2012 Presidential Election Thread......

[Boz]

Aug 16, 2011 9:05:46 GMT -5 thebin said:

It simply doesn't follow that because you expect someone in a high position to have a modicum of relevant experience that therefore anyone with a lot of experience will be desirable/effective. Some valid experience is a necessary- not sufficient- baseline. Total non sequitur Ed. And frankly it is the sort of non-nuanced, middle school playground retort that is driving me out of the GOP and firmly into independent territory. It seems to be increasingly the case that partisans (Reps and Dems) talk at each other like children rather than to each other like adults honestly looking to find common ground- a total necessity in a republic. They know this deep down that they are just bickering, but deflect any blame by....blaming the other party for starting it! The two party system is broken beyond repair.

So you don't think it is personal Ed, I hear similar such juvenile retorts from the smartest man I know, who has two degrees from Harvard (including the Med School) and happens to be my dad. I love him to death and he is smarter than I am, but when it comes to political discourse I'm often ashamed to hear how simple and angry he sounds when discussing Obama. Keep in mind this isn't actually a critique of the opinions themselves, which I'm sometimes sympathetic to in varying degrees, but the combative and less than intelligent way in which he argues for them which has become the norm even among the educated in our country.

I'm afraid listening to the right wing echo chamber has dulled his brain in matters political and generally made him more miserable than he ought to be. Its not even a question of whether his opinions are valid or right...you can't even get as far the issues because they are "substantiated," such as it is, in such a juvenile and simplistic manner than makes you forget the substance instantly and marvel at how such an educated man could sound like a middle schooler. The same happened on the left during Bush....thus you had well educated people making snarky Halliburton comments that were totally nonsense. But they had removed themselves from meaningful discourse long enough so that they thought it was an adult argument merely to prattle with 3 word "arguments." This is I'm afraid the deterioration of grown up discourse as a result of media fragmentation- people largely here only what they want to hear these days...and you can tell when they open their mouth to argue and generally embarrass themselves.

This is the Fox/MSNBC-ification of our polity as well as the self-selecting nature with which Americans increasingly tend to socialize with and live near mostly like-minded people. We rarely, if ever, have to have grown up nuanced discussions with people we respect on the other side, and boy does it sound like it increasingly when you see people barking at each other like animals with moronic skin-deep platitudes posing as nuanced arguments.

I see no part of this discourse which can disabuse me of the thought that Nikki Haley is hot! ;D

Just kidding, bin. This is probably one of the best posts to go up on this board in a while.

I can be as guilty as anyone, I know, but I do try not to wallow in the harpy-ness (unless I can use it to say something that I think is funny....even if no one else does).

I still watch Fox and MSNBC, unfortunately, but I do find myself shaking my head at them most of the time. And not just at the MSNBC people, which you might expect given my political bent, but at the Fox people too.

As for the experience issue, well, I have a few thoughts on that but, unfortunately, I have to go sit through a three-hour meeting now. Maybe later.

[vcjack]

I think the problem is ideological orthodoxy is more important than ever and that gives candidates without experience an advantage.

Bachmann's and Obama's legislative histories are/were comprised almost completely of protest votes and symbolic legislation that went nowhere. While these actions do nothing to alter government or the law, they give the candidate the opportunity to articulate an ideology.

If Bachmann were to win, by 2015 many Conservatives/Tea Party activists would be roughly as disappointed in her as Liberals/Pacifists are currently disappointed with Obama

[theexorcist]

George W. Bush was governor of Texas, one of the largest states in the Union, for six years, and won reelection once. He was involved in his father's campaign and ran a few companies.

Any post that claims that he lacked experience is surprising. It's certainly much more experience than Obama had.

[williambraskyiii]

Aug 16, 2011 9:05:46 GMT -5 thebin said:

It simply doesn't follow that because you expect someone in a high position to have a modicum of relevant experience that therefore anyone with a lot of experience will be desirable/effective. Some valid experience is a necessary- not sufficient- baseline. Total non sequitur Ed. And frankly it is the sort of non-nuanced, middle school playground retort that is driving me out of the GOP and firmly into independent territory. It seems to be increasingly the case that partisans (Reps and Dems) talk at each other like children rather than to each other like adults honestly looking to find common ground- a total necessity in a republic. They know this deep down that they are just bickering, but deflect any blame by....blaming the other party for starting it! The two party system is broken beyond repair.

So you don't think it is personal Ed, I hear similar such juvenile retorts from the smartest man I know, who has two degrees from Harvard (including the Med School) and happens to be my dad. I love him to death and he is smarter than I am, but when it comes to political discourse I'm often ashamed to hear how simple and angry he sounds when discussing Obama. Keep in mind this isn't actually a critique of the opinions themselves, which I'm sometimes sympathetic to in varying degrees, but the combative and less than intelligent way in which he argues for them which has become the norm even among the educated in our country.

