Republicans in the news part deux

[Bourne]

It's really enjoyable watching those who would have deemed Romney a socialist otherwise, viciously circle the wagons to defend his every move.

Republican predictability is staggering, and their blind allegiance knows no bounds.

[jesus marion joseph]

Fixey-poo.

While Romney certainly is no Reagan it will be mourning in America again rather soon.

[Bourne]

Staggering is the effect the Obama Administration has had on this country.

While Romney certainly is no Reagan it will be morning in America again rather soon.

Reagan would be to the left Obama in many ways.

If Reagan were running today you folks would have drummed him out by the Iowa Caucus.

The Republican party has moved so far to the right that they have lost all perspective of their own recent history.

Not to mention the fact that Obama has led a Bush 2.0 administration. Of course, I don't recall anybody calling Bush a socialist. Politics have been reduced to team sports. You support your team, yet you really can't explain why. Romney drew up the blue prints for Obamacare, but now he's somehow going to transform America.

If this were in a movie, I wouldn't believe it.

[Bourne]

It's all part of a re-imagined past. One where all he did was lower taxes and single-handedly defeat Communism. He really became the patron saint of the teabaggers for his lowering of taxes.

Now, if the right were to really do their homework, they'd also learn that they have conveniently forgotten that Reagan also raised taxes. Several times. Reagan also granted full amnesty to illegal immigrants. Those two things alone would have had him painted as loonier than Ron Paul.

But, let's not stop there. He also closed corporate tax loopholes that ended up requiring a company like GE, that had been paying no taxes at the time, to pay a rate of 32.5%. Teabaggers either completely ignore this, or are ignorant of the fact. I think you know where I'd lay my money.

How about Reagan negotiating with terrorists? Or negotiating with Russia with no preconditions?

He cut and ran from Lebanon!

Now, are you going to honestly sit there and tell me THIS would be the man trumpeted as the Republican saviour in this election cycle? With a record like that he'd be lucky to pull double digits in any state.

[walto]

He also imposed several tariffs. He was only a free-trade talker--although he did make TV safe for advertisers.

[Bourne]

All Reagan did was lower taxes.

And Paul Revere rode his horse through town shooting his gun and ringing his bells so he could ride out and warn the British that they weren't going to take away our guns.

Shiny objects.

SQUIRREL!!!

[Pete C]

I was amazed when I saw that Krauthammer piece yesterday. It's Rashomon all over again.

[S.Eden]

The Warsaw leg was a triumph.

I guess Charles forgot about Gdansk:





Always classy when you pay people to block someone else's sign.

[Bourne]

It is, Pete.

But what's worse is perception of the present. Think about the complete suspension of reality involved in believing electing Romney will ensure Obamacare is repealed.

[crawjo]

Reagan would be to the left Obama in many ways.

If Reagan were running today you folks would have drummed him out by the Iowa Caucus.

The Republican party has moved so far to the right that they have lost all perspective of their own recent history.

Not to mention the fact that Obama has led a Bush 2.0 administration. Of course, I don't recall anybody calling Bush a socialist. Politics have been reduced to team sports. You support your team, yet you really can't explain why. Romney drew up the blue prints for Obamacare, but now he's somehow going to transform America.

If this were in a movie, I wouldn't believe it.

If Reagan were running today, he would adopt all the positions that the base of his party supports in order to win the nomination, which is to say, he would do exactly what Mitt Romney did.

[crawjo]

It is, Pete.

But what's worse is perception of the present. Think about the complete suspension of reality involved in believing electing Romney will ensure Obamacare is repealed.

It certainly increases the odds of that happening by a great deal.

[Bourne]

If Reagan were running today, he would adopt all the positions that the base of his party supports in order to win the nomination, which is to say, he would do exactly what Mitt Romney did.

Agreed.

It certainly increases the odds of that happening by a great deal.

After further reflection, OK. Impossible to agree with your previous statement and not see the logic in this one.

I stand corrected.

Well played, sir. You still have an uncanny knack for cutting through the bullshit and getting to the bottom line.

[crawjo]

If Romney wins the election (I still think Obama is the favorite but it's certainly possible) it will be very interesting to see what happens to Health Care Reform. He will almost certainly have been elected with a fairly clear mandate to repeal HCR, and yet Republicans also know that there are parts of that bill that are quite popular. They also know that the only way to pay for the popular things is with the unpopular things, and they further know that most voters don't understand this.

I imagine that in his heart of hearts Romney thinks that Obamacare is a fine program. It's based off of what he did in Massachusetts, after all. But if he wins the White House, he's going to have to figure out a way to make good on his pledge to kill the legislation.

