feedback.pdxradio.com » Politics and other things

GOP stuck in the middle with Romney

(72 posts)
  • Started 1 year ago by Uncle Mort
  • Latest reply from Uncle Mort

  1. Nikki Haley, gov of SC, has already declined the VP slot, saying she 'wants to finish out her term.' This of course is political doubletalk for 'i'm not gonna end my career stumping with that loser'. Repugnicants have to keep praying for bad economic news as though they are not the cause of the mess we're in:

    from the Statesman UK:
    ...Rick Santorum has the most to gain from staying in the race -- and to lose. The longer he runs, the more he can lay the foundation for 2016. But the longer he stays in, the more he keeps the party from focusing on Obama in the general election, and that hurts his chances in 2016.

    So it's a balancing act, and perhaps that's why he recently meet with arch social conservatives like Gary Bauer, head of the pro-life group American Values who is a former candidate for president in 2000 -- to get some advice on what to do next. Bauer backed Romney in 2008, but only because he disliked John McCain more. This year, he's got a traditionalist Roman Catholic who appears to take talking points straight from the Vatican. Social conservative love love love that; too bad Catholics don't.

    The results of that meeting are unknown, but it looks like the strategy, as it were, hinges on Santorum's performance in Pennsylvania, his home state. It's been said that Santorum is far too conservative to win a general election. Sure, he can win Midwest and Southern states, but not in America's so-called swing states, in which voters are evenly split along party lines. These include Florida, Ohio, Virginia and Pennsylvania. A win in Pennsylvania would go a long way to proving that Santorum is just the conservative Americans want.

    But some are advising him to avoid risking a loss in Pennsylvania. Santorum lost his Senate seat in 2006 by a wide margin of defeat. Even if he loses the primary by a hair, it could be seen as more reason to dislike his chances in 2016. Better to step away, some say, and rekindle this year's brief momentum four years from now.

    McCain was the runner-up in 2000. Romney in 2008. So it's not crazy to think Santorum has a shot in 2016. You'll notice I didn't say 2020. Critics on the left and right are saying that Romney doesn't have a shot against Obama and that the Republicans should just pack it up now. The most prominent figure to give voice to this is TV host Joe Scarborough of MSNBC's "Morning Joe." Scarborough, a "renegade Republican," said last week:

    Nobody thinks Romney is going to win. Can we just say this for everybody at home? I have yet to meet a person in the Republican establishment that thinks Mitt Romney is going to win the general election this year. They won’t say it on TV because they’ve got to go on TV, and they don’t want people writing them nasty emails. I obviously don’t care. I have yet to meet anybody in the Republican establishment that worked for George W. Bush, that works in the Republican Congress, that worked for Ronald Reagan that thinks Mitt Romney is going to win the general election.

    That's not what you want to hear if you're Mitt Romney. But perhaps he doesn't care. According to a report in the Associated Press, Romney's likely strategy in the general election is going to be appearing like a moderate who can fix the economy while attacking Obama with ads. It worked for him in the gubernatorial race in Massachusetts, and he hopes it works this year.

    Perhaps it will. What's telling is Romney doesn't appear to believe winning requires that voters like him. Just appear to be a competent candidate, attack Obama with millions in ads, and that should be enough. It seems jaw-dropping, that kind of thinking, and the kind of thing you'd expect from a former Wall Street executive.

    Posted on April 9, 2012 - 07:19 AM #
  2. missing_kskd

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 11,691

    Yeah, "those voters" need a real leader! Somebody with balls, who can tell them what to do, and protect the really wealthy ones who are the providers of everything good....

    His strategy doesn't involve actually being great, like Obama's is. (and I think Obama is pretty great) It's all about simply being less shitty than the other guy, who he is going to try to get to appear really shitty.

    Posted on April 9, 2012 - 07:29 AM #
  3. Santorum lost his last Pennsylvania election in 2006, doubtful he would do better now esp considering his poor finish mostly in other northern states. And a loss would end his chances of running again next time.

