The Politics Thread

[DRW50]

I hope people will eventually realize they are voting for a party that basically sees them as freeloading, pathetic wastes of skin (the Wall Street Journal calls poor people "lucky duckies" - I guess we're back in the 1810's), but I don't know if it will ever happen. The GOP excels at class warfare and teaching to hate. It's sad to think that people who are literally living hand to mouth will soon be gouged into paying taxes, and the media just loves every second of it.

[I Am A Swede]

[DRW50]

The "liberal" media loves writing puff pieces on true believers like Paul Ryan, the man who made headlines over his crusade against Medicare, and this NYT profile is a doozy, from showing a photo of Mitt Romney gazing at Ryan adoringly, to telling us how kick-ass he is because he listens to rock music and works out! He shoots a bow! The Republicans are gushing over his tough manliness!

http://www.nytimes.c...&pagewanted=all

This is what is passed off as journalism today.

That article also does a song and dance around his Ayn Rand devotion and how she shaped his politics. He is trying to backpedal on that furiously, swearing to National Review that he rejects her views because she was an atheist.

An audio recording of his comments a few years back does not suggest this.

http://www.theatlant...ayn-rand/51711/

Edited May 1, 2012 by CarlD2

[Max]

I don't begrudge President Obama for reminding voters about Osama bin Laden's killing. However, there needs to be some consistency. Back when Mayor Giuliani reminded voters about his highly acclaimed handling of 9/11, liberals were complaining that he was exploiting the tragedy for political gain; Obama touting his killing of bin Laden is kind of the same thing, yet few Democrats (Arianna Huffington is one) slam him for exploting a tragedy for political gain. Either both Obama and Giuliani can tout 9/11-related accomplishments, or neither of them can; it's completely unfair for one to be able to do so while the other cannot. (I acknolwedge that many Republicans are also hypocritical on this matter as well, because they had no problem when Giuliani did it but are now crying foul.)

Edited May 2, 2012 by Max

[Eric83]

I really don't think many Americans view Bin Laden's death as a tragedy.

[Max]

Obviously, his death was related to the 9/11 tragedy, and that was part of the point I was trying to make. (Do you think his death would have been earth-breaking news if 9/11 didn't happen? Prior to us being attacked, relatively few Americans--sadly--even cared about terrorism.)

Edited May 4, 2012 by Max

[DRW50]

I think this story is a real insight into what a Romney Presidency will be like.

Romney's campaign hired an openly gay man as a foreign policy spokesman, one who was highly prized on the right, due to his work with conservative icons like John Bolton. This briefly got some positive press, and the usual, "Look out Obama, this just proves Romney's so much better than you are!" In no time at all, anger towards this man for being gay, and for supporting gay marriage, hit the social conservative press, with even National Review, which is passed off as "intelligent" or "sensible" conservatism, joining in, claiming that since he supported gay marriage, he would in no time at all desert the campaign to support Obama..

The Romney campaign went on to essentially muzzle this man, in a week which was full of big foreign policy news. He essentially had to sit in on conference calls, not allowed to say a word.

Finally, he quit.

Some will say that he was forced out by the left because of very sexist comments he made about Hillary, Calista Gingrich, and Rachel Maddow, among others, but since when does anyone on the right care about that? Ted Nugent said far worse, and Romney didn't care.

So the far right will dictate that Romney cannot have an openly gay person working for him, and Romney will be too frightened to say a word in disagreement. He will instead weasel until this spokesman, having zero role other than being degraded, quits. As Andrew Sullivan says, this means that most likely, he will be more anti-gay as President than Bush was.

Everyone loves to talk about how times moves forward, but in many cases, it is hurtling further and further backward.

http://www.washingto...cGcuT_blog.html

http://andrewsulliva...rter-asked.html

Edited May 4, 2012 by CarlD2

[DRW50]

It's almost primary day for longtime Beltway hero, Reasonable Republican Richard Lugar. All that fondness from Very Serious journalists and his DC friends will likely get him some great work once he's out of the Senate, replaced by another generic type who mostly exists to remind us which undesireable we should hate.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/75972.html

[Max]

Sadly, Lugar will be going down to defeat in tomorrow's primary. (It's a shame, because he is such a good public servant.) What perplexes me, however, is how both liberals and conservatives think that he's some sort of RINO. After all, this is a man who is pro-life, voted in favor of the Iraq War, and even voted against repealing DADT. (And when he was mayor of Indianapolis, he was known as "Richard Nixon's favorite mayor.") I think that people just choose to concentrate on Lugar's personal friendship with Obama and Biden, and disregard his actual political positions.

Lugar's defeat may not be as great a piece as news as the Democrats are hoping for, because the super-conservative Mourdock actually has a decent chance of winning a statewide election in IN. Of course, Lugar's defeat will provide the Democrat's with "bragging rights," though they usually seem to forget that they also have purged their moderates (like Lieberman and Specter) in Senate primaries.

