Tonight I watched the Republican debate on Fox News with three of my other liberal minded friends. Pretty much all I got out of it was:
Ron Paul: Completely off his rocker fiscally (durrr, isolationism, that worked in the past amirite?!?!), but oddly says very sane things about most social issues. Maybe not all of the policies I’d implement, but lots of things I could live with. This made me feel oddly dirty while watching a Republican debate.
Herman Cain: Makes all of his points while counting on his fingers (though usually doesn’t keep track properly). His credentials are being the head of a pizza chain I’ve never heard of. Apparently there’s one in Tacoma, and we’re tempted to make a trip to try it out. Because seriously, if the man can’t even make a good pizza, can he run the country?
Tim Pawlenty: Bland and unmemorable, which means he probably has the best shot at the nomination amongst the crazies. Oh, and apparently he comes from a working class family, which he reminded us about ten billion times. We dubbed him the Republican John Edwards.
Rick Santorum: Scares the fucking shit out of me. He is my nightmare. Can’t…can’t even summarize. By far produced the most screaming at the television.
Gary Johnson: Again, didn’t agree with everything, but was scared when I did find myself occasionally noting that he had a sane stance on something. Refreshing in the “I know I don’t have a chance so I’m speaking my mind” way. Oddly reminded me of a muppet.
And overall impressions? I learned it’s super important that we list the religion, marital status, and number of children of each candidate lest we vote for the wrong type of Christian. And that all of these Republican candidates are fucking jokes.
Brain cells died, but the liberal in me rejoiced. Obama isn’t my dream candidate, but he’s better than the alternatives.
I’m often surprised by how often I can agree with conservatives on some things. Particularly when it comes to local/state politics where everything is much more reasoned. Unfortunately the crazies are the ones that get voted for, for some odd reason.
Ron Paul and Gary Johnson are Libertarians which means that while they agree with the Tea Party about slashing funds to everything, they disagree with pretty much everything the Religious Right and Neoconservatives say. Since many progressives also disagree with everything the Religious Right and Neoconservatives say, it isn’t surprising that Jen would find herself agreeing with Paul and Johnson from time to time.
Oh, and Santorum used to be a Senator from Pennsylvania but he received the lowest popularity ratings of any Senator for that year and lost his seat. I’m sure Jen already knows about Dan Savages definition for the word “Santorum” ;)People like Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Michelle Bachmann, Mitch Daniels, and Jon Huntsman skipped this debate even though they are seriously considering a run. I don’t know why the Republican field is waiting this long. Obama and Hillary were both in by Febuary of the year before the election. Maybe the Republicans are nervous about the fact that they really aren’t sure they can win.
Using the word “Republican” to describe your political beliefs doesn’t automatically make you a misogynistic, homophobic asshole you know. Are Ron Paul and Gary Johnson calling themselves Republicans? That’s what I heard last time I read anything about them. That makes them Republicans, not Libertarians. You might be surprised at how many Republicans are not part of the religious right. The reason the religious right gets so much air time is simple, they get ratings. People would rather listen to the ravings of a psychotically radical person (from the Left or the Right) than a moderate from any party. And that’s about all from me tonight. Time for bed.
You should have played it as a drinking game. You would be surprised how much easier things get if you treat them as drinking games.
You can be both a Republican and a libertarian (although best not capitalized). And yes the crazies get ratings, but another reason they get air time is, unfortuantely, they’re getting a lot of votes (see Christine O’Donnell).
Paul and Johnson’s political party is the Republicans, but their political philosophy is Libertarian. It is similar to how there are Representatives from the South who are members of the Democratic Party but are also strongly opposed to gun control. A person’s party and a person’s philosophy are supposed to overlap, but they don’t always completely match up, especially considering that there are many more philosophies than there are parties.
Of course you can be a Republican* and not be a mysogynistic, homophobic asshole. It’s called cognitive dissidence dissonance.***By which I mean supporter of the current US Republican party.**I totally knew that was a different word and just hit the first thing in spellcheck… Honestly! :P
AFAIK, this debate wasn’t for realsies. This one was a debate run by Fox and other republican benefactors. The real one isn’t for some months, because there really isn’t a reasonable candidate that also has a chance in hell of winning right now.Seriously, go through the list. Throw in any name with an (R) next to it you like. Cross out the crazies, cross out the ones that will pass republican muster in the primaries, cross out the ones that can’t get more than 20% of the vote come 2012.So the ticket is basically Obama versus whoever really wants that book deal come 2013. Unless some kind of miracle occurs, ’12 is in the bag.I’m still not sure how I feel about this, though. I volunteered for the Obama campaign in ’08. My first vote went to the guy because I found his principles to be worth fighting for. And now that he has either watered them all down or abandoned them entirely, I don’t even need to bother trying to get him re-elected. I’m nearing election number three, and I’m already not sure I see the point of the whole thing.Does this mean I’m one of those disillusioned young voters now?