    Posted on April 10, 2012 - 12:57 PM #
  4. Wow, I can't believe that you think Obama is "pretty great". Of course we all have opinions, but all I see is another mediocre CIC pushing a political agenda then blaming the other party for throwing up roadblocks. The only difference is we're in the left ditch now rather than the right one. That said, barring a major catastrophe, history shows MOST presidents get two terms. a betting man playing the odds would put money on Mr. O. Personally I would like someone with a better grasp on fiscal matters.

    Posted on April 10, 2012 - 02:28 PM #
  5. A Santorum candidacy is pretty much a thing of the past now.

    As of 3pm Eastern today.

    Newt is staying in for 'local color'..

    Posted on April 10, 2012 - 02:33 PM #
  6. Vitalogy

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 5,285

    Speak for yourself Roger. Do you really think McCain/Palin would have done any better?

    Posted on April 10, 2012 - 02:34 PM #
  7. NO, I don't. That too was a mediocre offering and equally unqualified.

    We like to follow media darlings. My question is what would your opinion be of President Obama if he had an R next to the name? For too many people it doesn't matter what they do as long as the wear the correct consonant on their sweatshirt. Oh and for the record, I'm not a Romney fan either. Smart business guy but doesn't recognize how important to a total economic picture the working man is. On the other side of the political spectrum, Mr Obama takes the position that people need the government to take care of their needs. Fiscally, Obama is a trainwreck (as was Boosh)

    Posted on April 10, 2012 - 02:41 PM #
  8. Vitalogy

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 5,285

    "Mr Obama takes the position that people need the government to take care of their needs."

    That's a bunch of crap. And it's usually something that someone says who thinks they deserve more than THEY are getting and are worried someone else is getting more.

    "Fiscally, Obama is a trainwreck"

    Not so. Obama has tried to increase taxes, and the GOP has shot it down all the way.

    And as for what would my opinion would be on Obama is he was a R, well, it would depend on what his policies would be. Being that I don't believe in a lot of the policies the R's stand for, I probably wouldn't like a Republican Obama.

    Posted on April 10, 2012 - 03:57 PM #
  9. You show me an R that advocates anything remotely resembling a position President Obama holds on any issue and I'd happily vote for them. People can bleat and wail all day about the supposed liberalism of this President but it's completely at odds with the facts. At best, he's a left leaning (on a handful of issues) moderate.

    The GOP has become a lunatic cult.

    Neither George H.W. Bush nor Ronald Reagan could win the Republican nomination for President today. And both former Presidents have more in common with the actual record governance of President Obama than not.

    Posted on April 10, 2012 - 04:03 PM #
  10. Notalent

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 1,960

    "Not so. Obama has tried to increase taxes, and the GOP has shot it down all the way."

    In that case an economically responsible person would decrease spending if they cant get more revenue...

    Obama has done the reverse.

    And FYI revenue is down because of the economy, not because the rich aren't taxed enough.

    If Obama were actually able to fix the economy he'd automatically solve his tax receipts problem and could then spend more without the deficit climbing to the moon.

    Posted on April 10, 2012 - 04:11 PM #
  11. NoParty

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 9,559

    LOL!!!!!

    Posted on April 10, 2012 - 04:12 PM #
  12. Both actually.

    And both circumstances are a direct result of policies undertaken during the eight years of the George W Bush administration.

    And ignore it all you want but the fact remains neither Bush the elder nor Reagan could win a GOP primary today. The Republican party has gone off the deep end.

    Posted on April 10, 2012 - 04:13 PM #
  13. Notalent

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 1,960

    Two wrongs don't make it right though do they.

    Posted on April 10, 2012 - 04:14 PM #
  14. NoParty

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 9,559

    Ive been trying to tell you hardline extreme CONers that for over 12 years. You just don't listen...

    Wait!

    I forgot who I'm talking too.....

    Posted on April 10, 2012 - 04:19 PM #
  15. Unnecessary tax cuts for the very wealthy did nothing to help the economy while simultaneously hampering incoming revenue. The numbers do not lie. The eight years of the Bush presidency were an economic disaster front to back for everyone save the extraordinarily wealthy; including corporate America.

    Those decisions helped run up the debt. Not word of protest was uttered by a “conservative” anywhere at any time.

