The Politics Thread

[Roman]

I still wonder why all this state and federal money was spent to build all of these Supermax prisons nationwide and the populations are not near full capacity. I also agree with the non-violent crimes. Our prison system is populated with non-violent offenders, to me, that is something that should be ended. It proves every day that that is nothing but a business. The big wigs make a ton of money based on the prison population, and I feel they are in league with the pols and such to make sure these jails and prisons are full to overcrowded.

[Max]

I realize that there are some exceptions (where people may actually be sincere), but I always find it so phony when partisans praise members of the opposite party (excluding those who really are RINOs and DINOs). Right now, I see many a Republican say great things about Hillary Clinton, while a lot of Democrats are praising Jon Huntsman.

The reason why I feel this way is because Democrats were constantly praising John McCain to the hilltops for most of the 2000's. But the moment he had a serious chance of actually getting elected president, their tune suddenly changed. (The Dems were critical of McCain well before he chose Palin as his running mate, so that can't be used as a valid reason for their change of heart.) If Huntsman were to actually get the nomination, then I would hear Obama supporters attack him for his conservative record as governor as Utah, and also for some of his business mistakes. And if Hillary were to ever run for president again, the GOP would hate her with the same fervor as they did in the 1990's.

There's a logical reason why many partisans select a politican from the other party and heap such praise on them: doing so makes the president (that they hate)--or the likely presidential nominee--look so much worse in comparison.

Edited November 5, 2011 by Max

[DRW50]

McCain changed all of his policies to have a credible chance of getting elected.

[Max]

Carl, there were valid reasons why Democrats wouldn't like McCain, and he did flip-flop on some issues. However, 2007-08 did not mark the first time McCain changed his views. (I'm not upset that liberals disliked McCain in 2008; rather, I'm upset that liberals liked him in the first place in spite of the fact he was a scandal-tainted politican who held views that were very contrary to their beliefs, only to change their minds later.)

During the 1980's, McCain had a very conservative record in Congress (even voting against a bill that would have made MLK's birthday a national holiday), and would always advertise himself as a Goldwater/Reagan Republican. And then, of course, there was his part in the Keating Five scandal. In fact, it was not until the 1990's that the senator changed and became a maverick.

Regardless of all this history, Democrats were gushing over McCain from the moment he became a thorn in Bush's side until he decided to seek the presidency again in 2007. In their eagerness to praise him as the ideal Republican, they conveniently forgot (or just purposely ignored) the times in his past where he was very conservative or got in legal trouble. I'm willing to bet just about anything that had the 2000 election been McCain vs. Gore, the Democrats would have focused on this past like a laser beam and subsequently tore him apart (as opposed to praising McCain for the centerist views he held that year).

Should Hillary Clinton ever become the Democratic nominee for president, all the daily praise the GOP gives her would go right out the window. Instead, she would be attacked in a way that would make the Obama attacks (i.e., he is a closeted Muslim socialist who was born in Kenya) look absolutely tame in comparison: the far-right would again engage in a smear campaign and suggest that she and her husband killed Vince Foster, and also suggest that electing her as president would result in a government that's for lesbians, by lesbians, and of lesbians.

Edited November 5, 2011 by Max

[GoldenDogs]

Okay... WHAT? This is all opinion, right Max? First off, part of the "game" of politics means you DON'T heap praise on your immediate opponent. I'm not surprised when one candidate trashes another... what, you think Obama is going to tell us which more moderate Romney policies he adores? Of course not... Nor would Perry mention how Obama's illegal immigrant policies mirror his own. Puh-lease.

I absolutely differ in your assessment of GOP opinions of Hillary... to the contrary, I think every bit of kind words or praise currently heaped on her by the GOP are genuine. Even *I* had kind words for her back in 2008. I may not agree with her more liberal policies, but I believe she is a smart woman who truly works in the best interests of America. Same with Bill... wasn't my favorite president, disagreed with many of his policies (especially his first term agenda)... but I have no doubt both Clintons love America and work in the best interests of the country. Hillary should have been the Democratic nominee and I believe, had she won, we would be in better shape now than we are. I would have been comfortable with her, given her background... I think she would be a perfectly viable challenger to the nomination against Obama... and I bet she would win.

I mean this with all sincerety, Max. Because it's all true.

[Max]

First of all, Brian, I did originally say--in the below quote--that not all Democrats or Republicans are insincere when they heap praise on a member of an opposite party (who isn't a RINO/DINO). I believe that you do like the Clintons.

While I guess this is completely unrealistic, it would be nice if politics wasn't a "game." (I'm not sure what the problem with praising your immediate opponent is, other than it makes one look "weak" and perhaps hurts one's chances for re-election; I certainly believe that the country would be better off if we had less egotistical politicans who could praise an opponent if he has good ideas.) But because it is a game, I certainly don't believe that every single word of praise that every Republican heaps on her is genuine (as you stated). By praising a member of the opposite party (who happens not to be the president), I think that it is totally within the realm of possibility that the intention of some is to make the president look even worse in comparison.

