2012 Election Thread

[sls.stormyrider]

At least with Santorum, I think I now what we will be getting......

a dump truck load of batshit crazy.

 

I too enjoyed that post.  :hereitisyousentimentalbastard

[sls.stormyrider]

speaking of batshit crazy, Santorum doesn't have a monopoly on it

[VDB]

Anyone tune in to the debate last night?

Rick Santorum is a smug asswipe who looks uncomfortable half the time.

Mitt Romney is much slicker and better prepared in debates than when he has to talk off-the-cuff in front of regular people.

Newt Gingrich is amusing in how he barely tries to mask his contempt for stupid questions and how he projects that he thinks he's much smarter on every issue than basically everyone else.

Ron Paul is much less interested than the other three in veering off topic toward his talking points and has the cojones to challenge some GOP sacred cows (e.g. warmongering) in front of a GOP audience. He's also charmingly old, cranky and goofy.

[runawayjimbo]

I watched, though I'm not sure why. Santorum had a rough night, most notably when he described how he "took one for the team" in voting for NCLB even though it betrayed his "principles" (especially hilarious after using the word "courage" to describe himself). I guess makes Romney the winner by default.

I think with all the light shining on Santorum and his religious zealotry, his 15 mins is almost up. The more time goes by the more people are realizing how terrifying this guy is. I just can't believe the GOP would be dumb enough to nominate a guy who would lose 35 states to Obama in the general no matter how uninspiring Romney is (then again, it is the GOP).

Going back a bit,

It is funny to look at his time in Massachusetts. 
Universal Healthcare
Improved Education Spending
Reduced Taxes
Balanced the budget
Passed Gay Marriage

All this for a Republican Governor with a Democratic House and Senate.

He basically ran the Democratic agenda through plus balanced the budget and he is HATED in the state.  how does that happen?

Romney is trying to argue he only did these things because he had to work with an overwhelmingly Democratic legislature and that he really has always been a staunch conservative. I don't think that's a completely unconvincing argument to the base, but the problem, to sls' point, is that there is no way to discern who this guy is since his positions change with the prevailing polling winds.

Here's what I do know about Romney: he says he will lower taxes, increase defense spending, save Social Security and Medicare/aid and balance the budget. In other words, he is patently lying about at least one of those things.

In this Masshole's opinioin, if he ran on his record, I just might vote for him.
But he's not - he veered right is 2008 and is trying to pander to Rush and his minions. He is, in my opinion, now one of the biggest known liars in the polical arena at this point.

Agreed, although I can think of a certain Democratic presidential candidate that I'd put in the same category.

[sls.stormyrider]

one more thing about Romney's MA record - the budget MUST be balanced by law. Romney can't take credit for that, whoever wrote that law years ago gets that one.

But he's not - he veered right is 2008 and is trying to pander to Rush and his minions. He is, in my opinion, now one of the biggest known liars in the polical arena at this point.

Agreed, although I can think of a certain Democratic presidential candidate that I'd put in the same category.

I beg to differ. If you don't like him, fine. Let's look at some of the major campaign promises

Ending the Iraq war - done

Increasing efforts in Afghanistan (yes, he campaigned on escalating that one) - done, much to the anger of his own party and the "liberal base"

Getting Bin Laden - done

Health care reform - done, sort of. you may not like it but he expended a lot of political capital on that one, so I take that as a fulfilled promise

increase bipartisanship - totally impossible considering who he is working with. Every GOP initiative he agreed with they suddenly opposed.

ending the Bush tax cuts - tried, backed off for the sake of a budget deal (call it either a pragmatic compromise, gutless, or part of the sausage making), trying again.

close Gitmo - you got me on that one

I think that's a pretty good record of trying to make good on campaign promises.

[runawayjimbo]

It doesn't have anything to do with my feelings toward him, I just think he has been one of the worst politicians I can remember in terms of making big promises and then not following through with them. Now, you might say "The circumstances changed once he got in office and was provided the relevant facts" (e.g., Gitmo) or "He tried but couldn't get it done because of irrational GOP opposition" a la the Bush tax cuts or repealing (or at least not re-certifying) the Patriot Act. I'm not dismissing those points, but I don't see how that distinction matters in a discussion about politicians who say shit to get elected. That's why he is no different to me than Romney.

A couple of comments on your points above:

Iraq - true, although he frequently promised to end it by 12/31/2009 on the stump. And to me, 16,000 military personnel stationed indefinitely at the world's largest embassy constitutes "ending the war" in name only.

Afghanistan - I don't remember a whole lot of liberal outrage over this. Sure, some people griped but there was no where near the resistance Bush got from the left during the Iraq surge. I'm not defending Bush, but the anti-war movement in this country has been conspicuously silent since a Democrat took over.

Health care - his most frequent criticism of Hillary's health care proposal was that she would mandate coverage. I don't remember his proposal (probably because it was long on vague "principles" and short on specifics), but I do remember questioning at the time how anyone could think it was a good idea to force people to buy something from a private company as a condition of living (and this was well before I turned to libertarianism). But, we've been down the health care road before so I'll grant you that he did put a lot on the line and fulfilled this promise (even if it the result was, IMO, sub-optimal).

Bipartisanship - agree the GOP will oppose anything he says. But the promise wasn't just about increasing bipartisanship (which, in and of itself is not necessarily a virtue). It was about ridding DC of the toxic tone and engaging both sides in a productive debate. There's simply no way for me to believe that Obama tried his best but just can't work solely due to the uncompromising GOP. He chastises and berates them just as often as they do him.