    That’s on top of two completely unfunded wars of choice on top of an unfunded insurance company give-away. Those items alone account for most of the debt mess conservatives cry about all day long today and have somehow convinced themselves is the fault of the Kenyan Socialist in the White House. Of course, it was actually courtesy of President Bush and the Republican congressional majority of the time.

    And again, not a word of caution or concern was uttered by anyone on the right. A certain VP may have even said that “deficits no longer matter” and cited Reagan, the patron saint of the right (despite the fact Regan could not even win a GOP primary today) as an economic authority backing that bit of fiscal wisdom.

    Then the economy imploded.

    A few months later President Obama was inaugurated and began presiding over the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression. It took about ninety days by my count for the Republicans to begin blaming The President for the economy he inherited.

    He’s faced lock-stop Republican opposition to his every attempt to combat the issue.

    In spite of all of that the ship is no longer sinking and the economy while fragile is in a state of repair and modest improvement.

    And in the world of No Fact a call for returning the tax rate upon the most wealthy 1% to the exact same level if was at during the economic boom of the 1990’s is akin to communism. An offer by the President to cut spending by a 10-1 margin of cuts to new revenues is rejected by every Republican presidential candidate; despite the fact such a move would greatly help combat the very issue they claim is most dear to them. You know, despite the fact the only began caring about that issue after President Obama was elected.

    Okie dokie.

    The modern GOP is nuts. Look up the actual record of governance of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. By your own repeated standards you wouldn’t elect either one of them to national office today.

    Posted on April 10, 2012 - 04:32 PM #
  16. NoParty

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 9,559

    Unnecessary tax cuts for the very wealthy did nothing to help the economy while simultaneously hampering incoming revenue. The numbers do not lie.

    CONers use different math.

    Posted on April 10, 2012 - 04:34 PM #
  17. Notalent

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 1,960

    Spending cuts should have accompanied tax cuts. Can't have one without the other.

    The R's in CONgress failed at this under Boosh.

    Under Clinton the R's in CONgress managed to cut spending while taxes were increased which had the opposite result.

    Not rocket surgery by any means.

    Posted on April 10, 2012 - 04:39 PM #
  18. duxrule

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 2,701

    "Spending cuts should have accompanied tax cuts. Can't have one without the other.

    The R's in CONgress failed at this under Boosh.

    Under Clinton the R's in CONgress managed to cut spending while taxes were increased which had the opposite result.

    Not rocket surgery by any means."

    I wonder why it is that this Congress can't figure that out?

    Posted on April 10, 2012 - 05:04 PM #
  19. missing_kskd

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 11,691

    Obama is doing great given how nuts his opposition party is. If the gop were actually interested in improving things, they would present plausible opposition not unbridled nut-baggery.

    Posted on April 10, 2012 - 05:32 PM #
  20. Not a very strong President if all of his failures are caused by the Republicans.

    Posted on April 10, 2012 - 06:11 PM #
  21. duxrule

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 2,701

    "Not a very strong President if all of his failures are caused by the Republicans."

    If anything, that's my biggest rap on Obama, is not being able to advocate strongly enough for his agenda. It's one of the main reasons why things are in such a muddle, in that he hasn't been able to get his priorities passed.

    Posted on April 10, 2012 - 06:23 PM #
  22. edust1958

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 1,420

    I think we generally want to give more power and responsibility to the President than the position holds in our Constitution. The President is the Chief Executive Officer of the country. The position is responsibility for making sure that the policy set by Congress (both houses acting cooperatively) is delivered efficiently. The President tells Congress what the delivery of that policy will cost and Congress is supposed to authorize or appropriate the funding needed.

    I put all of the terrible economic condition clearly in the lap of Congress. I think that Congress could manage to deliver to the President good and effective public policy if they acted like the Constitution expected -- citizen legislators who were to vote in the best interest of the country not in their best interest (a.k.a. re-election).

    I do not think that things will be appreciably better under either Romney or Obama. Things will not get better until there are more choices for Congress than Democrats or Republicans.... I want to see a truly Progressive Party and the Tea Party can gather their 23% and run their own candidates so that the Democrats and Republicans can get closer to their core...

    Posted on April 10, 2012 - 06:24 PM #
  23. missing_kskd

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 11,691

    Exactly Evan.

    I think we underestimate the more inclusive and rapid news cycle we've got in play as well as the massive dollars.