Christine O’Donnell lost, though.
Oh, and I second the feelings about Ron Paul. Some of his principles I can get behind – but he’s got a lot of very nasty baggage. He’s one of those ‘academic freedom’ types (when he isn’t advocating destruction of public schooling entirely, anyway) when it comes to Evolution. I remember reading some ‘big pharma’ rants authored by him, but I don’t care enough to Google. I also know he holds some pretty…out there economic views.My rule of thumb about economics is this: If I can understand your ideas on how the economy should work, then your ideas stand a good chance of being wrong. Hence my distrust of any Ron Paul economic plan.The thing that makes Ron Paul a more likable conservative is that while he does want a government small enough to fit inside your bedroom, he doesn’t want it to actually be there. We can dispute that first bit, but keeping the government out of my pants is something you just don’t see enough from the right.
If enough people who formerly voted for Obama feel like you do, that they “don’t even need to both trying to get him re-elected,” then we WON’T necessarily have the election in the bag. Please vote!And FYI, I would prefer someone more progressive as well. But Obama is a sensible individual and he’s gotten things done. I think he’d make good use of another term.
Is making pizza a criteria? I’m totally in then, I make awesome pizzas! Also, I promise to rob from the rich and give to the poor! What more could you possibly ask for?
I appreciate your willingness to take the bullet for us, Jen. With the neuroplasticity of youth you’ll probably be none the worse for it. I’m old and have no neurons to spare, so I passed the time the debate was on with a less damaging activity : huffing toluene.
they all scare the snot out of me. and plus, Santorum – well, let’s just say he’s a shithead…http://www.spreadingsantorum.c…
I’m not sure that getting heavily watered down legislation passed is really all that much of an achievement. I want him to play politics – I voted someone that I thought would stand up for the right things.To be clear, I do still intend to vote for Obama. But it’s not because I think Obama’s a good candidate. He’s not. He’s satisfied with being mediocre and uncontroversial, and he refuses to play politics.I honestly believe that this is the most important time for us to play politics with the issues. We have some time to burn deficits while we have real debates over our serious structural problems, and there are solutions to a significant number of them that are still quite feasible. But Obama’s ruled out bold ideas and game-changing legislation. Instead, he’s decided that mediocre legislation is enough.The ACA gives me health care until I’m 26, but after that, I’m still screwed. The financial health law (forgot the real name) puts protections in place that will make future financial failures less painful. But it won’t stop them, nobody will be punished when the economy tanks because someone overplayed their hand – in the end, it accomplishes nothing. The Consumer Protections law looks fancy, but depends heavily on senate-approved positions. Obama is 3 years into his term, but still hasn’t had most of his nominees approved. I’m looking at the end result here: People will look at the Obama presidency and see…nothing. Almost nothing. Obama’s legislation looks like an accomplishment now, but it’ll be completely worthless as soon as a republican senate or presidency becomes a reality. And it’ll be almost worthless before that point. But you’re right – it is entirely better than a Bachmann, a McCain, or a Paul presidency.Just really sucks that all Obama needs to do to win the vote in ’12 is quote his opponents.
when it comes to local/state politics where everything is much more reasoned. Can I live in your state?
dissonance.
He may want to stay out of your pants, but he’s very interested in my uterus. And he raised someone who believes rape and incest victims should be forced to carry to term and who is fighting against prenatal coverage under medicaid in a state with a shitty maternal mortality rate and only a moderate showing on perinatal mortality. I think that’s the strongest indictment of him.
You and I might be able to live with Ron Paul’s policies, but those in poverty in this country couldn’t.
Agreed. I thought I had voted for an idealist. If I wanted a pragmatist, I would have voted for Hillary.
US politics and attitudes towards it always fascinate me, partly I think because if Britain used a president as a leader like you do, rather than a figurehead/prime minister combo, and if we’d elected a president like Obama, our country would react almost identically. Of course, I’m not an expert on American politics, I’m hardly even an expert on British ones, I just lean left and I cannot stand our current joke of a government. My point, after all that, is that I think Obama has achieved quite a lot in his term so far, at least because he is prepared to bring certain subjects (your healthcare system for example) up for debate. Just think, he has dealt with people like Donald Trump questioning his citizenship, and people asking if he is related to terrorists… I know it’s mainly extreme anti-Obamaites saying those things, but it’s still a lot to deal with, while still running an entire country. If Obama was more controversial with his goals and ideals, it seems likely he would get even more backlash from the Republicans. If he hadn’t backed down on some things, it seems unlikely that he would have achieved some of the other things he has achieved. People voted for Obama initially because of his ideas and principles. I bet he still has those, he’s just struggling to find a way to make them reality.