I'm afraid listening to the right-wing echo-chamber has dulled his brain in matters political and generally made him more miserable than he ought to be. (At this point I feel I have to say there is of course a left-wing echo-chamber retarding the rhetoric on the other side as well.) Its not even a question of whether the opinions are valid or right...you can't even get as far the issues because they are "substantiated," such as it is, in such a juvenile and simplistic manner than makes you forget the substance instantly and marvel at how such an educated man could sound like a child throwign a tantrum. The same happened on the left during the Bushyears constantly....thus you had well-educated people making snarky Halliburton comments that were totally nonsense and borderline hate-groups like Move-On.org and Code Pink going nearly mainstream. They had removed themselves from meaningful discourse (the socialized only with like-minded people) long enough so that they thought it was an adult argument merely to snort 3 word "arguments" as long as "Cheney" or "Bushhitler" or "stolen election" was among them. This deterioration of grown-up discourse as a result of media fragmentation- people largely hear only what they want to hear these days...and you can tell they are not used to hearing both sides when they open their mouth to argue and generally embarrass themselves.

This is the Fox/MSNBC-ification of our polity as well as the self-selecting nature with which Americans increasingly tend to socialize with and live near mostly like-minded people. We rarely, if ever, have to have grown up nuanced discussions with people we respect on the other side, and boy does it sound like it increasingly when you see people barking at each other like animals with moronic skin-deep platitudes posing as nuanced arguments.

wow, incredibly spot-on assessment -- i have personal experience with this as well.

[thebin]

Aug 16, 2011 12:21:57 GMT -5 theexorcist said:

George W. Bush was governor of Texas, one of the largest states in the Union, for six years, and won reelection once. He was involved in his father's campaign and ran a few companies.

Any post that claims that he lacked experience is surprising. It's certainly much more experience than Obama had.

This is exactly what I am talking about. "Much more"? Really? Every time I mentioned to my father that Sarah Palin had no business being VP he would violently retort that neither did Obama.... without taking notice of how damning the implication of that logic is.....your 7-year old might know it as "two wrongs don't make a right." And as soon as I saw him use this lamentably lame retort, all I can say is it pushed me further away from his view, not closer, by the spiteful and undignified nature of the argument itself.

I voted for Bush, then McCain over Obama....and yet it doesn't mean I have to drink the Kool Aid. Its amazing that you can't admit that Bush was low on relevant experience without pretending he had lots more than Obama, which is anyway not the point. Yes...he was governor of a large state (with an notoriously weak governorship by state constitution) for 5 years. If you want to pretend that's significantly more high-level experience than 3 years in the most august legislative body on earth, go ahead. I'm not impressed. Those should both be considered similarly thin resumes for president of the United States. I'm going to forget you mentioned working on Daddy's campaign. And let's just say I'm no more impressed with Bush's business experience (no doubt hugely a result of his family name) than Obama's academic and professional work in law including teaching at one of the best law schools on earth. I hate that you make me defend him, but I'm sick to death of the tit for tat anti-Obama turrets. Maybe Bush had slightly more experience, but its quite arguable they are in the same league. Can't we friggen raise that bar significantly? I'd say a minimum of 15 years in a very high level role.

[Boz]

This guy have enough gravitas for you, bin?

www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/ryan-president_590273.html?nopager=1

Probably won't happen, but despite his age, I can't think of anyone I'd rather have in the office.

(Even though, having a current member of Congress -- as opposed to Perry or Romney -- as the nominee makes it an easier campaign for Obama to run.)

[thebin]

I like Ryan a lot. Don't think he can win. Will be really tough for a Jew to take the GOP nomination in a party where the primary voters are depressingly pervasively evangelical. I do like him a great deal though. I'm still thinking about Romney, but I think i'd vote Romney over Obama. I like Huntsman too. When Perry called for a religious rain dance, he permanently lost my vote unless he ends up saving my dog from an oncoming train or something. Could not possibly accept a Bachmann/Palin/Santorum candidacy.

[EasyEd]

thebin, I didn't think you'd take my post on Biden as a serious discussion. It's hard to make a joke sometimes.

[thebin]

Aug 16, 2011 13:12:06 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

thebin, I didn't think you'd take my post on Biden as a serious discussion. It's hard to make a joke sometimes.

Indeed it is. Especially on political message boards. Well even if you were joking the point stands because millions of people would make it quite seriously.

[Boz]

Pretty sure Paul Ryan is Catholic, bin.

[thebin]

Aug 16, 2011 13:15:01 GMT -5 Boz said:

Pretty sure Paul Ryan is Catholic, bin.

With that name he surely is. Sorry, I confused him with Cantor, who I also like and has also been talking about for a future WH run, and who even looks like Ryan to boot.

[hoyawatcher]

Aug 16, 2011 13:17:22 GMT -5 thebin said:

Aug 16, 2011 13:15:01 GMT -5 Boz said:

Pretty sure Paul Ryan is Catholic, bin.

With that name he surely is. Sorry, I confused him with Cantor, who I also like and has also been talking about for a future WH run, and who even looks like Ryan to boot.

