The Politics Thread

[GoldenDogs]

Okay, I like Wales more and more... LOL!!!

[GoldenDogs]

Thanks Redd... we find common ground and agreement! Though I lean right (if you believe Republicans wish to deny certain people access to the polls), I assure you that MY desire to see some type of ID instituted is based on "getting it right". I wholeheartedly and strongly agree that nobody's right to vote should be hampered or impeded, and I don't think anyone should ever be given a reason to doubt the results of an election.

[Max]

I knew you were teasing, Brian!

Although FDR went on to handily win a third term, his decision to seek one was quite controversial initially. According to Wikipedia:

This paragraph gives a good summary behind the factors that led to the decision to seek a third term:

Strangely enough, there was no huge controversy when Roosevelt decided to seek a fourth term.

Edited September 7, 2012 by Max

[quartermainefan]

The topic is almost a non-entity. Who cares if the word God is in the platform? Can we legislate god in any way? Can we establish god policies? Unlike abortion and gay marriage, God has a tough time impacting day to day laws and policies. Why there is this never-ending race to prove who is the most religious in America I will never understand. Iran and Saudi Arabia? I expect their government to bow and kneel to religious fervor. We are supposed to be beyond such bullshit.

As for Jerusalem. There I think the democrats got it wrong. If Israel wants Jerusalem as their capital then that is the capital. I don't know why this is even still up for discussion. The people booing were jerks but Jerusalem vs Tel Aviv matters not a bit this election. And republicans need to realize that as they babble on endlessly about Jesus this and Jesus that, Jews don't give a rat's ass about Jesus. I don't care what Jesus would do, what Jesus would think, what Jesus would drive, it is all bullshit. I am more interested in where I can get a good corn beef on rye. It's frightening in 2012 to think about a government worrying about Jesus because that is the first step toward a government asking who doesn't believe in Jesus. And we know how that turned out for the jews in the 20th century. Republicans never will realize that the more they talk about Jesus the more it reminds Jews that they are not from the same tribe, so to speak. Democrats welcome people who worship Jesus, trees, VIshnu, the Force, or nothing at all.

[marceline]

I wasn't intentionally dodging your statement. You made a statement that I considered to be superficial and poorly-reasoned ("An ideological fight on the floor of the convention, suggesting deep divisions within the Democratic party on the acceptance of religion and our ties to Israel, is easily the biggest story of both conventions this election year.") and I treated that way but I'll go a little more in-depth.

Re the God thing? Not to put to fine a point on it, the Dems are pussies and they always have been. They let themselves be bullied by Fox News and the people voting "no" understood that. But the idea that that represented some deep idealogical divide within the party isn't supported by facts, reality or history especially when you compare it to the GOP which has been splintering apart for years thanks to the Tea Party and the Ron Paul supporters. You need only look at the primaries to see how those factions have ripped the GOP apart. The convention opened with a floor fight over Ron Paul which had been building for more than a year.

There's no big ideological divide in the party over God. That was a one day skirmish where the Dems who had some balls stood their ground and the Party leadership caved. If I'd had my way, the Dems would've stood up and said "The Democratic Party realizes that this country was founded on separation of church and state and we hold that to be one of our core principles. We also recognize that there are a millions of wonderful, patriotic Americans who practice a variety of faiths and we welcome them all whatever deity they pray to. Therefore we will not be changing our platform to accommodate short-sighted, small minded, divisive thinking. Fox News, you are cordially invited to go [!@#$%^&*] yourself." But that's just me.

As for the Jerusalem thing, I don't pay any attention to that. I'll be honest, Israel is just not an issue I care about. I acknowledge it's vitally important to a lot of voters but to me it's the political equivalent of water polo. Don't care. Never did. I don't understand why the Democratic party platform has to be remotely concerned with what city some other country considers its capital but I do understand that they didn't want to let the GOP use it as a wedge issue with Jewish voters. Personally, I don't GAF either way except that it highlights once again that Democrats are wimps.

Edited September 8, 2012 by marceline

[GoldenDogs]

Alright, QFan... good points and I agree with much of what you write here. The only two things I would respond with would be, first, some would use the "V" word - values - and pair them with some sort of religious virtues and claim those said virtues are what those dudes who signed the Constitution had in mind when drafting it, as well as the Bill of Rights, etc.

A debate on that is a waste of time since we really can't define specific values in an ever-changing and diverse America. I would argue that we COULD debate that maybe 100 years ago, maybe as recent as 50 years ago. Our world has changed and I recognize that.