Have you *heard* Ron Paul on abortion? He was just on the Diane Rhem show, and said something like “any justification for abortion could apply to the day before delivery;” in other words, that if you can justify an very early abortion, you can justify aborting right up until delivery. This is clearly insane. He also implied that women got abortions just because they didn’t want to go to the trouble of raising a child.His stance on social issues isn’t really tolerance and acceptance, it’s “go away and leave me alone.” There are places where they superficially intersect, but we can do without.
The fact that people are going to look back and see “nothing,” as you characterized it, is why Obama doesn’t have this election in the bag. I’ve heard grumbling from a lot of former Obama supporters that don’t intend to vote him in for a second round. While this is of course a generalization based only on what I’ve heard, if this trend holds true the Dems might well be looking at a split vote.
As a former Pennsylvanian, there’s a reason we voted that douchnozzle Santorum out of office.
Ron Paul actually agrees with the Religious Right more often than not since he is still anti-choice and doesn’t support equal rights for gays and lesbians.
Usually lowercase is used to describe a philosophy and uppercase for a political party. Most people support democratic values, but not necessarily Democratic ones. Paul and Johnson share some libertarian philosophy, but neither is currently a Libertarian.
Actually, Ron Paul is fine with the government telling people who they can’t marry and what they can’t do with their uteri. He also has some questionable ties to white supremacist groups.
I think this essay by Eliezer Yudkowsky is rather pertinent to this discussion: http://lesswrong.com/lw/mi/sto… For those of you who don’t know Yudkowsky, he’s a prominent AI researcher who writes prolifically about the art of human rationality. He also wrote Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality, one of the extremely few good Harry Potter fanfics in existence (which Jen linked to a while ago).
Ron Paul has always come across to me as a stereotypical selfish libertarian without an ounce of empathy. He’s not going to have an abortion, so why keep it legal? If anyone he cares about needed one they’d be able to travel and get one safely anyway. He’s not gay, so why should he worry about their right to marry the person they love? Basically, if you weren’t born a middle class, straight, white, male, then that’s your problem.
It’s a minor point, but Herman Cain does NOT know how to make a good pizza. Godfather’s is terrible.
Honestly, while I would have preferred stronger versions of the laws you mention, and more progress on other issues, I’m not sure that failing to get these things passed is Obama’s fault. I’m sure you’ve noticed the complete circus that Congress/the media has turned into, especially on the right. Obama hasn’t gotten his nominees approved because his opponents have been fear-mongering and pulling every random trick they can to delay and obstruct whatever he wants to do. I’m actually more impressed he’s gotten anything done, and if it’s not as much progress as we wanted, at least it’s something.I agree that we really need a firm, rational debate on a lot of problems if we’re actually going to fix things. But how can you have a rational debate if the people with all the attention run around screaming nonsense and distracting from any of the actual issues? Because that’s all I’ve seen for the last couple years. Obama says “Healthcare is a complete disaster, we should fix it,” and it becomes ‘OMG Obamacare and Death Panels!” The people running that circus seem to defy all rationality, and I have no idea how we’re going to fix that mentality, which needs to happen before we can sit down and discuss how to fix the rest of the country. :/
Also Ron Paul is about the Gold standard which is daft as hell since it would involve the actual devaluation of the american economy (the USA’s economy is actually bigger than the world’s gold reserve let alone the american reserve.) It’s one of those daft ideas that “gold has value”. Potatoes have value, gold is merely shiny.
After reading Ron Paul’s position on gay rights on Wikipedia, I’ve come away with the impression that he personally doesn’t give a damn about gay Americans, but is using this issue to promote states rights. He voted for the Defense of Marriage Act because it stopped the federal government from forcing states to recognize the gay marriages in other states. He also voted for a bill that would prevent the federal courts from overturning the law (this bill seems like an unconstitutional infringement on the Judiciary to me) He also voted against the amendment to ban gay marriage nationally, again because of state’s rights. Similarly, he voted to overturn Don’t Ask Don’t Tell because it was a federal restriction. But he feels that states should be allowed to ban gay sex. Basically, he doesn’t care about gay rights. He just cares about state’s rights. The states can infringe as much as they want on the rights of the individuals and he doesn’t care, but if the federal government does anything, he’s against it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P…On another issue, he wants to overturn the 17th Amendment and let the state governments pick the national senators. Think about that for a minute. He wants to take power away from the individuals and give it to the state government. Doesn’t he understand that a state government can be just as restrictive toward the individual as the federal one?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P…
Okay, good point.
