November 2012

[King Of Dirk]

Now look here, y’all. I want to believe that civil discourse is still possible in the age of Messrs. Maher and O’Reilly. I want to believe that even though many of us feel strongly about this November’s contest we can discuss the incumbent and challenger in a respectful fashion. I want to see how far we can get before the thread gets locked. I think the over/under is 17 posts…

If you are domiciled outside the United States, forgive me – and weigh in anyway since we’re all in this together.

This election is going to happen, so talking about it ought to be acceptable. Let’s talk.

Will the Republicans maintain a majority in the House? If you lean right, are you pleased with the work Speaker Boehner has done? If you lean left, are you optimistic about the chances for another historic swing, similar to 2010? Regardless of ideology, do you think we are likely to see frequent shifts in the Dem/GOP balance going forward, or was 2010 an outlier? What have the Republicans done well since 2010? What did the Democrats do well 2006-2010?

The Democrats have more seats at risk in the Senate than the Republicans. Will the GOP pick up enough seats to have a majority, or will the Democrats (and those who caucus as such) keep 51 or 52 seats?

Finally, will President Obama run on his record and the need for a second term to solidify his programs, or will he feel the economy and unemployment figures will force him to go negative on Governor Romney? He’s the incumbent, after all, and can either emphasize that we should renew his contract or can resort to “yeah, well I’m better than the other guy,” (or some combination). Governor Romney as challenger must make the case (true or not) that the incumbent isn’t doing a good job – I mean, that’s the whole point of being a challenger, no? – or he can go after President Obama on a personal level, or some combination of the two. What strategy should each adopt?

What has President Obama done well, and where has he slipped? What qualities cause you to support Governor Romney or President Obama? What qualities do you dislike in each?

Full disclosure: I am forced to declare a party of choice to vote in the Texas primary, and this year I was a Republican. We have an important primary fight (now in a runoff) over who will be the next Senator from Texas, and I wanted to be sure to have a voice on who he will be. The Republican nominee will win in a walk; November’s election is moot for our Senate seat. In the past I have registered as a Democrat, for similar reasons. I am, in truth, not affiliated with either party. So to head off the inevitable attacks from Republicans: I do love America; I do think it’s one of the greatest places on Earth; I do not hate Jesus (or any other Jew), and; I don’t mind if you want your kids to pray in school. To head off the usual slights from Democrats: I am very well educated, thank you; I am not, nor have I ever been, a bigot, and; I do not hate old people, women, or Arabs. Or old female Arabs. I enjoy discussing political issues, and will argue vociferously for your right to tell me I’m wrong, or under-informed, or in need of better sources. I will not insult your intelligence - or tolerate your insults in kind. I will assume you believe what you do because you’ve thought about it, and that you will be generous enough to take me at my word if I tell you I’ve thought about an issue and reached a conclusion opposite yours.

Can we do this? Or should we cede the debate – and therefore the fate of our republic – to the troglodytes on prime-time cable TV?

[zetroc]

As a rule I don't usually discuss politics on the Internet, for reasons that are obvious, but I feel compelled to chime in here in the interest of keeping the conversation civil.

I believe that many people who hold strong political beliefs, and discuss them strongly and passionately, do so largely on a basis of emotion, and that emotional attachment is the reason so many people refuse to consider alternate points of view. Likewise it is easy to dismiss another point of view out of hand once you figure out how to label the people who hold it as being somehow lesser. These are hurdles that are already very hard to overcome, and I commend anyone with a mind open enough to consider arguments that they do not agree with, but throw anonymity and physical detachment (the nature of internet forums) into the mix and I think holding a rational, civil political debate becomes nearly impossible.

[Too Tall]

As a rule I don't usually discuss politics on the Internet, for reasons that are obvious, but I feel compelled to chime in here in the interest of keeping the conversation civil.

I believe that many people who hold strong political beliefs, and discuss them strongly and passionately, do so largely on a basis of emotion, and that emotional attachment is the reason so many people refuse to consider alternate points of view. Likewise it is easy to dismiss another point of view out of hand once you figure out how to label the people who hold it as being somehow lesser. These are hurdles that are already very hard to overcome, and I commend anyone with a mind open enough to consider arguments that they do not agree with, but throw anonymity and physical detachment (the nature of internet forums) into the mix and I think holding a rational, civil political debate becomes nearly impossible.