Furthermore, not all Tea Party fringe candidates have been successful in knocking out GOP incumbents. In 2010, McCain crushed J.D. Hayworth in the AZ primary, and Hatch is favored to win his primary this year.

Edited May 7, 2012 by Max

[ReddFoxx]

Lugar losing means Democrats go from no chance at winning the seat to at least a possibility of winning it. It's a lot easier for Donnelly to win moderates against Mourdock.

Lieberman was too into the war and Specter was party switcher, that's completely different than just purging the party of every moderate for a whole line of ideological issues.

[DRW50]

Specter switched parties a year or so before the primary, so he wasn't much of a Democratic moderate. Lieberman hasn't been a moderate ever.

I doubt that Mourdock will lose in November. It just sort of shows you that all you have to do to win is hate the right people and not have a lot of baggage. Hayworth had huge baggage, and was not dissimilar enough from McCain in personality.

[Max]

Among many Americans, Lieberman is perceived as a moderate. He's only conservative when it comes to Middle Eastern foreign policy, moderate (like Clinton) when it comes to economic matters, and liberal on social issues (aside from censorship on TV and video games). If he was always perceived as a conservative, then how come there were virtually no Democratic complaints when Al Gore chose him as his running mate? (In any event, Lieberman's voting record is considerably more liberal than Lugar's is, so I have no idea how the latter can be called a moderate while the former is called a conservative?)

I'll never understand why being a party switcher was a sufficient reason for liberals to turn on Specter in 2010? (Republicans never did that to Richard Shelby or Ben Nighthorse Campbell.) Back when he was on the other side, Specter was always halied by Democrats as a "model Republican," and so many were begging him to switch parties in 2009. Ironically, Arlen won a GOP primary over Pat Toomey in 2004, but was booted out of the "party of tolerance" six years later as a "reward" for joining them (and giving them that crucial 60th Senate seat).

Edited May 7, 2012 by Max

[DRW50]

The whole reason Lieberman was put into office was because of conservatism. The right loathed Lowell Weicker and trusted Lieberman.

I do remember criticism of him in 2000, especially his friendly debate with Dick Cheney.

Tell that to Anita Hill. He almost lost in 1992 for that reason.

People wanted Specter to switch to get to 60 seats, not because they loved him. Only organized labor had any strong ties to him in that area.

That was a whole different time for the GOP, before the anger at the establishment. The legislation which President Bush passed in those years and which was seen as such a huge boon for the party, like the Medicare changes and NCLB, would not be passed today.

Besides, Pat Toomey is an acquired taste. He barely even won PA last year, in a hugely successful year for the GOP, against an abrasive, underfunded Democrat.

Edited May 7, 2012 by CarlD2

[MissLlanviewPA]

It's crazy to think that Lugar could lose. I was thinking about this when Evan Bayh announced he was retiring and Dan Coats decided to run again in 2010: When I was born in Indiana in 1989, Evan Bayh had just become Governor a month before, Richard Lugar had been there since 1976 (well, he took office in 1977), and Dan Coats was appointed to fill Dan Quayle's seat--and by 2010, Evan Bayh was a Senator in Coats' old seat, Coats was running for the seat that he gave up because he felt he couldn't compete against Bayh in 1998, and Lugar was STILL in office! The more things change, the more they stay the same, huh?

Of course, where I live now in Maryland, it's people like Barbara Mikulski, Steny Hoyer, and Ben Cardin who have been around as long as I've been alive (indeed, longer). But of course, Maryland is quite different from Indiana. I know that.

[Max]

This is so true!

I wouldn't say that Lieberman was a Ronald Reagan-type darling of the right back in 1988. However, conservatives preferred a moderate over the liberal Weicker.

I could be mistaken on this, but I seem to recall that most of the criticism actually centered around the fact that Lieberman sucked in that debate (as opposed to him being too conservative). I think most political experts expected Cheney to lose the debate.

Carl, you've got me on this one! I definately misspoke when I stated that Specter was always hailed by Democrats as a "model Republican." It was only around 2000 when he began to be hailed by Democrats and members of the mainstream media as an ideal/moderate Republican. (I had forgotten just how despised he was back in the early-90s.)

The GOP certainly has moved further to the right since 2004. Even back then, however, it was portrayed as a party that was too far to the right. (Which is why so many bemoaned the fact that another "ideal" Republican--John McCain--lost the 2000 primary to George W. Bush.)

However, I definately believe that Pat Toomey is very likely to be a one-term senator. PA is a solidly Democratic state, and conservative Republicans basically only win statewide elections there in "wave" GOP years. (I have no idea on how Santorum managed to win a second term in 2000, especially when Gore won the state that same year.)

Edited May 7, 2012 by Max