Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have zero faith this will happen. Things are getting worse, not better. I honestly feel the political system is so broken it is basically impossible to fix at this point.
What is most shocking to me is the number of people in Congress that got re-elected - both Republican AND Democrats. How can Congress have an 11% approval rating for the length of time it has, yet people go to the polls and re-elect their local house rep and Senator? I voted against incumbants in Congress this year, regardless of their party affiliation.
It just goes to show you - people call for something generically, but when it comes down to it, they love the fact that their congressman sucks for the nation as long as it benefits their local district. Pork spending? Yeah - easy to criticize it until you realize that that "pork" is the earmark for your local defense contractor to make masks and helmets for soliders, or kevlar vests, or components for military planes, or funding for that nice new bypass highway being built, or funding for the new arena, or funding for the science center or zoo, or funding....you get the point.
I'm sure there are plenty of people in the regions impacted by Sandy who are calling for huge cuts to government spending while they go online and file their claims (rightfully so) with FEMA. In fact, i already know one staunch republican who suggested getting the work on his house (structural damage) covered by FEMA - problem is, he was getting quotes to fix this damage 2 months before the storm happened. How convenient that a hurricane came through and he can try to get the government to pay for his damage. He came to his senses though, but the fact that he thought about it while claiming to want to reduce wasteful spending is comical.
I think John Stewart said it best - one person's "entitlement" is another person's "pillar of a modernized society". When the spending benefits oneself, all of a sudden their principles fall by the wayside.
You are not telling the whole story. While McConnell's comment was dumb, Obama believes in zero comprimise. It is his way or no way, so the house says fine, we'll sit and do nothing and try again in 2 years to get the Senate. Romney was a moderate and would most definitely comprimise. He wasn't the perfect candidate by any stretch but he was a much better option to get the Feds to work together and to help our economy than a guy who believes in partisianship and who never even ran a lemonade stand in his life, let alone a country.
I don't know how you can look at the things that actually were accomplished in the first term and claim Obama believes in zero compromise. Maybe he doesn't want to compromise as much as you'd like him to - but understand one of the main criticisms of him is that he has not stuck strictly to his desires and has compromised too much.
Asking for both revenue AND spending is compromising. Yet, Republicans won't have it. (well, now they seem to be considering it). Cutting future defense spending increases (rather than actually reducing defense spending from current spending) is a compromise. Yet the campaign against him wants to increase beyond what was already planned.
Politics is all about compromise. No one ever gets everything they want. The balance of power in the different branches should be a good thing - yet lately, there's been a complete lack of effort in both parties within Congress to get things done. That's why many of the incumbants should have been shown the door, but sadly, weren't.
really? i generally enjoy their banter. they have a fairly objective team. Gabfest is a nice podcast for politics. There's people who's personal opinions come through on it, but they are very good at discussing the topics objectively and playing devil's advocate against things you suspect they personally agree with.
i don;'t know much about the writer of that particular article. but really - the cries that Obama is some socialist in his actions is really not accurate at all. You strike me as smart enough to realize he's relatively moderate. I hold the same view of Romney - in the primaries, I was really hoping Romney or Huntsman or maybe even Pawlenty would get the nomination, because I was fairly content with each of them if Obama lost. What I didn't count on was Romney's complete lack of committing to positions, and some lack of details in areas that were key for him to earn my vote. I'm sick of both parties' pandering to the extreme wings of their party to get the vote, and wish they would be straight with us on the key topics. But...voters show time and time again that we're not going to hold them accountable on those key topics - so they stick with what works.
It's why i stay active well beyond just voting on the first tuesday of November in an election year...no matter who is in office.
Been 4 years since that and not too much positive has happened..imo it's gotten much worse....let's see what the next 4 years bring and stuff a sock in the blame game as it's getting really really really old
so the fact that corporate profits have skyrocketed in those years, productivity has increased, and millions of jobs were added, on top of governments (both local and federal) have cut a large number of headcount and become slightly more efficient...counts has not too much positive happening?
Heck - my wife and i make about 20% more than we did in 2008, when i was arriving at work each day wondering if i'd be sent home, and my 401k lost 40%. Since then, my 401k has nearly tripled, and has more than made up for the short term losses. Also - I was able to purchase a house. I know this isn't the case for everyone, but I hear this story more often than not.
Romney’s loss is a lesson to all Republicans: teach the most extreme members of your party to compromise, or expect more losses from candidates who couldn’t be everything to everyone.
Well then you were fooled by the media. He was never a conservative, hence why the Tea Party had no interest in him. He was and is a moderate. Do your homework next election.
Was it the media that said "I'm a severe conservative"? Come on - be fair...he dug himself the hole that masked his moderate persona. Is he really a moderate? I think so - but he did everything to make sure I thought otherwise in this election, until about a month and a half ago. And at that point...I no longer trusted what he was saying. Just contrast his foreign policy views in his VMI speech vs his 3rd debate talking points. I was completely baffled by the change in tone. What? He didn't want to sound too soft at VMI? Did he think the people who saw him speak there would happen to skip the foreign policy debate?