Regardless of the true sincerety of some individuals, I will never believe that the lion's share of partisan Republicans will hop on board the Hillary 2016 campaign, or that most loyal Democrats will dump Obama should Huntsman beat the million-to-one odds and win the GOP nomination. Any suggestion to the contrary just defies logic, and I doubt any non-partisan political analyst would disagree with me on this.

Brian, if there's one thing I do agree with you on is that I'm sure most Republicans would rather have Hillary than Obama, while most Democrats would rather have Huntsman than any of his GOP opponents. (Brian, you obviously didn't mention anything about Huntsman; I'm just including him here because the Huntsman situation is a mirror image of what the GOP is doing with Hillary.) What I just cannot believe is that most--but not all--partisans would rather have Hillary or Huntsman over one of their own.

If you don't mind me asking--given that I'm not honestly not sure how you would have voted--who would you have chosen in 2008 if the race had been McCain vs. Hillary? Hypothetically speaking, who would you vote for in 2012 if the race is between Hillary and Romney?

Edited November 6, 2011 by Max

[GoldenDogs]

Well, it certainly is fair game to question motives - but generally, in politics, if something nice is actually said, then it generally is the real deal. It's the nasty stuff that often is disingenuous at its root.

That's a tough one, I'll admit. Romney is a RINO. In that respect, I don't see much of a difference in the candidates... both relatively moderate, however if I'm honest, I'd say the edge of experience MUST go to Hillary. She's Secretary of State, for crying out loud and has spent a considerable amount of time in and around the oval office - and I'd bet money she had considerable input in many issues Bill faced while President. If it were all about experience, she wins hands down. And the only Republican who comes close is Newt Gingrich, based on his turn as Speaker of the House. Then comes those served as governors.

At the end of the day, and sadly as many of us have discussed here, party politics always surface and regardless of who ultimately becomes President, that person, Hillary or Romney, would be beholden to some degree to the party that nominated them. What promises were made at the expense of the best interests of the people? Those promises and the effects of keeping them are never good for those in the minority, regardless of party, and therefore is never good for the country as a whole.

Sounds kind of hopeless. I want to tell you, Max, that I would go with the experienced candidate, but I'm not so sure I could. And that clearly represents how polarized we are as a result of the party system... which, sadly, is still a better system than that of other countries, at least in my opinion.

[Roman]

Which to this day i do not understand. I liked the guy who ran against Bush in the 2000 primaries. That was a common sense man there. I was even considering voting for him because that man then had the backbone to question his own party, something you barely see now. And then, he must have been told or decided on his own to turn hard right and turn off many Americans who liked him for his convictions. I still feel that had he stayed the man he was, he would have beaten Obama. But, I saw in 2008 like I see now.....this man is no where close to his old self, and he just scared the hell out of me.

[Max]

This is an interesting observation. Perhaps because I am so cynical, it's always been my opinion that the complete opposite is true.

Brian, thank you so much for answering the question I posed you with this most eloquent response.

[ReddFoxx]

Romney isn't really the type to be classified by terms such as RINO, he takes whatever position is political advantageous. When he ran against Kennedy for Senate in 1994, he sounded completely different than he does now. Once he started positioning himself to run for President after he got elected Governor, he moved further to the right. It's plausible he's always been very conservative, but just played a long with what works in Massachusetts.

[GoldenDogs]

All true, Redd... thanks for reminding of his political past. His uncertain positioning on the issues, though, really does make him a scary candidate whether you are conservative, moderate or liberal. I personally have more respect for any candidate, regardless of political affiliation, if they are consistent on issues. I know, few politicans are really like this... which may be why so many of us are unhappy with so many of the candidates out there. And so often those who are set to deliver exactly what they are selling AREN'T electable...

So I guess you need a moderate candidate? But then I think that a moderate candidate generally gets nothing done... This seems all so depressing to me. Maybe I shouldn't be talking politics today... LOL...

[DRW50]

It's Gloria Allred time!

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/11/report-gloria-allred-to-kick-off-next-chapter-of-cain-saga.php

[LeClerc]

I found Sharon Bialek to be credible but Gloria being in the mix isn't going to do her any favors. That "stimulus package" comment was unbelievably crass.

[DRW50]

I always wonder about why people go to her. Is it because they're scared of the media (understandable) and she knows how to handle them? Does she waive a fee, since she gets a lot of publicity? I do think she genuinely wants to help some of these women but sometimes it just becomes an ugly circus. It left a very bad taste in my mouth when I read about the people who went to the Scott Peterson trial and basically cheered certain people (Allred, the DA, etc.) and jeered others, and all the rest. This becomes some type of sporting event.

Anyway, I don't think Cain ever had a chance, but this pretty much ends it, IMO. Some have said Gingrich will now become the next anti-Romney. The media has been itching for it to be Perry again, even writing a number of "He's back now, really, we swear!" types of articles over the last few weeks.

[DRW50]

Does anyone else think it's interesting how often in the last week some conservative voices in the media have been, as they used to call it, "playing the race card"? Ingraham did that again after Allred's speech.

It looks like the defense of Cain is going to be race-baiting, and belittling the woman involved.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/updates/1688

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/updates/1687