one of substance".
I must concede however, that the Republican Party is indeed a party of substance. They just can't tell the voters what it is or they'll get routed in the next election which is why it appears that they are a party of no substance. Not true for the Democrats, but they're no angels either.

Lets not forget that Obama's one policy position (if you can call it that) four years ago was 'change' and I couldn't even tell you what his policy positions are this time around.

For starters, he wants to extend the unaffordable Bush tax cuts only for those "middle class" taxpayers earning less than $250,000 per year; in stark opposition to the Romney/Republican position which wants to extend all the tax cuts (mainly for the multi-millionaires - they really don't care much about everybody else).

The notion that its simply the Republican Party running on empty rhetoric is nonsense. They just happen to be better at it than the Democrats the vast majority of the time.

No disagreement there.

Equally as nonsense driven is the whole 'voting against their best interest' line.

A case in point. The Republicans took control of the House with the 2010 elections largely due to seniors swinging from traditionally Democrat to Republican. That was because the Republcan congressional candidates were campaigning with the message that Obama wants to cut Medicare. True, but what they didn't tell the voters was that it was the corporate welfare in Medicare Advantage that Obama wants to cut (subsidies strongly fought for by Republicans). Then, once they had the House majority, Paul Ryan, House budget director, submits budgets killing Medicare (as we know it) altogether and replacing it with a voucher system to buy private insurance. Why didn't they tell seniors that up front? It's a safe bet that seniors would not have voted for Republican candidates if they knew that was the plan down the road.

Another case in point, one of my nephews is acutally campaigning for a Republican congressional candidate. One of his sons requires special education in school. He wasn't aware that Paul Ryan's budget, while giving tax cuts to the wealthy, will cut the budgets for many needy programs e.g. special education.

Firstly its mightily patronising to assume that you're in the best position to decide what is in the best interest of any given voter and not the voter themselves.

See my comment above re: seniors and Medicare.
I don't think that it's a weak argument to say that most voters don't understand who or what they are voting for when they go into the voting booth (myself included). There's enough historical evidence for that.

Secondly its beyond a flawed measure to assume that everyone and anyone votes for a candidate based on the questionable criteria of what's in their best interest as far as social programs and the like go. Its entirely possible and reasonable that many vote for Republican candidates for example because they don't believe that the Government should be providing those social programs even if they benefit from them.

That's fair enough. But do they understand what the alternative is? Do they have enough historical perspective to know/remember what life (especially for seniors) was like pre-New Deal?
Many (most?) American voters base their votes on sound bites they see on television (none of which are true) or they listen to their favorite (biased) radio talk show.

I'd also point out that if you remove your partisan blinders for a moment you'd notice that there's a rather large list of people who vote for the Democratic Party despite it being against their best interest. But of course they do it for the lofty reasons of believing that the Democrats are better for society as a whole even if not better for them individually. Of course those who vote Republican could never have that belief as well... Insanity.

"Best interests" and "better for society" can become murky topics when you have only a single narrow view. For example, the Romney camp is campaigning with the message that Obama "wants to make the US more like Europe", suggesting socialism and the fear of Soviet style communism. Few Americans even have a clue what "more like Europe" means. I personally think that is a good thing. Western Europe is far more egalitarian than the US is. Europe is more of a WITT society (We're In This Together) while the US is more of a YOYO society (You're On Your Own). Each has advnatages actually, but few Amercians understand this. And so, of course, voters vote in their best interests and/or what's best for the nation without understanding the principles involved. (OK, call me patronising, but is what I say not true?)

The empty rhetoric of both parties aside the numbers and actions speak for themselves. You'd be foolish to deny that the Republican agenda mainly benefits the 0.01% (or 1% if you want to be generous) at the expense of everyone else while the party of Social Security and Medicare really is wathcing out "more so" for the other 99%. Like it or not, realize it or not, the US is in a class war and the stakes in the ucoming elections are very high. We are on the cusp of becoming a true plutocracy.