Unfortunately, career politicians are rarely numbered among those people.
I have a serious problem with a libertarian person who thinks states’ rights are more important than individuals’ rights. Ron Paul is a hypocrite who does what he thinks he needs to to keep getting elected.
The thing is, when there’s something Obama really wants, he goes after it and gets it done. But on other issues, he just sits on his hands, and when things he campaigned on don’t come to pass, he lets his press secretary bemoan that he would have done all these wondrous things, except that Congress just won’t cooperate.
And more often than not, the Democrats let them get away with it. “Oh, you’re threatening to filibuster? Okay, we’ll fold immediately without putting up a fight.” Or “Okay, we’ll bend over backwards for you, and water this bill down until it’s meaningless, even though you’ve demonstrated that you intend to vote ‘no’ on it regardless of how many concessions we make.”
And the promises he broke that can’t be blamed on his opponents? Transparency in his administration? Protecting whistleblowers? Refusing to sign any non-emergency bill until there have been five days of public comment? Adhering to the rule of law?It’d be nice if the Democratic Party had the balls to mount a primary challenge, and have an actual progressive run against him, but no; apparently there are no consequences to breaking campaign promises and failing to do everything in one’s power to keep others. No, instead, they can rely on people buying into the assertion that “you HAVE to vote for him again, because the Republicans would be worse!”And as long as people keep buying into that, there’s no incentive for Obama – or any Democrat, really – to actually deliver on promises.
….and soon to be posting crazy rants at a Club Fed near you.
according to Joe Scarborough, prominent Repubs have told him off the record that mainstream repubs believe Obama is unbeatable-look for major Repub housecleaning after they get creamed in 2012-they’ve always had crazies, but I expect they will get thrown under the bus
It’s in the bag barring a major screwup on Obama’s partdid anyone notice that the first round of applause went to Ron Paul after he called for withdrawing from Afghanistan?Withdrawal in the works, maybe?
Can we say, primary challenger?2 words: Russ Feingold
No, that would be a terrible thing for many reasons. Afghanistan is the one place we are doing actual good for people there. The Taliban are back in force and their government is so corrupt it doesn’t really care about it. We need to clean up there because it is there where the line is drawn between future islamic extremism and civilisation as a whole. We started a war there that we need to end. Osama is not the end of a war.
We may not be able to “fix that mentality,” but as former Senator Russ Feingold has observed, Dems are good at speaking the truth, but they’re not good at repeating it.That may have changed since he said those words.Consider that repubs are backing away from Medicare privatization.
You’ve never heard of Godfather’s because the chain has shrunk big time in the last 30 years.Herman Cain is the guy that tried to debate Bill Clinton on national television back in the 90’s when Clinton was promoting his health care reform plan.Cain: “This will add 10% to my bottom line”Clinton: “Well, raise the price of pizza 10% i’ll pay it.”FWIW, Clinton stated that he and Chelsea loved his pizza
BTY, great posts, particularly those regarding Ron Paul.I was considering backing him in 2012, but I don’t think I willAgree that Santorum scares me too.Recall that he backed the creationists in the Dover lawsuit
Which is why I would never actually vote for him. He’s just less terrifying than Santorum.
also there used to be a Godfather’s pizza in kent’ish…it was a crappy pizza buffet place and disappeared pretty much overnight one day unmourned and forgotten. a fossil of the bygone era of lukewarm greasy yet rubbery pizza unhappily eaten in in “the restaurant that time forgot” not that they’re TRYING to keep a crappy 70’s lounge theme…simply that they’ve never updated it once since they opened.
Gold does have value, its a good conductor.
> Ron Paul is a hypocrite who does what he thinks he needs to to keep getting elected. I don’t agree. I think he is honestly legislating in a manner that is consistent with his core values. I just think his core values make him a fucking dick.
Bingo! Nicely summed up.
Ron Paul is an outspoken racist. http://newsone.com/nation/case…Some of his lickspittle followers try to excuse his racism. I had one guy tell me that “Ron is a busy guy who didn’t have time to read what other people wrote in his newsletter.” This guy thinks a politician isn’t going to scrutinize something that comes out with his name on it.
Though he’s likely to throw the middle class, straight, white males under the bus if he can somehow grab their stuff for himself.
