The Politics Thread

[Wales2004]

I don't think it's right that people vote on the basis of group solidarity while overlooking significant factors. However, people do just that. There's a difference between acknowledging that it occurs and finding it an acceptable practice. It also doesn't negate the fact that black people are always depicted as doing things simply because they are black and for no other reason. No one is adamant that black voters voted for other Democrats who ran for office on the basis of race so it speaks volumes about racialism and this not being anywhere near a post-racial society that this is seen as the only reason a voter who happens to be black would vote for Barack Obama.

I am not in any way suggesting that there may not have been voters who registered to vote just to vote for him because he's black but to place any voter who was a life long Democrat in that category simply because he or she is black, shows a high level of ignorance in those who do.

The same can be said of other Presidents but I was not speaking of any general disrespect along usual party lines, I am talking about the kind of disrespect that leads to his being called a liar while he's speaking and having someone from Tucker Carlson's site interrupting him before he finishes speaking. George Bush probably had hecklers and I know he had a shoe thrown at him but I don't recall his being interrupted in front of Congress or on the White House Lawn, etc in that manner.

I am no fan of politicians but Barack Obama cannot beat Bill Clinton in the sleaze department. Both he and Hilary Clinton vehemently denied that he had an affair with Genefer (sp?) Flowers and basically painted her as the worst kind of liar when they were the ones lying. Monica Lewinsky and the countless others make him it for me. Eliot Spitzer is running slightly behind and John Edwards is right up there too. We clearly have a different view on sleaze.

I would imagine that people who expected more from him would be more disappointed in him as opposed to disliking him. Letdown I see but hatred on that basis, I don;t. The majority of the contempt for Barack Obama comes from a racial place. There are people who may not want to come to grips with the fact that they are angry that a "black" man is the POTUS and they can disguise that contempt however they want and attribute it to other factors that would be less politically incorrect.

I found George W. Bush a disappointment but he still seems like a nice guy and he made me laugh at times. The problem was that he came across as a bumbling twit which does not look good on a President. Barack Obama is a big disappointment to me but for different reasons than George W. Bush. I probably expected more from Barack Obama than I did from good ole George W. Bush though and that's my problem and not either of theirs. I didn't for a minute believe in that clever Change slogan so that's not the problem. I recognized the politician in Barack Obama back then. Mitt Romney keeps me from being harder on Barack Obama, simply because Mitt Romney sells his soul on a regular basis. Right now I cannot justify voting for either and I am not in the mood to play the lesser of two evil games. I want both parties to start running better candidates but I am guessing that the Republicans will contiune to regress and the Democrats will look more sane as a result.

[DRW50]

Romney will not go for $1 tax increase even if there are $10 in spending cuts. This is what the media does cartwheels over, our supposed corporate mastermind - cut cut cut cut cut, screw everyone.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/romney-wont-accept-1-in-new-taxes-for

[Wales2004]

There could have also been the fear of President Sarah Palin. If John McCain happened to be younger then she may not have been a liability.

Barack Obama isn't even African-American by the definition that I've seen touted as true but people who incorrectly use that term interchangeably with black claim him. I find him to be extremely confused on the topic of race unless he's merely playing a political game.

I tend to believe that all those politicians who use that coded language that is racial in nature, are merely maniplulating the ignorant people. Republicans, for instance, appeal to certain base individuals who have nothing at all in common with the leaders of their parent but are so blinded by their misguided belief that they are the "real Americans," that they support them no matter what. I think the race game is one of the ugliest parts of this political process and it's shameful that people who claim to love America and care about its future, would selfishly damage young people in that way.

[Max]

I think I agree with you on this point. I don't find it to be an acceptable practice to vote for somebody based on group solidarity, but it is totally naive for anybody to deny that this type of voting doesn't exist.

Clearly, the fact that Obama got such a huge percentage of the black vote in the general election doesn't prove anything, since all Democrats enjoy the same numbers. However, race/solidarity certainly played a major role in the fact that he got such a lopsided share of the African American vote in the Democratic primaries. (Of course, as I explained before, race was not the only reason for his success; for instance, several lily-white states had caucuses, which--by their very nature--helped candidates aligned with the party's liberal base.)

I also agree that Clinton is a much more evil human being than Obama. I should clarify that my definition of "sleaze" is merely breaking campaign promises, pandering, being opportunistic, etc. (things that Obama and many other politicians have done). What the Clintons engaged in was corruption, which is obviously far worse. The only positive the Clintons have over Obama is at least they are competent, but a choice between incompetence vs. corruption is a most dreadful decision one could make.

Wales, thank you so much for your well-thought out response. I sincerely apologize if I gave you the incorrect impression that I thought you were some partisan hack.