As for the two previous posts, if the Democrats had control of the House and a 60-vote majority in the Senate then it would be an entirely different story today. And I've never claimed that Obama is a leader. Actually, I've said the opposite. Still glad that we don't have Palin/McCain in office and I shudder at the thought of Romney occupying the Oval Office. We have to live with what we get.

[colonelsmut]

Mitt Romney has selected Paul Ryan, Congressman from Wisconsin as his VP nominee.Seems like a fairly high risk choice with little upside reward.
Paul Ryan-Esquire
Paul Ryan's influence on the GOP-New Yorker

This post has been edited by colonelsmut: Aug 11 2012, 11:42

[sanitynotincluded]

Little upside?

While admittedly a low profile event, Biden will get torn apart in the VP debate, and there is nobody on either side with such a grasp on budgetary issues. Fair enough quite a few people hate him, but they were never persuadable anyway.

The concern is more about whether he is better where he is. Pretty much anyone would outshine Biden (I wonder if Garner realised that one day the Dems would go ahead and nominate a bucket of warm piss for the vice presidency), but I'm not sure that as good a budget committee chairman is out there.

[CBEntr]

OOPSIE....

[Parsifal]

Ryan is the bogeyman behind the Paul Ryan budget, a budget that showers the super-wealthy with more budget-busting tax cuts while paying for those tax cuts with cuts to social safety net programs, vital to the elderly and vulnerable. Democrats see Mr. Ryan’s plan for Medicare as a political gift.

[Mister R]

Paul Ryan is an interesting choice and he serves to keep the focus where the Romney campaign want it – the economy.

The point of concern at this stage probably has to be how unpopular Paul Ryan is with sections of the population. You can argue that Romney and the Republican Party was never going to get those people to vote their way anyway (which may very well be true) but my concern would be that Ryan now acts as a lightening rod that compels these people to come out and vote for Obama when they might otherwise have stayed at home this year. It'll be interesting to see how they handle Ryan in the coming weeks. Will they try and push him front and centre with a series of interviews designed to get rid of some of the bad feeling around him with non-Republicans? Or is he going to be used to motivate the base which isn't particularly excited about Romney?

This post has been edited by Mister R: Aug 11 2012, 16:19

[Parsifal]

OOPSIE....

And there are more to come!

Paul Ryan is an interesting choice and he serves to keep the focus where the Romney campaign want it – the economy.

Notwithstanding that neither Romney nor Ryan have any foreign policy experience (unless you want to call Romney's recent disasterous foreign tour foreign policy experience. Or maybe recruiting Mormons in Paris during his youth. )

Or is he going to be used to motivate the base which isn't particularly excited about Romney?

Apparently nobody likes Romney, right or left. It appears that congressman Ryan was chosen to please conservatives in the G.OP. base.

[colonelsmut]

From an outsiders pov I can't see the appeal.He was in Congress when Bush exploded the US budget.Did he protest publicly then?
In a tight election will he bring a voting bloc or even a state as Rubio might have done?
The campaign could degenerate into squabbles over the little details in his budget plan, missing the larger macroeconomic issues.

[Mister R]

OOPSIE....

Obama did (almost) exactly the same thing

Notwithstanding that neither Romney nor Ryan have any foreign policy experience (unless you want to call Romney's recent disasterous foreign tour foreign policy experience. Or maybe recruiting Mormons in Paris during his youth. )

A complete non-issue. Firstly because Republican's rarely run on much of a nuanced foreign policy platform and frankly the vast majority of the population wouldn't get a properly nuanced foreign policy platform anyway. Secondly because no President draws on their own vast knowledge of every given subject to make decisions. That's why they're supposed to surround themselves with experts. Romney (and Ryan) will play the economy card and make that where they're experts.

[Parsifal]

From an outsiders pov I can't see the appeal.He was in Congress when Bush exploded the US budget.Did he protest publicly then?

The Republican agenda has never been about reducing the deficit or the national debt. That's all just hot air.