[baksheesh]

I imagine that in his heart of hearts Romney thinks that Obamacare is a fine program. It's based off of what he did in Massachusetts, after all. But if he wins the White House, he's going to have to figure out a way to make good on his pledge to kill the legislation.

With respect, but in modern times when has a politician been particularly worried about making good on his pledges once elected as President? I believe that these days abandoning election promises is the norm rather than the exception, with Obama being a recent example if the political commentary and analysis of his first term has been anything to go by.

[Bourne]

If Romney wins the election (I still think Obama is the favorite but it's certainly possible) it will be very interesting to see what happens to Health Care Reform. He will almost certainly have been elected with a fairly clear mandate to repeal HCR, and yet Republicans also know that there are parts of that bill that are quite popular. They also know that the only way to pay for the popular things is with the unpopular things, and they further know that most voters don't understand this.

I imagine that in his heart of hearts Romney thinks that Obamacare is a fine program. It's based off of what he did in Massachusetts, after all. But if he wins the White House, he's going to have to figure out a way to make good on his pledge to kill the legislation.

Not necessarily.

As we've seen as recently as our current President, making good on campaign pledges isn't exactly a pressing issue anymore.

[crawjo]

Not necessarily.

As we've seen as recently as our current President, making good on campaign pledges isn't exactly a pressing issue anymore.

I disagree. There were many pledges that the president did make good on. For instance, I seriously doubt that Obama would have spent as much political capital as he did passing the ACA if health care reform wasn't one of the major promises of his campaign. There are numerous other campaign pledges that he has upheld.

You could say the same for Bush. The guy ran for president promising huge tax cuts, and once in office it was one of the first things he did.

[Bourne]

He campaigned on change.

Other than the Republican lite, corporate friendly ACA, what has changed?

It is likely 2:1 when comparing campaign promises broken, or as yet unfulfilled, to ones he upheld.

http://www.obamatheconservative.com/

[LennyH]

Look at Jeffrey on the money.

[crawjo]

He campaigned on change.

Other than the Republican lite, corporate friendly ACA, what has changed?

It is likely 2:1 when comparing campaign promises broken, or as yet unfulfilled, to ones he upheld.

http://www.obamatheconservative.com/

"Change" is a slogan, nothing more.

[steve(thelil)]

"Change" is a slogan, nothing more.

Clearly many people who voted for Obama are disappointed about not seeing nearly enough of the changes they hoped for. That said, it's silly to say nothing has changed.

The fact that the President and his party don't try to portray anyone who disagrees with their policies of being un-American and/or destroying America is in itself a huge change all by itself. I find it sad that people forget how refreshing it is.

Also, now our own allies don't hate us for being arrogant bullies (even though we still are, to some degree). I find this too to be an important change.

Third, the fact that our President now speaks eloquently and often to the public is also an important change. I find it a meaningful improvement that the face of our nation doesn't seem like an absolute moron.

Things may suck now, but I am not nearly as despondent at the state of affairs as I was under his predecessor.

[crawjo]

Also, the research done on this suggests that most of the time, presidents try to keep the specific promises on the campaign trail. One website that tracks all of Obama's campaign promises calculates that he has broken only 16 percent of his promises. The others have either been kept (37 percent), compromised on (14 percent), stalled (as in he tried to keep it but was prevented from doing so) (10 percent), or "in the works" (23 percent.)

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ises/obameter/

I think if Romney is elected there is a very, very good chance that he will attempt to repeal the ACA. Now Democrats in Congress might be able to block him from doing so, but you can be sure that if Romney never makes the effort then the Republicans who are backing him now would go into open revolt.

[steve(thelil)]

I think if Romney is elected there is a very, very good chance that he will attempt to repeal the ACA. Now Democrats in Congress might be able to block him from doing so, but you can be sure that if Romney never makes the effort then the Republicans who are backing him now would go into open revolt.

Could they be any more revolting?

[Bourne]

He's kept 37% of his campaign promises. Crack open the champagne.

And if you look at most of the ones he's kept, and contrasted them with the ones broken, the broken ones are FAR more significant.

Guantanamo, extraordinary rendition, extending the PATRIOT Act, extending the Bush era tax cuts, etc...

OK, these have far more impact on everyday American citizens than revising the regulations for export of aerospace technology.

Comparing the power the '12 NDAA gives the government over civilians, or the fact that this is the first President to actually come out and say it's perfectly legal to assassinate U.S. citizens can hardly be countered by the fact that he capped interest rates on payday loans, Sorry.

To even suggest those things are somehow equal is desperation, IMO.

And I most certainly do not need to be lectured on election sloganeering. Remember, I'm the cynical one here.

[Bourne]

Anyone who isn't totally naive should be aware of that.

From the person who belongs to the side that believes Reagan was the patron saint of cutting taxes, and Obama is a socialist.