    Obama, for better or worse, is constrained by Congress. And, in this Congress, the GOP obstruction really is brutal, going so far as to deny and attack on policy they themselves authored and would be OK with, but for who is in charge!

    If you look back at Pre-Reagan government, there was still some idea of the social contract and a genuine desire to work together to get things done.

    We don't have that today! Obama has actually bent way over backward, to the point of losing his base at times, in an attempt to do bi-partisan work, lead the nation, get the shit done, and despite that, is denied while they double down on extreme policy, some of which is not even practical!

    Because those things are in play, the overall strength of the President isn't measured the same way it used to be.

    Complicating things, the economic majority in Congress composed of nearly the entire GOP, and a lot of Dems, is decidedly regressive right now. Progressive Democrats stand on one extreme, the left one, and there are libertarians, who stand over toward the middle, the vast majority unwilling to have realistic economic policy debates.

    Couple that with the serious nut-baggery we are seeing, and it's very, very clear a whole lot of things we find desirable, just aren't possible. Congress needs reform.

    Small things like denying him every appointee! Damn near every single one just isn't getting processed, for fear of the courts being balanced, not leaning ever more right over time. Holding the nation hostage, time and time again.

    Record filibusters to the point of silliness! The GOP has used it more than many other Congresses combined.

    And the military / industrial complex is hostile all over the place, with many economically opposed forces working to preserve very large amounts of money. We don't hear a lot about that, but you all know getting reasonable changes there is like pulling teeth.

    Frankly, given the treatment he has been given, Obama is quite strong. When he does not buy into petty crap, like the FOX access deal, he gets hammered on for being a dictator. When he wants to deal, they refuse and or ask for terms so extreme it's not even funny.

    A lot like finding out we are a coupla hundred bucks apart on a budget. Comprimise would be something like split it, right? What does the GOP do? Take the coupla hundred, and since you asked, and didn't just cave to us the first time, give us 500 more, and favorable terms on these three other issues!

    Just brutal, ugly, politics that clearly leaves ordinary people out of the equation. We are hardly on the map, but for Obama!

    I like him personally, and professionally, he's done some very strong things, and when the sum of the legislation that did get through is evaluated, not only has he gotten a lot of good things done, he's done so on a reasonable time expectation, sans health insurance, and that one even getting done at all is bad ass, don't care who you talk to.

    So many of these negative claims are shallow, unsupportable, and ignore basic realities it's tempting to just ignore all of them.

    Sadly, Rove is all monied up to just dish out a stream of shit like we've never even seen before, months before we even get to thinking about the real election. Too damn bad that money can't go toward some policy advocacy to do us some good, instead of just petty thrashing to get back into power for the sake of having power...

    Anyone saying Obama is weak, etc... has to realize there isn't a one of those clowns on the GOP side that could even stand up to him in the same room. Take a quick walk out back and see who comes out ahead old school! My money is on Obama any time any day, who probably could spank those frail pasty white guys with one hand.

    Physically, strong, vital, fit, solid.

    His family and general character? Again, there isn't a one of those clowns even close. 'nuff said there.

    In terms of leadership? Go and look at what did get done and what he was left with. Perfectly fine job being done so far, and passing health care? Notch on his belt for sure, no question.

    Finally, so much of this shit is manufactured so that the GOP has some fictional Obama to run against, because they don't actually have a prayer against the real one. Sad really. Delusional, dangerous.

    Posted on April 10, 2012 - 07:38 PM #
  24. NoParty

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 9,559

    Not a very strong President if all of his failures are caused by the Republicans.

    So then DUHbya was the weakest President of all time....

    Posted on April 10, 2012 - 08:39 PM #
  25. Notalent

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 1,960

    MK, You should be an editorial writer, or better, White House Press Secretary.

    Posted on April 10, 2012 - 08:45 PM #
  26. Vitalogy

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 5,285

    The results of W's time in office pretty much speaks for itself. Biggest attack ever on US soil and a financial meltdown 2nd only to that of the Great Depression. Add in two wars that were unnecessary, tax cuts for the ultra wealthy, and an unfunded prescription drug program, and you get the worst ever President, AKA WPE.

