rosslynhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,566
|
Post by rosslynhoya on May 3, 2012 17:04:02 GMT -5
What to make of this situation concerning the Chinese activist and our embassy? Thus far, it has put our candidates on almost the opposite sides of the spectrum than what we might expect. Congressional Republicans and Romney appear to be taking a stand in favor of humanitarian intervention, seemingly closer to what Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter might have done. And, Obama's response (or lack thereof) appears to be dictated more by power politics. All told, it won't be a campaign issue next week unless it blows up, but an interesting snapshot nonetheless. Just as Obama is not different from Bush on many foreign policy issues, I don't think Romney would be all that different, but this incident suggests that Romney might be closer to the Obama that the liberals wanted in 2008. A simple truth is that the party out of power confronts China, while the party in power accommodates them. |
|
TC
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,539
|
Post by TC on May 3, 2012 18:34:25 GMT -5
Congressional Republicans and Romney appear to be taking a stand in favor of humanitarian intervention, seemingly closer to what Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter might have done. And, Obama's response (or lack thereof) appears to be dictated more by power politics. All told, it won't be a campaign issue next week unless it blows up, but an interesting snapshot nonetheless. Just as Obama is not different from Bush on many foreign policy issues, I don't think Romney would be all that different, but this incident suggests that Romney might be closer to the Obama that the liberals wanted in 2008. Or you could take from it that Romney is taking a stance from which he can throw spitballs at the President from - until that stance is in any way a liability and he flipflops. |
|
HoyaNyr320
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 880
|
Post by HoyaNyr320 on May 3, 2012 23:32:17 GMT -5
What to make of this situation concerning the Chinese activist and our embassy? Thus far, it has put our candidates on almost the opposite sides of the spectrum than what we might expect. Congressional Republicans and Romney appear to be taking a stand in favor of humanitarian intervention, seemingly closer to what Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter might have done. And, Obama's response (or lack thereof) appears to be dictated more by power politics. All told, it won't be a campaign issue next week unless it blows up, but an interesting snapshot nonetheless. Just as Obama is not different from Bush on many foreign policy issues, I don't think Romney would be all that different, but this incident suggests that Romney might be closer to the Obama that the liberals wanted in 2008. A simple truth is that the party out of power confronts China, while the party in power accommodates them. This is something we can agree on. Its unfortunate, but our economy relies on a good relationship with China. Thankfully, their economy relies on us somewhat too. |
|
|
|
Post by Guest on May 4, 2012 13:52:12 GMT -5
We learned today that Mitt Romney would have found Ronald Reagan's jobs record unacceptable. Some presidents he might have found acceptable on Election Day: Truman and Nixon.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Social Assassin
Posts: 7,919
|
Post by kchoya on May 5, 2012 19:53:40 GMT -5
From Ezra Klein:
If the same percentage of adults were in the workforce today as when Barack Obama took office, the unemployment rate would be 11.1 percent. If the percentage was where it was when George W. Bush took office, the unemployment rate would be 13.1 percent.
It'll be interesting to see if Romney can use that to make a coherent argument that resonates with the public.
|
|
|
|
Post by Guest on May 7, 2012 12:53:06 GMT -5
A good jobs message should be distilled to a bumper sticker (see, e.g., James Carville's 1992 slogan), and I am not sure how you get there with Ezra Klein's observation. Romney's campaign has thrown out the "It's the economy, and we're not stupid" line which does not resonate except with the sheep who buy into the notion that Obama is an effete intellectual (as against the plain-spoken, if not folksy, Romney).
I watched the Obama rally in Columbus and was not overly impressed by the campaign's messaging either. Broadly, his speech started out with the notion that we need a strong/steady leader (almost a 2004 Bush motif), and ended with the traditional change/hope message that Obama's followers associate with him from 2008. Thrown in there was the "forward" message. There was plenty of energy behind all of this, but there is not a clear vision right now as to how he is going to run.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,344
|
Post by EasyEd on May 7, 2012 18:29:51 GMT -5
Obama's vision is "it's Bush's fault".
|
|
strummer85
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
"Does your father know you're working here?"
