Between Barack and a Hard Place: Ultimate US Elections 2012 Thread

[worstblogever]

Although Reagan did show his issues with race with the 'welfare queens' comment.
Let's not forget, this is a dude that didn't want a civil rights bill for some reason. And was anti-union despite having been president of the SAG back in the 50s. And, was more than willing to help out the HUAC in Hollywood.

Well, in comparison, it took Reagan decades to reverse his position on unions, as opposed to Romney, who changes positions on issues sometimes literally within hours of picking the opposite side of the argument.

[Iangould]

...Reagan was too smart to say something as stupid as, "I'm not concerned about the very poor," in front of a microphone.

"Bombing starts in five minutes."

[Iangould]

Although Reagan did show his issues with race with the 'welfare queens' comment.
Let's not forget, this is a dude that didn't want a civil rights bill for some reason. And was anti-union despite having been president of the SAG back in the 50s. And, was more than willing to help out the HUAC in Hollywood.

During World War II, the labor shortage meant the Hollywood studios were forced to pay big wage increases.

After the War, they set out to force wages back down to pre-war levels.

The Hollywood Red Scare was all about intimidating people in the industry, especially those involved with the unions - if The Little Tramp could be black-listed as a Commie, anybody could be.

Reagan's "union" activities consisted of leading a studio-backed ticket to take over SAG and give in to all the studios' demands.

[worstblogever]

"Bombing starts in five minutes."

While this was a stupid joking thing for Reagan to say... ironically, it's still more substantial than any stance Mitt Romney has taken on foreign policy. Arguably, it's still smarter than, ""It's not worth moving heaven and earth and spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person." about bin Laden.

[Darrell D.]

During World War II, the labor shortage meant the Hollywood studios were forced to pay big wage increases.

After the War, they set out to force wages back down to pre-war levels.

The Hollywood Red Scare was all about intimidating people in the industry, especially those involved with the unions - if The Little Tramp could be black-listed as a Commie, anybody could be.

Reagan's "union" activities consisted of leading a studio-backed ticket to take over SAG and give in to all the studios' demands.

Which really just makes him look like more of a slime.

[the4thpip]

Which really just makes him look like more of a slime.

It's just considered being "pro-business" in the GOP.

[Winslow]

While Reagan was often on the opposing side of unions due to the poltical machinations of his day, he did respect them and understood their place. That's radically left of the current GOP that wants to bust unions into oblivion.

Reagan negotiated a deal with the executives of the air traffic controllers union. He didn't bust them until they reneged on their deal and started an illegal strike.

[Cavemold]

While Reagan was often on the opposing side of unions due to the poltical machinations of his day, he did respect them and understood their place. That's radically left of the current GOP that wants to bust unions into oblivion.

Reagan negotiated a deal with the executives of the air traffic controllers union. He didn't bust them until they reneged on their deal and started an illegal strike.

Correct.........

[Loren]

By my last count, it's at least five men enter, but no one wants to talk about anyone but two of them.

*ahem*

...

I admit, though, it honestly surprised me after I shared the news of Johnson's nomination in the last thread, how the reaction was immediately 'He's only doing it for the money' and 'Why does he want to hurt Obama?'

Maybe it's just the third-party equivalent of campaign talking points: make allegations about the nominee's character based on stereotypes of his party, and complain about his role as a spoiler.

[7thangel]

just a reminder

The most quoted speech at CPAC this year was Mitt Romney's, but my vote for the most significant goes to Grover Norquist's. In his charmingly blunt way, Norquist articulated out loud a case for Mitt Romney that you hear only whispered by other major conservative leaders.

They have reconciled themselves to a Romney candidacy because they see Romney as essentially a weak and passive president who will concede leadership to congressional conservatives:

All we have to do is replace Obama. ... We are not auditioning for fearless leader. We don't need a president to tell us in what direction to go. We know what direction to go. We want the Ryan budget. ... We just need a president to sign this stuff. We don't need someone to think it up or design it. The leadership now for the modern conservative movement for the next 20 years will be coming out of the House and the Senate.

The requirement for president?

Pick a Republican with enough working digits to handle a pen to become president of the United States. This is a change for Republicans: the House and Senate doing the work with the president signing bills. His job is to be captain of the team, to sign the legislation that has already been prepared.

This is not a very complimentary assessment of Romney's leadership. It's also not a very realistic political program: congressional Republicans have a disapproval rating of about 75%. If Americans get the idea that a vote for Romney is a vote for the Ryan plan, Romney is more or less doomed.