The other issue is that, in terms of the Middle East and foreign policy questions, Israel is extremely important. We have a supposed ally whose very existence is threatened. Where we stand and what we do with all of that speaks volumes to the world. I know that Obama argued that Romney/Ryan had no foreign policy experience... but neither did Obama, which was what Biden was supposed to bring to the table, right? I know that domestic issues are important and should be front and center right now, but the world has really spun out of control the past few years and I honestly don't think Obama has handled foreign affairs very well. No fault of our Secretary of State, who is "the enforcer"... I think Hillary could have worked wonders in the world if not chained to Obama's foreign policy.

Qfan, thanks offering this because your points are on and I've got more to think about now. I know there is more than just left or right viewpoints with all of this... sometimes you all think of things I haven't and I appreciate that!

[GoldenDogs]

Ehh... I can see where you might not like the question or the nature of it, but I hold firm that it was a valid question. I suppose you could argue that I presumed there was a divide with the party, but isn't there a divide in every party? As was pointed out, there are divisions amongst Repubs... there are with Dems, too.

I agree... however, I think you give a news channel too much credit. FOX News coverage of the convention was DEAD LAST! Conservatives weren't watching and ratings suggest independents turned to MSNBC and CNN. That has always been the trend and everyone knows it - conservatives tune out when they don't want to hear it. The overnights at Day One indicate it so Dem convention organizers knew this... I think the divisiveness came from within the party and it happened spontaneously on the floor. It was unexpected. Now, I could see where Dems overreacted to conservative thinking on the issue, but since when have they cared what FOX pundits say? Unless, Marceline... Obama is vulnerable right now. But that would suggest other problems...

As I had said to QFan... there is some importance to foreign policy. My personal view is bring ALL troops home and screw the rest of the world... don't give anyone a penny and fix our own house first. But that won't happen no matter who we elect. So, protecting an ally is important and what we do and what we say affects our standing in the world and how we're viewed. I don't think Obama has been strong on foreign policy and things are in disarray. Longtime allies are uncomfortable with us. I think Israel is part of larger question about policy and I agree that Dems screwed up badly here. Bad enough to matter? Probably not because the domestic issues rank more important in the eyes of most right now.

Thanks for offering more, Marceline... I like to discuss, not argue. I also find it easier to drop the partisan BS and just talk about it... I have thrown out my share of partisan bombs here over the years and it has never really helped the discussion. This, though, has been pleasant and helpful to me. :-)

Edited September 7, 2012 by GoldenDogs

[Wales2004]

As far as Irsrael goes, there was a public opinion poll that gave Barack Obama a favorable rating among its citizens. They ought to know.

I would love to hear which longtime allies are uncomfortable with the U.S.

[marceline]

The Dems have always cared about what Fox News says about them. Hence the reason I call them pussies. They're weak and hypersensitive to criticism from a source that should be dismissed right out of the gate. It's a big part of my problem with the Democrats. Nobody else was talking about the God thing. Just Fox and the right wing blogosphere. If the Democrats truly had the courage of their convictions they would've said "consider the source" and stuck to their guns but they never do. It's part of the reason I don't consider myself a Democrat. I consider myself a liberal who votes Democratic because that's my only choice. (I don't buy into the third party stuff.)

[JaneAusten]

The rumor is and not sure if it's true, is that the president pushed the mention of "God" back into the platform. Frankly it was not even in the platform 4 years ago in any context that had anything to do with faith IMO.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/05/dnc-platform-god_n_1858891.html

It's Fox News and the RNC that made this into an issue about Democrats being godless.

I agree with Marceline, , the Democrats and yes Obama, can be weaklings when they let things like this potentially sway their position or in this case rhetoric.

As for Jeruselum not being referenced and the idea that somehow this means the Democrats and Obama hate Israel, has the US withheld aid and money we've been giving to Israel for years, part of it used to help them defend themselves against the climate they live within? The answer is no. How that gets interpreted as being anti Israel, I have no clue.

[Max]

Marceline, I heard on the news that it was Obama himself who caved in to the God issue and demanded the change in the platform. He is the pus-sy.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/8A9gzYWOwEs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I have no idea how some Democrats can still think Obama is a man of such conviction.

On another topic, I don't vote third party for the same reason that you do: it would result in the greater of two evils being elected.

Edit: Jane, when I originally made this post, your above post had yet to appear. Sorry for the repetitive point.

Edited September 7, 2012 by Max

[marceline]

Agreed. and it's one of the problems I have with him. (Sorry no "gotcha" here. I was perfectly aware that it was Obama who caved.)

People who don't like Obama seem to operate under the assumption that his supporters think he can do no wrong. That's not true. I think it comes from the priorities the right-wing places on homogeneity and staying true to the party line above all. (After all God forbid Mitt Romney actually believe that abortion should be legal to protect the health of the mother. That's heresy!)