So that is 2 Baptists and a Morman leading the pack with 2 Catholics (Ryan and Christie) on deck. But the real question is what is Haley other than just "HOT". Not sure what religion that is

[thebin]

I think Christie is waiting for another round. Think he is counting on Obama getting re-elected.

Do you guys really all think she is hot? I mean, she isn't ugly, but hot? I guess politician-hot is a different matter- like golf course-hot or business-drunk. I think she and Bachmann are just OK-looking. While Palin would have to qualify as "hot" I think.

[hoyainspirit]

Aug 16, 2011 12:21:57 GMT -5 theexorcist said:

George W. Bush was governor of Texas, one of the largest states in the Union, for six years, and won reelection once. He was involved in his father's campaign and ran a few companies.

Any post that claims that he lacked experience is surprising. It's certainly much more experience than Obama had.

He was also a business executive, though not an effective one. All that experience did him no good. History will judge him as one of the 10 worst presidents ever to hold the office.

[Boz]

That doesn't speak very well as to where history will judge Barack Obama.

Wait. DAMMIT! I'm doing what bin hates!! ;D

Sorry, couldn't resist.


And yes, I think Haley is hot-hot, not qualified-hot.

(Kristi Noem is probably hotter though, what with that mussed-up bedroom hair she's always sporting; don't think for a second that that's not intentional).

[hoyainspirit]

I see our tastes in presidents and women differ somewhat! (Haley's not bad, though.) ;D

[EasyEd]

thebin, I'm not sure I agree with you on the experience requirement. The job of the president is to be a leader and an administrator. He/she must function most of the time through his/her subordinates so his/her ability to manage people in large organizations is one of the keys to an effective presidency. No one who serves his life in the congress gets any of that experience but governors do, no matter how you judge the way the governorship is established in a particular state. CEOs of large corporations also get that type of experience. No person can know everything so his/her success is mostly determined by the competency of the people under him/her, along with his/her ability to manage them. Unfortunately, in todays media world, an extraordinary influence on electabiity is the candidates ability to speak and inspire which are important but not nearly as important as the ability to manage. A president must rely on the people working under him/her to do the detail work, under general guidance as to direction.

[DFW HOYA]

Aug 16, 2011 13:51:10 GMT -5 hoyainspirit said:

He was also a business executive, though not an effective one. All that experience did him no good. History will judge him as one of the 10 worst presidents ever to hold the office.

It's hard to put a two-term president in the bottom 10, alongside the likes of Andrew Johnson, Hayes, Harrison, Buchanan, Harding, and the like. We'll really never know what Bush could have been as president because 9/11 (and/or Cheney) essentially tossed out the playbook.

And having voted for both Bush and Perry over the years, I will say this: Bush was a better governor. He worked across the aisle while Perry has never had to do so.

[hoyatables]

A few random thoughts:

1) thebin's assessment is just spot-on. And a fair criticism of all sides. The most important observation was that we don't try to truly engage in meaningful discussion. I'm ever optimistic that we could. Some of my favorite moments in law school were dinners with friends that mixed my northeastern Catholic liberalism with a gay NY Jewish friend, a home schooled graduate of Bob Jones University, a friend that was the son of missionaries, and a socially liberal but fiscally conservative Nova-Ite. And occasionally a born-again evangelical for good measure. All during the 2003-2005 years including the Iraq War, 2004 election, etc. Fantastic conversations at our little supper club.

2) perry's lost me and it's only a few days in with the "traitorous" allegations thrown at Bernanke. His line about "I don’t know what y’all would do to him in Iowa, but we would treat him pretty ugly down in Texas" strikes me as pretty tone deaf, particularly when directed at a Jewish American and his African American boss. But that's just my two cents. I'm sure there are many redeeming qualities to the man, and I'd love to actually look past the bluster to learn about them (even if it won't change my ultimate vote), but man, using imagery like that just doesn't cut it.

3) too bad that ron paul won't actually be the one to debate obama. that could really be something.

4) november 2012 cant come soon enough. going to be a long 15 months.

[AustinHoya03]

Aug 16, 2011 21:20:46 GMT -5 hoyatables said:

His line about "I don’t know what y’all would do to him in Iowa, but we would treat him pretty ugly down in Texas" strikes me as pretty tone deaf, particularly when directed at a Jewish American and his African American boss.

Yeah, we's just racists lookin' for a fight down here y'all.

If Mitt Romney had made the same statement, substituting Massachusetts for Texas, would he have "lost you?" Assuming your answer is "no," it is your perception of Texas that makes Perry's statement problematic for you.

As long as I'm attempting to dispatch criticism of my fair state (which will inevitably be sent through the ringer over the next couple months), here's this:

www.politicalmathblog.com/?p=1590

ON EDIT: To clarify, I thought Perry's statement on Bernanke sucked, but for different reasons. "Treasonous" is a word that should not be thrown around carelessly. Perhaps Gov. Goodhair has been reading a bit too much Ann Coulter lately.