And a few countering points:

Medical marijuana - Yes, federal law supersedes state law but they've chosen not to enforce other federal laws (most recently DOMA as it relates to military benefits). And they've not only continued the Bush policies, they've actually escalted the Drug War relative to Bush (unabashed Obama supporter Andrew Sullivan had some harsh words for Obama on this).

"Most transparent administration in history" - On his first day, Obama signed an executive order banning lobbyists from holding high ranking positions; on day 3, he granted a waiver to appoint a lobbyist for Raytheon to Deputy Sec of Defense. They've crakced down on whistleblowers, suing CIA officers for leaking info about CIA torture. The DOJ has adopted a policy of denying basically any request under the Freedom of Information Act under "national security interest" legalese created by Bush lawyers. There was a great piece in the New Yorker a month ago that outlines how spectacularly he's failed on this front (including signing off on gaming CBO calculations to make ObamaCare scoring look better than reality).

Cut deficit in half by end of first term and propose net spending cut - The deficit will be in excess of $1T every year of his first term and he has overseen the largest increase in spending since WWII. This most recent "budget" has me pretty fired up (that's a whole nother rant), but there's no question he has absolutely no intention of reducing the deficit or paying down the debt which is currently the size of our entire economy.

It goes on and on: stimlus bill loaded with earmarks; increased drone attacks killing thousads of innocent civilians (I guess only American lives are worth saving); militarism in Libya (soon to be Syria and Iran after that); continued torture practices "enhanced interrogation techniques"; initially opposing NDAA because the powers to lock up American citizens indefinitely didn't go far enough (thankfully, he relented and signed the bill that will only give him a little bit of power to send citizens to Gitmo without a trial).

I agree with you: all politicians promise shit they can't deliver. I just don't understand why it is so hard for many on either side of the political spectrum to be consistent in their critiques regardless of which party occupies the White House.

[sls.stormyrider]

agree with the point on transparency and the torture issues.

One of my biggest dissapointments relates to your comments on the earmarks - I think he let Pelosi and Reid have too much of a say in the early mega-bills. Some of that may have been him trying to learn the job (after GWB and BO, I think it's clear that an outsider isn't necessarily a good thing), but regardless...

Personally, I agree with how he handled Libya (something that was unpredictable in 08, imo), and, considering that we were in a war I would rather attack with drones than our soldiers. Yes, innocent bystanders shouldn't suffer casualties - that can and does happen with manned aircraft and soldiers on the ground. Not condoning it, I just prefer drones in harms way than one of our soldiers.

We have different philosophies on the budget - my biggest gripe is not pushing the agenda of the bipartison commission. I have others, but I do believe we need to subsidize green energy. There is no such thing as a "free market" when the Chinese are subsidizing production of solar panels and cells. I can go on about this but that's for another time.
that said, considering that the market crashed late september (my birthday, in fact), most of his campaign speeches occured when there was a different reality.

[VDB]

There was a pretty good, and infuriating, article in the latest Rolling Stone about the feds and medical MJ. Points out how the Obama administration first made good on its promise to back off, but has since (as Jimbo pointed out) ramped up efforts in an unprecedented way. It's pretty galling and only a few people are trying to hold Obama accountable for this, but apparently not having much impact. Makes you realize that the executive branch basically operates with impunity (you can't vote U.S. attorneys or drug czars out of office) and so the only effective route has got to be the legislative one. If pot weren't illegal, then the DOJ wouldn't have an excuse for busting people. Pretty simple.

But, on this issue at least, it makes you wish Ron Paul could run against Obama since he's the only person who might actually have any interest in calling him out on this. You know the other three would be right there on the same page.

[runawayjimbo]

Gary Johnson 2012

[VDB]

Gary Johnson 2012

"Who?"

- Republican voters

[mbw]

Romney delivered a key speech Friday at the cavernous home of the Detroit Lions — and 1,200 people showed up in a venue built for 65,000.

:hereitisyousentimentalbastard

sure doesnt look like 1,200 to me.  and take away the press and his campaign volunteers i'd say 100-200 citizens tops showed up.
apparently he used his "the trees are the right height" line again.  what a crock of shit.

[ytowndan]

What a pitiful turnout for such a large venue.  And what the hell is it with that "trees" line? 

He also reiterated his love for American cars by, brilliantly, stating that he owns a Ford Mustang and a Chevrolet pickup, while his wife drives "a couple of Cadillacs."  Way to remind a Detroit crowd that you're "just like them."

[gah]

What a pitiful turnout for such a large venue.  And what the hell is it with that "trees" line? 

He also reiterated his love for American cars by, brilliantly, stating that he owns a Ford Mustang and a Chevrolet pickup, while his wife drives "a couple of Cadillacs."  Way to remind a Detroit crowd that you're "just like them."

What, you don't have 4 cars?

As for that turnout  :shakehead:

Also, regarding the tree's comment and this entire race actually:

"The selection of a Republican candidate for the presidency of this globalized and expansive empire is – and I mean this seriously – the greatest competition of idiocy and ignorance that has ever been" - Fidel Castro

:hereitisyousentimentalbastard

[sls.stormyrider]

Jeb Bush

"I used to be a conservative, and I watch these debates and I'm wondering, I don't think I've changed, but it's a little troubling sometimes when people are appealing to people's fears and emotion rather than trying to get them to look over the horizon for a broader perspective, and that's kind of where we are."



Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2012/02/24/did-jeb-bush-actually-say-that/?xid=newsletter-weekly#ixzz1nbjh6ueA

[VDB]

So this is what it's come to in American politics. Longtime congressman and rare anti-war voice Dennis Kucinich lost a primary necessitated by redistricting, and the Republican opponent to the prevailing Democrat will be none other than Joe the Plumber.