I've stated numerous times that I dislike Obama's fetish for trying to find common ground with people who hate him and it think it has hurt him, the party and the country as a whole. It makes me sick and if I got ten minutes to talk to him that would be what I would tell him. This is a perfect example of that. At least this I can chalk up to his desire to win but when he did stuff like this with the Bush tax cuts or throwing out the public option with health care reform, I was livid. Does that mean I would even consider voting for Mitt Romney or the GOP? No. My problem with Barack is that he doesn't fight hard enough for the right beliefs. The problem I have with the GOP is that they don't have the right beliefs.

This is one of the reasons I love, love, love Bill Clinton. He's a street fighter who isn't afraid to break a few kneecaps and get sneaky. For example I heard that one of the reasons Clinton's speech was so long is because he wanted it to run into the 11:00 hour so it would pre-empt or break into the local news and so independents and moderates who weren't watching the convention would see it. And you know what? It worked. Come 11 o'clock quite a few of my conservative friends on FB and Twitter started posting about how pissed they were that the news was being bumped for Clinton. THAT's the kind of fighter I want. That doesn't mean I don't or won't support Obama.

(BTW, Buzzfeed actually posted the changes Clinton made to his speech with the changes tracked. It's an interesting read for anyone who writes or edits. I can think of few professionals I pity more than Bill Clinton's speechwriter. LOL! http://www.buzzfeed.com/nycsouthpaw/inside-bill-clintons-epic-convention-speech-4xje)

[quartermainefan]

Some would use the V word...yeah, fundies, republicans and religious nutjobs. That's who uses the V word. As for foreign policy, we saw Mitt's policy: The russians are our number one enemy. What longtime allies our uncomfortable with Obama?

[JaneAusten]

Marceline I love your passion and now well you articulate your views and I often find myself agreeing to everything you say.

Max I know you have felt that race played a position in getting Obama elected. I disagree. While many people may have voted for him due to his skin color, more than enough people balanced that out because there are still people in this country who voted against him because he's African American. I think he was elected for a lot of the same reasons Carter was elected. Promise of a new kind of politics in Washington. Both stumbled and in Carter's case failed for that reason even if their tactics were different. Carter trying to take it all on himself and Obama wanting everyone to be a happy family.

I'm not a Reagan fan but I have to respect his political gifts. He set his agenda not only on things he believed in but things he knew he could get done in Washington. Abortion, sure he spewed the republican rhetoric once in a blue moon, but he never spent one iota of political capital on it. Why? He wasn't passionate about it and he knew it was a fight he could never win and continue to lead effectively. And the changes to social security? He and Tip O.Neill were reputed to have hammered out the changes in Tips office in the Capital building over a bottle of scotch. You'd never seen that lever of cooperation today on the part of either party. As ineffective as Obama may be, the republicans have been nastier to him than they were to Bill Clinton. This version of the GOP has no interest in compromise. Hell their own party today is splitting. Ron Paul has shown that and there is a reason the Tea Party exists today and it's not due to the GOP being some huge group of problem solvers.

Bill Clinton who I still adored, was a disaster his first 2 years. He picked his first issue as Gays in the Military and Healthcare. These may have been issues he was passionate about, but he wasted so much political capital on 2 items that probably had zero chance of succeeding. But he learned from it and fought back and like Reagan, he didn't take his important issues to congress, he took them to the American people. The republicans to this day still don't get Bill Clnton and why the population of this country still adores him. None of them to this day don't get why more Americans didn't care or support the investigations into his transgressions, didn't favor impeachment, all things driven by partisanship and had nothing to do with the welfare of the country. Gerald Ford lost his bid for election to the presidency for doing what was the right thing for the country by pardoning Nixon and not caving into those who just wanted Nixon to pay. He knew what it seems like politician don't today, that it would have eaten up the country and that we were a country that needed to move forward. It was probably one of the bravest thing any

President in recent history has ever done.

Obama says he made mistakes and has learned from them? In the absence of anyone out there who can present an viable alternative, I'll have to trust in him and hope he means what he says. I think you have an opinion and believe he's a dishonorable man. Me I don't feel that was. I think he's an honorable man who didn't understand the political climate in Washington and got in over his head. I can only hope he's learned from his mistakes as Bill Clinton did.

[Max]

Jane, we'll have to agree to disagree, but nobody could have written a more eloquent defense. In regards to your excellent point that he didn't understand Washington and was in over his head, Obama would have served himself--and the country--far better had he accumulated more experience in the Senate prior to running for president.

Edited September 7, 2012 by Max