To date, sad to say, Romney has worked hard to confirm this image of weakness.

Nobody wants a president who acts as the passive instrument of even generally popular groups like labor unions. (Did you know that—despite decades of declining popularity—unions still have an approval rating of 52%? I didn't until I looked it up.)

But a candidate who appeases the most disliked people in national politics? That guy will command neither public affection nor respect.

Mitt Romney badly needs his Sister Souljah moment. Instead, he's running as Jim DeMint's doormat.

[Nick Soapdish]

*ahem*

...

I admit, though, it honestly surprised me after I shared the news of Johnson's nomination in the last thread, how the reaction was immediately 'He's only doing it for the money' and 'Why does he want to hurt Obama?'

Maybe it's just the third-party equivalent of campaign talking points: make allegations about the nominee's character based on stereotypes of his party, and complain about his role as a spoiler.

It kinda surprised me as well. But so did your response. After all, it's one of Johnson's specific talking points that Ian responded to (making it harder for Obama to win re-election). And he doesn't need to win a state in order to influence the outcome which we saw in three consecutive elections. Finally, of the five states that he mentioned, three are red states. But the other two (one that just leans Democratic) are worth more.

[Slam_Bradley]

"Bombing starts in five minutes."

I'm not remotely convinced he didn't know that mic was live.

[Loren]

It kinda surprised me as well. But so did your response. After all, it's one of Johnson's specific talking points that Ian responded to (making it harder for Obama to win re-election).

I don't think that was Johnson's point, so much as he was trying to preempt the inevitable "Libertarians steal Republican votes" objection from the Right. He's trying to get out in front of that by pointing out what he has to offer to voters on the Left.

Which, as I said, seems to have had the effect of changing the reaction from "Johnson is going to help Obama win" to "Johnson is going to help Romney win." And that's what I was trying to rebut.

And he doesn't need to win a state in order to influence the outcome which we saw in three consecutive elections.

Absolutely true.

Finally, of the five states that he mentioned, three are red states. But the other two (one that just leans Democratic) are worth more.

Is Nevada the one you're counting as leaning Democratic? It does fluctuate back and forth, but now that I think of it, the swing-voters in Nevada might not be too partial to a Mormon candidate.

[Nick Soapdish]

I don't think that was Johnson's point, so much as he was trying to preempt the inevitable "Libertarians steal Republican votes" objection from the Right. He's trying to get out in front of that by pointing out what he has to offer to voters on the Left.

Which, as I said, seems to have had the effect of changing the reaction from "Johnson is going to help Obama win" to "Johnson is going to help Romney win." And that's what I was trying to rebut.

It shouldn't have been that much of a surprise. If you only argue one side of the issue, that'll be the side that people pay attention to and he's immediately put himself behind the eight-ball. What he should've done is started with the point that the Libertarian Party has planks that will appeal to both sides of the spectrum (or what we call the spectrum over here) which is something that too many Libertarians don't seem to care about. Maybe he's just countering the assumption that the Libertarian Party is just a more conservative version of the Republican Party, but that's not the only assumption that he needs to counter and one sentence inserted by Weigel at the end of the article doesn't really do that.

The reaction that was surprising to me was the "just wants to make money" bit.

[Rasputin9977]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...-quotes-obama/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=H3a7FC0Jkv8

This was the ad. Obama was quoting McCain saying "if we keep talking about the economy, we're going to lose". Romney's campaign presented that quote as if Obama was the one who'd originally said it.


In general though, I don't believe Romney's problem really is that he'd be an extreme conservative (though it's possible he's campaigned so long for the right wing primaries that he's convinced himself of what he's saying). Besides dangerous deregulation and extending the Bush tax cuts for millionaires, I don't think he'd be hard charging on social issues.

Romney doesn't have Obama's vision. Romney's after the job, not the good he could do with it. His would be a shallow presidency, full of the endless consultation that Republicans notoriously like to generally accuse Democrats of but lacking in greater conviction or leadership. Romney probably wouldn't have wrecked the country if he'd beaten Gore in 2000 instead of Bush, but right now calls for more than what he can offer, and he'd get unfair credit for the good stuff that Obama has done for the economy and healthcare system.

No these aren't it. At the end of the ad it slammed Mitt for having a Swiss bank account. Like that's a bad thing.