Edited June 17, 2012 by Max

[Roman]

I see that differently, because imagine what would have happened had he came out and said he would do all he can do for "black America". Now that he says he's the POTUS for all Americans, he now has his thinking on race question. Not saying nothing at you at all, because you at least said it adding to the discussion, and not trying to get posters ticked off in this forum, which I appreciate. I just think and feel he has done the right thing where race is concerned. And since we in the black community still get accused of voting for someone based on color (where there are some in the white community who do the same thing and nothing is ever said about that) it makes some of us just throw our hands up and just say "screw it."

[Wales2004]

I don't believe that we're talking about the same thing or perhaps we are but are misunderstanding each other. I will try to be as brief as possible because it's not my intention to derail this thread with a non-political topic. I apologize in advance to everyone for doing this.

I don't believe in race. It's one of those things on which this society seems to thrive but I have grown and continue to grow into one of those who think people are people. Just as a rose by another name would smell as sweet, a person with another skin tone is just another person. Race is clearly not about skin tone though because there are plenty of people who are "blacker" looking than some black people, but they are not labeled "black." Barack Obama with a white mother and black father and a light skin tone is black and Bobby Jindahl who is not black looks more black than he.

Unless I am mistaken, Barack Obama went in search of his black identity. Why he thought he'd find it in Chicago is beyond me. His father was Kenyan not American and there is a huge difference between the two. He learned how to be a "black American," and if a person has to be taught how to be black then how can that be genuine? It operates from the false premise that all black Americans think, speak, believe and act the same. The premise is false. England and France are both in Europe. Yet we do not expect a white French man and a white English man to speak the same language or honor the same traditions. We don't expect a white American to be the same as a white English man. But we do expect that all the black people are the same person despite the differences in language, traditions, etc. And apparently all black people are destined to be labeled as "African-American" even if they never step foot in this country. The ignorance of race runs deep.

America is a one nation and people should look at it as such. Anyone born in this country should not hyphenate his or her nationality. There is no "black America" or "black community." There are Americans who are black who don't all see eye to eye on anything and everything. I listened to Shirley Sherrod essentially say that Barack Obama did not know what it was like to be black because of the way he was raised which means that black people can only be black if they are raised a certain way. It's complete and utter nonsense.

[Roman]

http://www.kulturekritic.com/2012/06/news/az-radio-show-host-refers-obama-the-first-monkey-president/

I tell you.

[DRW50]

It looks like someone in Camp Romney is being very open and honest even when it may not be the greatest idea. They have essentially said (and then backtracked) that Marco Rubio, who is endlessly hyped by the media and the far right but who has a lot of skeletons, is not being briefed as a possible VP choice. They've also said that Sarah Palin ruined the chances of any woman being chosen as VP. It looks like one of their choices is the odious "T-Paw," Tim Pawlenty, a man who ran Minnesota into the ground, flip-flopped on everything, is hardcore anti-gay and anti-abortion, and who has even less charisma than Mitt Romney. The media spent years hyping him as well, and were bewildered when he dropped out so early on. If he's chosen, get ready for a lot of media swooning. They are also looking at Bobby Jindal (who tried and failed at being a GOP name), and boring Rob Portman, who may best be remembered for helping to run our economy off a cliff. Paul Ryan, Ayn Rand's devoted disciple who wants to destroy Medicare, is also a hot favorite.

http://livewire.talk...ty-advisers-say

Edited June 20, 2012 by CarlD2

[DRW50]

Our far right friends are letting their slips show.

Employers shouldn't have to pay for cancer coverage.

http://www.huffingto..._n_1606005.html

Poor people are just "sob stories" and the media needs to stop talking about them.

http://www.huffingto..._n_1605343.html

This isn't fringe - this is what we will likely hear more and more of with coming weeks and months.

Meanwhile, right on cue, the media has that old "T-Paw" fever again. Same old bullsh!t.

This has never been shown. Not in the primary, not in Minnesota, where he won because of flawed candidates and third parties. Not ever. He sent the state's economy down the tubes, along with Michelle Bachmann helped whip up a climate of far right extremism and hatred from 2002-2004 (and this only stopped because Republicans lost the state legislature), and went out of office with nothing but the usual media sycophants. He has never been beloved among some fantasy blue collar figures who, in the media's mind, are probably waiting to turn Minnesota blood red.

At least they're not still calling him "telegenic." That's about the best I can say. And now that they can't continue the sad lie that Romney is really, really a moderate, and just waiting until after the primary to show us, they can try to pretend "T-Paw" is a moderate. It's the same old media delusion of those strong, kind, loving, sensible conservatives who only say bad things because they have to keep up with those crazy kids, and are really, secretly, our forever friends, our fantasy fathers and big brothers.