    Posted on April 10, 2012 - 08:48 PM #
  27. paulwalker

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 3,127

    Come on Vit, do you really believe George Bush was responsible for the 9/11 attacks? This kind of attack was obviously planned well before Bush took office, or even elected. I would equally blame Clinton for not catching this.

    Posted on April 10, 2012 - 08:53 PM #
  28. Vitalogy

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 5,285

    I never said he was responsible. But, it happened on his watch, so yes, his administration can reasonably be criticized as not doing enough to prevent it AND they can more than reasonably criticized for the terrible response to it. Blaming Clinton is gargage. W was the one that ignored that Aug briefing, not Clinton.

    Posted on April 10, 2012 - 08:57 PM #
  29. duxrule

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 2,701

    Dubya certainly got "credit" for the response, why doesn't he also get blame for allowing it to happen? Especially since there seems to be ample evidence showing that is exactly what occurred.

    Posted on April 10, 2012 - 09:01 PM #
  30. missing_kskd

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 11,691

    Exactly.

    Happened on his watch, and maybe it would have happened no matter what he did. I think that's a plausible argument. Personally, I'm not sure I believe it, but it's plausible.

    We then move to negligence and basic priorities. As a leader, W was negligent and his priorities were not well aligned with the general welfare and security of the people he was put in charge of.

    Oh, and selected, not elected.

    Re: White house.

    Sure! Give me the job. Obama has done a perfectly fine job, and these attempts to marginalize that do us absolutely no good at all, particularly when they are shallow, like "weak", "black", "not American", "dumb", etc...

    Like our President, I sure am not inclined to take any shit from clowns, or those supporting them. Nobody has shown me where I have to.

    Rather than attempt to put it all on me, go ahead! Rebut the above. Obama simply is not a weak individual. The burden for that is VERY HIGH. Not saying the case can't be made, but whoever does make it is going to have to seriously work for it, the first task being a metric of comparison for "strong" that isn't equally debatable.

    In case it's not clear, I LIKE this President. I think he's the real deal. I don't agree with him on all policy, and have made those points known over and over and over. That aside, he's the absolute best of all the options we had, and he's the absolute best of the options going forward, and until such time as somebody somewhere manages to post up better, as far as I'm concerned he's the shit, leagues better than W, WORST EVER.

    I'm better off because of Obama. The ongoing improvement on the table looks good. I'll be better off STILL when he goes another term too. The GOP cannot offer that same value proposition at this time, and that's as true for me as it is the majority of my peers.

    Posted on April 10, 2012 - 09:34 PM #
  31. Love him, or hate him, (Choose either Boosh or Obama) the fact of the matter is you can lay a majority of the problems on a dysfuctional Congress. GOP doesn't want Obama to succeed, Dems dismiss ANY plan put on the table by Republicans... Neither side has the best interest of the people in mind, only their own agenda. As a whole the voting public has such a low opinion of congress and the senate that we talk about cleaning house. The problem is we want to take out everyone else except our own guy. You hate Bohner, but can't vote against him, I think Nancy Pelosi is an embarassment, but she isn't on my ballot. Those are just two of the well knowns. Kucinich became flakier the longer he was around, his exit was through redistricting rather than the ballot box or he would have been another lifer. In my neck of the woods, Tim Ryan, a D is a permanent shoo in as long as he wants it. I think he's a party first guy. When in Washington, I absolutely hated Norm Dicks, but he always brought home the pork for the bases.

    I guess the answer is totally disconnect from the national scene and keep the focus at the state level. Ohio seems to be much stronger with an R running things now. Yet, it was an R (Bob Taft) that screwed things up, and the replacement D (Ted Strickland) did nothing with his time in office. Washington stat was like living in two worlds. West of the mountains a bit too meddlesome and controling, The east side not so restrictive but more every man for himself. No balance.

    Ultimately we can only focus on ourselves. I am happy for you that you are better off with Obama at the helm. I'm not and don't think I will be if he goes another four. But, this is just perception. If you perceive his policies positively affect your living standard, then that is a plus. He scores low marks in my book because his focus does not address issues that improve my position. As for the opinion that W was the worst ever, I'll go with that if Carter can ride in the same boat. I'd throw in Andy Jackson and James Buchannan to row as well..........