Notwithstanding that neither Romney nor Ryan have any foreign policy experience (unless you want to call Romney's recent disasterous foreign tour foreign policy experience. Or maybe recruiting Mormons in Paris during his youth. )

A complete non-issue. Firstly because Republican's rarely run on much of a nuanced foreign policy platform and frankly the vast majority of the population wouldn't get a properly nuanced foreign policy platform anyway.

That's not true. Republicans have always made national security a signature issue and the current choice of Ryan leaves the 2012 Republican ticket without someone who has a long history of experience with the kinds of national security issues that the next president will face. Obama has the killing of bin Laden to his credit, something that eluded Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld.

[Mister R]

Republicans may very well have a history of making national security a key issue but when was the last time that was put forward in a nuanced way? Their national security platform is basically 'America! Fuck yeah!' and you don't need experience or even knowledge to be able to pursue that.

And frankly the ridiculous irony of Democrats trying to play the experience card after nominating Obama four years ago (and Hilary coming second in their primary battle not to mention now being secretary of State). Who, exactly, do you think does have experience of what a President will face? Of course if Dems do the 'experience' attack then the Romney camp can just run clips of the exact same people countering the experience argument. Clinton can come to Romney's defence... again.

But hey, Rupert Murdoch approves of Ryan. What more could you ask for!

Link

[Parsifal]

Republicans may very well have a history of making national security a key issue but when was the last time that was put forward in a nuanced way? Their national security platform is basically 'America! Fuck yeah!' and you don't need experience or even knowledge to be able to pursue that.

And frankly the ridiculous irony of Democrats trying to play the experience card after nominating Obama four years ago (and Hilary coming second in their primary battle not to mention now being secretary of State). Who, exactly, do you think does have experience of what a President will face? Of course if Dems do the 'experience' attack then the Romney camp can just run clips of the exact same people countering the experience argument. Clinton can come to Romney's defence... again.

But hey, Rupert Murdoch approves of Ryan. What more could you ask for!

Link

Have I ever claimed that Americans put qualified politicians into office? It's all relative. Congress is probably the biggest bunch of incompetents in Washington. They pass weighty fiscal legislation, but how many of them do you think know how to read the federal budget?

[Parsifal]

Pretty much anyone would outshine Biden

We can be grateful that Sara Palin is not vice president.

[CBEntr]

OOPSIE....

Obama did (almost) exactly the same thing

The difference, Obama realized his gaffe immediately, Romney needed someone to advise him, after-the-fact, of his. Romney, especially after his recent visit in Europe, needs to remember the adage "be sure brain is engaged before putting mouth into gear".

[Mister R]

Have I ever claimed that Americans put qualified politicians into office? It's all relative. Congress is probably the biggest bunch of incompetents in Washington. They pass weighty fiscal legislation, but how many of them do you think know how to read the federal budget?

Which is just another reason to say its a complete non-issue.

[Parsifal]

Have I ever claimed that Americans put qualified politicians into office? It's all relative. Congress is probably the biggest bunch of incompetents in Washington. They pass weighty fiscal legislation, but how many of them do you think know how to read the federal budget?

Which is just another reason to say its a complete non-issue.

I don't follow. What is a complete non-issue? Fiscal issues? I believe that Romney's choice of Ryan is to push fiscal issues to the forefront. Did I misunderstand?

[Mister R]

No your 'they have no experience' tangent. People don't give a shit about experience and almost every election (particularly of the modern era) backs that up.

[Parsifal]

No your 'they have no experience' tangent. People don't give a shit about experience and almost every election (particularly of the modern era) backs that up.

That may be, but the experience card does get played at every election. (And you're probably right )

Yes, they know nothing about economics and fiscal issues.
They know nothing about foreign policy.
They know nothing about anything.
It's all about ideology in the ideal without regard to the reality on the ground.

As Plato put it:
When the art of statesmanship has been forgotten then democracy is the best form of government because with it you can do the least harm.
When the art of statesmanship is known then democracy is the worst form of government because with it you can do the least good.
In the latter case he advocated the benevolent philosopher king who in the first case would be a tyrant.
I think we live in the first situation.

This post has been edited by Parsifal: Aug 12 2012, 17:25