Taking that into consideration, perhaps we should be a bit more careful throwing around words like "naive".

[crawjo]

He's kept 37% of his campaign promises. Crack open the champagne.

And if you look at most of the ones he's kept, and contrasted them with the ones broken, the broken ones are FAR more significant.

Guantanamo, extraordinary rendition, extending the PATRIOT Act, extending the Bush era tax cuts, etc...

OK, these have far more impact on everyday American citizens than revising the regulations for export of aerospace technology.

Comparing the power the '12 NDAA gives the government over civilians, or the fact that this is the first President to actually come out and say it's perfectly legal to assassinate U.S. citizens can hardly be countered by the fact that he capped interest rates on payday loans, Sorry.

To even suggest those things are somehow equal is desperation, IMO.

And I most certainly do not need to be lectured on election sloganeering. Remember, I'm the cynical one here.

Well, sorry, but you mentioned "change" as if it was a concrete policy proposal, which of course it isn't. If you are so cynical than you would have known that Obama's "change" was not going to be as revolutionary as apparently you expected it to be. Obviously, Obama has brought about "change" on a host of issues.

IMO, his biggest broken promises are the failure to close Guantanamo and the decision to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. I cited the numbers because they show that on MOST of his campaign promises, Obama has either delivered or made an effort to deliver.

I think one of the most misleading things people say about Obama is that he's governed very different than how he campaigned. I don't agree with that assessment at all. There is actually very little about his presidency that has surprised me. I thought he'd be a little bit (only a little bit) more aggressive on revoking Bush-era policies with regards to civil rights, but other than that I can't really say the guy has done anything that seemed out of character for him.

[baksheesh]

Well, sorry, but you mentioned "change" as if it was a concrete policy proposal, which of course it isn't. If you are so cynical than you would have known that Obama's "change" was not going to be as revolutionary as apparently you expected it to be. Obviously, Obama has brought about "change" on a host of issues.

IMO, his biggest broken promises are the failure to close Guantanamo and the decision to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. I cited the numbers because they show that on MOST of his campaign promises, Obama has either delivered or made an effort to deliver.

I think one of the most misleading things people say about Obama is that he's governed very different than how he campaigned. I don't agree with that assessment at all. There is actually very little about his presidency that has surprised me. I thought he'd be a little bit (only a little bit) more aggressive on revoking Bush-era policies with regards to civil rights, but other than that I can't really say the guy has done anything that seemed out of character for him.

Amongst all the hullabaloo in the run up to, and immediate aftermath of his election (SouthPark of course did a very amusing episode on the theme) your pragmatism in the this regard must have seemed veritably cynical.

[Bourne]

Well, sorry, but you mentioned "change" as if it was a concrete policy proposal, which of course it isn't. If you are so cynical than you would have known that Obama's "change" was not going to be as revolutionary as apparently you expected it to be.

If you go back and read the threads devoted to Obama in 2008 you'll see just how hilarious this statement is. I was the only one here that said there was NOT going to be much of a difference between Obama and Bush. And I was heavily criticized for it.

Now, you may look at our current situation through whichever filter you choose, but if you spend some time perusing the link I provided earlier you'll see a far different picture painted.

The hope and change that had everyone in a lather essentially ended up being EXACTLY what I thought it would be.

A Bush 2.0 administration.

Unless, of course, you somehow consider:

Keeping Guantanamo open
Continuing the extraordinary rendition program
Ordering more off shore drilling prior to the BP spill
Ramping up drone attacks in Waziristan
Accelerating the war in Afghanistan
Bailing out the banks
Mandating commerce
Continued warrantless wiretapping
Extending the PATRIOT Act
Ordering the assassination of U.S. citizens
Extending the Bush era tax cuts
Signing into law the ability for the government to arrest and indefinitely detain U.S. citizens without charge...

as being antithetical to Bush administration policies.

Me? I see that as just the kind of thing that would have made the neocons weep tears of joy.

[crawjo]

But I DO think there have been significant differences between Obama and Bush. Why must it be all one or all the other? Why must we either conclude that Obama is the messiah or conclude that he is Bush 2.0? It seems to me that his presidency unfolded under vastly differing circumstances than Bush, and he has made a large number of decisions and policy proposals that would not have been made by a Republican president, both on domestic and foreign policy.

Anyway when talking about Bush's presidency you have to make a distinction between the Bush of 2000-2006 and the Bush of 2006-2008. Obama certainly bears more resemblance to the Bush of 2006-2008 than he does to the Bush of 2000-2006.

[Bourne]

We are simply not going to see eye to eye on this one, brother. I see very little change. And I mean very little.

Everything I listed in the post above are still going on, and most are most certainly parallel to Bush from 2006-08.

[S.Eden]

"Meet the new boss...same as the old boss..."