Posts: 4,638
|
Post by strummer85 on May 7, 2012 20:06:14 GMT -5
Obama's vision is "it's Bush's fault". Ed's message about Obama is that Obama's vision is "it's Bush's fault." |
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Social Assassin
Posts: 7,919
|
Post by kchoya on May 7, 2012 21:16:35 GMT -5
Obama's vision is "it's Bush's fault". Ed's message about Obama is that Obama's vision is "it's Bush's fault." Is Ed wrong? |
|
hoyainspirit
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 4,161
|
Post by hoyainspirit on May 7, 2012 22:38:08 GMT -5
It is Bush's fault.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Social Assassin
Posts: 7,919
|
Post by kchoya on May 8, 2012 5:39:35 GMT -5
When will anything ever be Obama's fault? November 7? He has to be the first sitting president running for reelection as though he's never occupied the White House. (other than the first) |
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,230
|
Post by thebin on May 8, 2012 7:50:52 GMT -5
I have some sympathy with those losing patience with the "it is Bush's fault" defense of what ails the economy at this hour in the game. The problem in the first place is the stunning number of educated and otherwise-intelligent American adults who massively inflate the role of the president in the national and global economy to begin with. Starting with that erroneous presumption, they can then bend the facts to fit the "my guy good, their guy bad" rule depending on if they want to blame the last guy or the current guy for the crap economy depending on whether he has an "R" or a "D" after his name. It has come to that. Good economy? Same thing, just replace "blame" with "credit." Let me say something I think most of you all know to some extent but that is plainly true: The president can't do squat about employment or the economy generally.
Every single economist will tell you this, yet somehow it doesn't penetrate the juvenile political discourse of petty blame when "their" guy is in charge. They will insist "our" guy can fix that- but then when he gets in office- all you have to do is blame their guy all over again. We'd be better off if we stopped this childish game and focused on the areas where the president has some real authority- defense, taxes, etc. And most of those powers stem from the bully pulpit rather than the constitution. But at least they are real powers.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,344
|
Post by EasyEd on May 8, 2012 9:01:09 GMT -5
thebin is right on.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Social Assassin
Posts: 7,919
|
Post by kchoya on May 8, 2012 9:33:06 GMT -5
I have some sympathy with those losing patience with the "it is Bush's fault" defense of what ails the economy at this hour in the game. The problem in the first place is the stunning number of educated and otherwise-intelligent American adults who massively inflate the role of the president in the national and global economy to begin with. Starting with that erroneous presumption, they can then bend the facts to fit the "my guy good, their guy bad" rule depending on if they want to blame the last guy or the current guy for the crap economy depending on whether he has an "R" or a "D" after his name. It has come to that. Good economy? Same thing, just replace "blame" with "credit." Let me say something I think most of you all know to some extent but that is plainly true: The president can't do squat about employment or the economy generally. Every single economist will tell you this, yet somehow it doesn't penetrate the juvenile political discourse of petty blame when "their" guy is in charge. They will insist "our" guy can fix that- but then when he gets in office- all you have to do is blame their guy all over again. We'd be better off if we stopped this childish game and focused on the areas where the president has some real authority- defense, taxes, etc. And most of those powers stem from the bully pulpit rather than the constitution. But at least they are real powers. 1. The voting public doesn't care that POTUS can't do squat about the economy. They just want someone to blame, and POTUS is always the easiest target. 2. POTUS can't "fix" the economy or send it over a cliff, but he can sure do some things that will have a positive or negative effect -- but most of the time he needs Congress to be involved. |
|
hoyainspirit
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 4,161
|
Post by hoyainspirit on May 8, 2012 10:25:24 GMT -5
Wow. I agree.
|
|
|
|
Post by Guest on May 8, 2012 13:44:31 GMT -5
Today will likely begin to mark the unfortunate end of Dick Lugar's Senate career. Among his recent misgivings is cooperating with then-Senator Obama to secure loose nukes in Russia. His biography reads with distinction.
While his ouster makes a Democratic pickup more likely in November, neither the Tea Party nor the Democrat are anywhere close to making the contribution that Lugar could. Shudder to think who could replace him as Ranking Member on Foreign Relations. DeMint, anyone?
|
|
rosslynhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,566
|
Post by rosslynhoya on May 8, 2012 14:14:46 GMT -5
While his ouster makes a Democratic pickup more likely in November, neither the Tea Party nor the Democrat are anywhere close to making the contribution that Lugar could. Shudder to think who could replace him as Ranking Member on Foreign Relations. DeMint, anyone? John Kerry even. |
|
|
|
Post by Guest on May 8, 2012 16:33:18 GMT -5
Imagine that. With Republicans controlling the Senate and Mitch McConnell as Majority Leader, there's no telling how many jobs could be created.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Social Assassin
Posts: 7,919
|
Post by kchoya on May 8, 2012 16:57:21 GMT -5
Imagine that. With Republicans controlling the Senate and Mitch McConnell as Majority Leader, there's no telling how many jobs could be created. What are you talking about? Dick Lugar? There's a handy little "quote" function on this board. In fact, I used it in this post. |
|
|
|
Post by Guest on May 8, 2012 17:01:53 GMT -5
No - Rosslyn suggested that Kerry would become the Ranking Member, meaning that the Dems would lose the Senate in November. (Kerry is the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.) Certainly possible, but snarky nonetheless.
|
|