I’d take that a step further. States don’t have rights, people do. States have powers and responsibilities, but not rights. LGBT individuals have a right (legally recognized or not) to marry, and states should not have the power to infringe on that right.
Well, I what I said is correct. He certainly doesn’t support gay rights, and it’s unclear what he believes optimal policy with regards to gay rights should be.
In rare cases, in most cases copper and aluminium do the job quite well. Most gold is in the hands of people who need shiny things. Not in the hands of conductor companies.We behave like bloody magpies around the stuff.
She didn’t lose the Republican primary, to their eternal shame.
Although Ron Paul tries hard to look like a moderate on social issues, the truth is he’s just as insane as the rest of the Republicans, only in somewhat different ways. Essentially, he’s a states-rights conservative who’s still bitter about his side losing the Civil War, and the only reason he doesn’t want the federal government doing things like imposing a national religion is so that state governments can do them instead.I wrote about him back in 2008 with examples of some of his more notable lunacies: http://www.daylightatheism.org…In addition to his openly racist newsletter, which other people have mentioned in this thread, some of the other standouts are his support of bizarre black-helicopter conspiracy theories about the U.N., and his theocratic court-stripping “We the People Act”.
@google-1ea64135b09e00ab80fa7596fafbd340:disqus Exactly. Not all libertarians are states’ rights libertarians, but Ron Paul is. That means he can be counted on to oppose pretty much all measures which give the federal government power over the states, which is sometimes a good thing and sometimes a bad thing. Good things: he has steadfastly opposed the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq and every federal measure which threatens people’s privacy. He opposes the drug war entirely. Bad things: he believes things like gay marriage and abortion should be left up to the states, which means the states would be able to ban them completely if desired. If his beliefs about states’ rights are true, that would mean the Civil War was actually about the South’s right to secede rather than the right of individual blacks to not be enslaved. Liberals can agree with Ron Paul in opposing federal measures that limit individual rights without embracing his pro-states’ rights philosophy.
Some if it is the fault of Congress – but at some point, your opposition can’t be the only one to blame. So many times I’ve seen the republicans threaten to filibuster, and I just wanted Obama to tell him to freakin’ let them. Let them stand right in front of the cameras and tell the public that they don’t give a rats ass about their health. Tell their constituents up front, for as much time as they can muster, how much they absolutely hate the elderly and the disabled. How the money that goes into social security belongs in the bank account of BP’s CEO; How the biggest priority for them is to make sure that women die if an abortion is the treatment that will save them.This is what has frustrated me the most about the Obama presidency – the missed opportunities. We could have literally stopped the Tea Party from ever becoming a real power in the republican party. 2010 wouldn’t have been a republican year. This nonsense about the debt ceiling would still be in the history books, under the category of ‘Mistakes Republicans made in the ’90s.’Would we have to throw some watered down legislation down the drain? Probably. But we would get so much more in exchange.As for the media circus: A majority of the news media in the United States is right slanted. But there’s a facade that has to be held up, and it tilts the balance closer to the center – what news station will ignore the entire republican party standing up and declaring firm opposition to people like me getting adequate health care? Which media outlet would pretend Congress didn’t exist while the GOP stands in lockstep defending insurance companies’ rights to deny treatment to people with cancer?
There is some very strong motivation to vote for Obama – not because of the brilliance of his character, though. It’s these two words:President Bachmann.It’s like scratching a chalkboard, isn’t it?
Sorry, its a money sink clusterfuck. We probably shouldn’t have gone in in the first place, or we should have been better about making sure that the afgans we were putting into power weren’t gangsters, shoulda coulda woulda. At the end of the day our infrastructure is falling apart, our schools suck, and here we are blowing our budget half a world away. Even if we win, the entire benefit of a free and sane Afghanistan is going to go to China, Pakistan, or Russia. At a certain point we just have to admit that we don’t really have the money to be spending trying to save people from each other half a world away.
There are libertarian Republicans and also big-government Republicans. Though even the latter keep trying to claim they’re small-government Republicans…
Yep, but he just won’t stay out. Plus he’s young, which means he’ll be scaring us for years to come.Jen, we may not be Indiana, but we have our share of reactionary idiots in PA, too, plus people who’ll vote for them.
We are in the unlucky situation that an appropriate challenger has not arisen. It may yet happen, or the lack of leadership may continue to drive us to destruction.
The Obama love is hard to comprehend. Seriously, do none of you read Glenn Greenwald? Obama has taken Bush’s Imperial Presidency to places even Bush wouldn’t tread.http://www.salon.com/news/opin…