    Posted on April 11, 2012 - 07:42 AM #
  32. Andrew

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 3,752

    roger_2.0: GOP doesn't want Obama to succeed, Dems dismiss ANY plan put on the table by Republicans...

    Of course, Congressional (House) Republicans refuse to compromise on anything. None of their proposals have been anything but extremist, uncompromising positions. How for example could the Dems NOT dismiss Paul Ryan's budget plan to end Medicare? Reforming Medicare would be something else - but House Republicans are not interested in compromise at all.

    Posted on April 11, 2012 - 07:58 AM #
  33. The Democrats have made themselves into liberal republicans to compromise w the other side. But the Repugnicants WANT America and Obama to fail. Failure gives this Fifth Column Right an opening to elbow its way into power with its usual demand for a 'strong' president who will ignore compromise and loot the treasury as under the Bush regime. Republicans WANT average americans to lose faith in govt, because Republicans don't want to do anything for them. They are about international capital, the bottom line, and screw you if you can't screw people fast enough or get get out of the way. Romney will be deep in hock to whoever whips up the religious base for him, behind the etch-a-sketch will be a guillotine for the freedoms that made america great. You will be free to do as you're told as the bush years go into reruns.

    Posted on April 11, 2012 - 08:12 AM #
  34. duxrule

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 2,701

    WTF is The Newt thinking as he says that he plans to "stay in the race." He can't even pay basic bills connected to the campaign:

    Gingrich's check bounces in Utah
    "...The Gingrich campaign in March submitted the necessary paperwork and the $500 check to get on the ballot for the Utah primary, but the check bounced, the Salt Lake Tribune reported. The state notified the campaign that if the fee isn't paid by April 20, Gingrich won't qualify to get on the ballot."
    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57412359-503544/gingrichs-check-bounces-in-utah/

    Posted on April 11, 2012 - 08:53 AM #
  35. He's thinking ROMNEY - GINGRICH what else? A Spyro Agnew for our time. Newt is currently trying to foreclose on, borrow? Santorum's delegates. Nobody but us Papists in here.

    Posted on April 11, 2012 - 09:25 AM #
  36. I have maintained from day one and still insist today: Newt Gingrinch was never, actually, seriously, running for President.

    He's on a book tour. So is his stepford wife. Newt is a world class grifter. And he found the right dim witted audience to expound to and make money off of.

    Posted on April 11, 2012 - 10:30 AM #
  37. Andrew

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 3,752

    Newt Gingrich probably does have the EGO to believe that at one point he had a viable shot to win the Republican nomination and the presidency. Probably NOW he realizes it's a lost cause and stays in for the publicity, though.

    Posted on April 11, 2012 - 11:07 AM #
  38. Skybill9

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 7,215

    "Things will not get better until there are more choices for Congress than Democrats or Republicans...."

    Exactly. Start with term limits. There should be NO SUCH THING as a career politician.

    2 terms and back to public life.

    If it's good enough for the CIC it's good enough for ALL politicians.

    But of course it will never happen; too many politicians are filling up their own coffers to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.

    Posted on April 11, 2012 - 11:36 AM #
  39. jr_tech

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 3,164

    So, Total of 12 years for the Senate and 4 years for the House? Why not make them equal?...perhaps in the region of 8 years?

    Posted on April 11, 2012 - 11:55 AM #
  40. Notalent

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 1,960

    We dont make them more equal because the Senate is supposed to be the slow deliberative body, thats why they get a 6 year term and not a 2. To see the "long view" and the big picture of things.

    I'd say 12 years is enough for a Senator, and 4 to 6 years is enought for a member of the "Peoples House."

    Posted on April 11, 2012 - 12:07 PM #
  41. jr_tech

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 3,164

    Works for me!

    Posted on April 11, 2012 - 12:11 PM #
  42. Andrew

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 3,752

    Term limits only gives lobbyists even more power than they already have. And lobbyists are the problem...because lobbyists represent companies that fun congressional candidates and PACs against other congressional candidates. Lobbyists have power because of money in politics.

    So if you want to reform Congress, don't waste your time with term limits. Get money out of politics instead. That way, Congressmen and Congresswomen can vote without worrying about lobbyists.