Edited June 20, 2012 by CarlD2

[Wales2004]

The hypocrisy of politics seems to be on full display in this election season. If the Republicans succeed in having Eric Holder convicted of a misdemeanor, their plan still revolves around the idea that the American voting public should choose a basically non-descript individual since they aren't capable of coming up with a strong candidate. How hard can it be for them to produce a candidate that they like and feel strongly enough about to endorse enthusiastically. They weren't that happy about John McCain and instead of using their energy to build up a better candidate, they wasted so much time on the mission to break Barack Obama that they have this light weight with seemingly no backbone.

[DRW50]

Mitt Romney asking Florida's governor to not mention economic recovery.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/06/romney-campaign-reportedly-asked-florida-governor-to-downplay-job-gains.php?ref=fpblg

[Max]

No other Republican would dare say this, but I am sick of the near-Obama-like hype that is now happening with Marco Rubio (who just wrote an autobiography). Some will probably say this is "racist," but the fact of the matter is that almost nobody would give a s#it about the life story of a white male who is in his second year in the Senate. I know that Rubio is a great public speaker with an inspiring life-story, but he is grossly unqualified to be president (or even VP). Haven't we learned anything from the Obama presidency?

Although so much media speculation centers on Rubio being the VP nominee, I'm almost certain it won't happen. (His goal is to run for president later, and--since Romney could lose--he fears that being on a losing ticket could hurt his future prospects.) Aside from FOX (who is having a collective boner with Rubio mania), I personally believe others in the media are promoting these fasle Rubio-VP rumors so they can then point out how pathetic Romney's actual VP choice is. I'm pretty pissed at Rubio as well, because (by releasing this book now and making the media rounds) he is deliberately upstaging Romney and whomever actually is the 2012 GOP VP nominee (which appears that, at the moment, is likely to be Pawlenty). Then again, I think that Rubio wants Romney to lose, so he can run himself in 2016. (And Democrats, don't kid yourselves: if he runs for president, he will be such a formidable candidate because of his smooth talk and because he will attract a much larger share of the hispanic vote than any other Republican ever could.)

Edited June 23, 2012 by Max

[Wales2004]

Last week in politics Darrell Issa tried to get to the bottom of what happened to cause the death of a border patrol agent.

Oh right he didn't.

Wait, he tried to get to the bottom of why the AG's office sent a letter with "false" or "incorrect" information on the matter.

Oops he didn't do that either.

The sad part about politics is that the public is easily duped into believing that the Republicans and Democrats are really doing what they appear to be doing, while the facts get buried elsewhere.

As far as I understand it, he wants Eric Holder to look responsible for a practice that fell under the previous AG's office or which the previous AG was aware and did not inform him. But because he can't directly pin it on Eric Holder, he's going after him for not providing emails and other correspondence which came well after the practice was halted and after documentation pertaining to the letter was provided.

Californians definitely need to get rid of both him and Nancy Pelosi but considering that Jerry Brown managed to get re-elected as Governor, I am surely living in a state where I'm surrounded by a lot of "special" people. Maybe the whole nation is full of "special" voters.

[Wales2004]

IA with you on Marco Rubio being overhyped.

I don't think that you're being racist but the fact that anyone sees him as white is an example of how fluid race is in America. Now it's how a person looks but then some other time it's about a person's background. It's interesting that people who once were not accepted such as the Irish and Italians can now just blend right in with no problem.

Things can change drastically between now and then but as of now, I don't believe Marco Rubio would make that much of a dent in terms of Hispanic voters. Right now America seems to be touting Latino as a race which would put Marco Rubio on the outside because his Cuban background serves him best in Florida. The people that see themselves as brown won't all embrace him simply because he's Hispanic. Plus the Democrats have enough time to develop their own Latino star.

The two names that pop up on the potential V.P. list that I don't see as real options are Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindahl. I'm still waiting for the people who suggest Bobby Jindahl to provide at least one reason why they think that Mitt Romney would see him as a legitimate option.

[juppiter]

Black people do automatically see themselves in Obama. I am a liberal's liberal, probably more liberal than most on this board, practically a commie, but when a group has been enslaved both officially and unofficially for 230 years they will obviously take the chance to elect one of their own.

With Clinton, I agree that he was happy to not only ride the Carter/Reagan/Bush deregulation train but drive it even faster, but at this point in time Democrats had been out of power 12 years. Look at the 2000 election for an example of liberals getting annoyed and staying home -- they cannot be counted upon to turnout for elections. Clinton had no choice but to appeal to centrists. When liberals can be counted on to vote, we will have a liberal president again (which we have not had since LBJ in the 60s.)