It's part of the reason why I respect a guy like Ron Paul even if I disagree with some of what he says - he's been saying the same things for 30+ years...at least you know where the man stands. Not to say people's positions can't change. No one should stick to views if new information changes the facts over time...but on the key principles - Ron Paul sticks to what he believes. If Romney campaigned that way, I think it would not have been close at all.
so the fact that corporate profits have skyrocketed in those years, productivity has increased, and millions of jobs were added, on top of governments (both local and federal) have cut a large number of headcount and become slightly more efficient...counts has not too much positive happening?
Heck - my wife and i make about 20% more than we did in 2008, when i was arriving at work each day wondering if i'd be sent home, and my 401k lost 40%. Since then, my 401k has nearly tripled, and has more than made up for the short term losses. Also - I was able to purchase a house. I know this isn't the case for everyone, but I hear this story more often than not.
I'm very happy for you but it's not the norm..millions of jobs created?? Really..where not in NJ for sure.
20% more ..yes you are much more fortunate than most....most corps if they even gave a raise it was 2-3%I keep seeing people I know lose their jobs, run out of unemployment.
I think from your description we must live on totally different planets...lol
really? i generally enjoy their banter. they have a fairly objective team. Gabfest is a nice podcast for politics. There's people who's personal opinions come through on it, but they are very good at discussing the topics objectively and playing devil's advocate against things you suspect they personally agree with.
i don;'t know much about the writer of that particular article. but really - the cries that Obama is some socialist in his actions is really not accurate at all. You strike me as smart enough to realize he's relatively moderate. I hold the same view of Romney - in the primaries, I was really hoping Romney or Huntsman or maybe even Pawlenty would get the nomination, because I was fairly content with each of them if Obama lost. What I didn't count on was Romney's complete lack of committing to positions, and some lack of details in areas that were key for him to earn my vote. I'm sick of both parties' pandering to the extreme wings of their party to get the vote, and wish they would be straight with us on the key topics. But...voters show time and time again that we're not going to hold them accountable on those key topics - so they stick with what works.
It's why i stay active well beyond just voting on the first tuesday of November in an election year...no matter who is in office.
He was never a conservative, hence why the Tea Party had no interest in him. He was and is a moderate. Do your homework next election.
Well, if he had actually articulated precisely what he intended to do about various issues, rather than dealing in platitudes, generalities, and feel-good sound-bites, perhaps people would have had a better idea of exactly where he stood. But...when someone has been on both sides of virtually every issue over the past couple of years, it is...at best...confusing...and likely not possible to nail down their exact orientation. And, in the long run, I believe that this was Romney's biggest problem.
If you think back to the period of the GOP primary battles, every one of the GOP candidates led for at least a short period of time, and Romney was really a compromise candidate who--as you stated--did not have the support of the most conservative factions of his party. However, I do believe that most of the conservatives "held their nose" and voted for him anyway on Tuesday.
The anti-Romney attack ads of the other GOP primary candidates actually provided most of the fodder for later Democratic anti-Romney attack ads. One of the most interesting factoids to come out of the entire process is that when Sheldon Adelson was bankrolling Newt Gingrich's candidacy, his PAC filmed the most virulent anti-Romney attack ads. Later, when Adelson apparently "held his nose" and supported Romney, those attack ads were the template for pro-Democratic PACs when they filmed their anti-Romney attack ads. Adelson's own ads came back to haunt him and Romney, and none of the candidates who Adelson was bankrolling for Senate, House, or...obviously...the presidency...won.
As to the Tea Party, the disavowal of so many of their candidates in this election is the probable reason why John Boehner is now at least somewhat interested in compromise. The Republican party of yesteryear did understand that compromise is almost always necessary in order to get anything accomplished in Congress, but that understanding evaporated when the Teabaggers began to look like a dominant force in The GOP. Now...not so much.
An interesting factoid that I heard yesterday is that "every month, 50,000 Hispanic citizens in the US turn 18". If the GOP does not take note of the fact that 60-70% of the Hispanics in every state voted for Obama, they will become an artifact of political history. If the GOP does not adopt positions more favorable to women--who also voted overwhelmingly Democratic--they are hastening their own demise. If they don't begin to adopt a big tent attitude, and make LGBT people feel valued, they will also be losing a part of the electorate that goes to the polls in droves.
Compromise is important in Congress if you want to accomplish anything, but compromise on a party's platform is necessary if that party is to remain viable.
The party platform for 2012 was overwhelmingly conservative (in order to please the far right-wing of the party), while simultaneously pushing for the election of a candidate who was not as conservative as the official platform. That was somewhat politically...schizophrenic, IMHO.
It should be interesting to see what the GOP learns from this fiasco of their own making.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not too fond of Slate Opinions as a whole