    Posted on April 11, 2012 - 01:35 PM #
  43. Notalent

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 1,960

    How about both then!

    Posted on April 11, 2012 - 01:47 PM #
  44. skeptical

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 4,777

    No term limits. Voters already have the power to limit politicans's terms and they do. For example, Santorum got the boot in PA.

    It would have been nice to have Clinton in office from 2000 to 2004. 9/11 might have never had happened since Clinton would follow through with the info he gave the Bush administration. There would have been no invasion of Iraq looking for imaginary WMDs.

    Posted on April 11, 2012 - 02:00 PM #
  45. Notalent

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 1,960

    Clinton dodged when he had the chance, remember the African embassies and the Yemen boat bomb which he ignored both of.

    Clinton knew about Bin Laden ever since Mogadishu and Black Hawk Down when he chose to let him run off to Afg/Pak.

    I don't know why you would think he'd do better. He's one of the ones like Carter who actually emboldened the terrorists by letting them think the US is to weak to respond.

    Posted on April 11, 2012 - 02:26 PM #
  46. That must be it.

    Posted on April 11, 2012 - 02:41 PM #
  47. duxrule

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 2,701

    "Clinton knew about Bin Laden ever since Mogadishu and Black Hawk Down when he chose to let him run off to Afg/Pak."

    Information that was passed to Dubya's administration and then was promptly ignored. Clinton calls his failure to get BL one of the "things left undone" that he most regrets.

    Posted on April 11, 2012 - 02:51 PM #
  48. Notalent

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 1,960

    I'll agree with that.

    Posted on April 11, 2012 - 02:55 PM #
  49. Andrew

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 3,752

    Notalent: Clinton dodged when he had the chance, remember the African embassies and the Yemen boat bomb which he ignored both of.

    Wrong. Clinton didn't "ignore" the embassy bombings. He retaliated with cruise missile attacks. And there was an active unit going after al Qaeda in the CIA; they had a couple of chances to take out bin Laden in particular on Clinton's watch, but they couldn't confirm their intelligence in time.

    Obviously, these efforts failed, but it's simply wrong to say Clinton "ignored" terrorist attacks.

    The Cole bombing was not conclusively pinned to al Qaeda until the very end of Clinton's term. How could the Clinton administration embark on some sort of retaliation just as they were leaving? It was for the Bush people to respond - and they did absolutely nothing about it.

    Clinton knew about Bin Laden ever since Mogadishu and Black Hawk Down when he chose to let him run off to Afg/Pak.

    Bullshit.

    I don't know why you would think he'd do better.

    Maybe because evidence shows Clinton had people actively obsessed with al Qaeda and tried to hunt them down? Of course, it helped a lot when the Republican Congress taunted "no war for Monica" in 1998 when Clinton tried to do anything about al Qaeda...

    He's one of the ones like Carter who actually emboldened the terrorists by letting them think the US is to weak to respond.

    And like Ronald Reagan, when he ran away like a chicken out of Lebanon in 2003-2004 after we were attacked. And like George W. Bush when he failed to respond to the Cole attack in 2001.

    No one can say for sure what Clinton would have or wouldn't have done in 2001 had he been in office. One thing you CAN say sore sure, based on the record, is that the Clinton people had terrorism as a top priority whereas the Bush people did not. People like Richard Clarke and George Tenet tried to get the Bush people's attention but they were too worried about more important things like attacks from China and a missile defense system. When terrorism is a low priority in your administration, as it was for Bush until 9/11, we can expect attacks to get through.

    Posted on April 11, 2012 - 04:12 PM #
  50. Notalent

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 1,960

    You mean the lobbing of a cruise missile at an aspirn (or was it baby milk) factory?

    Yeah that was effective.

    Reagan should have addressed this post Beirut I'll agree.

    The politics of the Monica situation can only be blamed on Clinton himself. Keep the first "cigar" out of the young girls mouth if you do not want the consequences. If that proved to get in the way of his foreign policy it is his fault alone.

    In any event no matter how you spin the internal thinking of the Clinton admin their lack of effective response emboldened Bin Laden.

    Posted on April 11, 2012 - 04:20 PM #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.