Go for it. I wish you were right about holding civil discourse with regard to something that crosses so many lines.
You are putting me in the middle of this. It's me or a mod who will lock this thread kapish?
Here is the dealio.
Use your real name or be someone we already know with more posts than Mr. Dirk and let's see how it goes.
Please keep these conversations family friendly.

[Bob Ross]

I believe that many people who hold strong political beliefs, and discuss them strongly and passionately, do so largely on a basis of emotion, and that emotional attachment is the reason so many people refuse to consider alternate points of view.

Bingo.

I've found that I'm almost incapable of expressing a rational, well-reasoned, and (especially) objective point of view in a political discussion -- despite the fact that those are the traits I most admire and strive for when discussing nearly any other topic -- because I realize that my investment in the ideals I want all our leaders (and citizens) to embrace goes way deeper than my intellect; it's in my gut, in my heart, in my crotch, in my reptilian hindbrain, wherever it is that our most base desires and instincts are seated, that I want everyone to want what I want.

Yes, I realize that sounds selfish. But I sincerely believe that what I want (politically speaking) is what's best for this country in the long term. Unfortunately, as per above, I can't justify that selfishness in any objective way without getting completely emotional, and so I tend to lurk around these sort of discussions just to learn what The Other Guys are thinking -- and maybe to drop an unhelpful little zinger in where (in)appropriate --rather than actually "contribute" (sic).

[Jaq]

Not sure that I qualify to post under Too Tall's suggested rules, but I think my post is pretty harmless:

I've been thinking a lot the last few days about what this next election will mean to the Supreme Court. Mrs. Ginsburg is 79 and not all that well. Kennedy is 75 and, though a Reagan appointee, has earned the ire of the conservatives by pro-choice & pro gay-rights decisions. Scalia's 76. Not sure of his health.

If Obama wins and the Senate remains Democratic controlled, I think we'll see Ginsburg replaced by a suitably liberal justice. Then, if either Scalia or Kennedy retire or otherwise leave the court, we may very well see a switch to a liberal court. If Romney wins, even with a Democratic Senate, I still see a center-right justice replacing Ginsburg and maybe Scalia by 2016. And, if Romney does win and the economy picks up (and I don't believe as strongly as most that the President has as much influence over it), and Romney gets a second term, then I think we're going to get ourselves a conservative court for the next 16 years at least, with most decisions going 6-3 instead of the current 5-4.

If I were the Democrats, I think I'd be playing up some of these scenarios a little bit more in campaign ads and what-not. But I think we might see a lot of this once the Health Care Issue is decided.

[King Of Dirk]

I've been thinking a lot the last few days about what this next election will mean to the Supreme Court. Mrs. Ginsburg is 79 and not all that well. Kennedy is 75 and, though a Reagan appointee, has earned the ire of the conservatives by pro-choice & pro gay-rights decisions. Scalia's 76. Not sure of his health...If I were the Democrats, I think I'd be playing up some of these scenarios a little bit more in campaign ads and what-not. But I think we might see a lot of this once the Health Care Issue is decided.

Jaq,

I think your concern regarding the Supreme Court is spot on. It's actually kind of funny that you brought that up; two days ago I had dinner with my old constitutional law professor (well, she’s not old, just from the good old days). She and I don't agree on a whole lot (which usually means I'm wrong), and it is precisely the conversation we had that led to me creating this thread in the first place. I'm sad to say I agree with your assessment of Justice Ginsburg's health; frankly it will be a miracle if she sees the next administration. I say that not out of any sort of ill will but because I have lost four friends to the condition from which he suffers. I've learned not to take it lightly.

I am surprised at how little talk we have heard from either side on the prospective makeup of the Supreme Court under each candidate. I think once the health care bill decision is handed down by SCOTUS that conversation will be forced to the forefront.

The increasingly combative confirmation process for potential Supreme Court justices is another sensitive topic for me. The Senate is supposed to offer its advice and consent, not perform a second rate impersonation of Monty Python's Spanish Inquisition routine. Both parties have been guilty of politicizing what should not be a political process.

[King Of Dirk]

Speaking of issues which have not received as much attention as I’d have thought:

Shortly after his administration took control, President Obama was faced with a difficult situation in Iran. If you'll remember, Ahmadinejad was condemning a youth uprising, and many people were wondering if Tehran would have a civil war on its hands. President Obama came under tremendous fire from the Republicans in Congress for not steadfastly supporting the Iranian youth. They felt he should have been much more vocal in his condemnation of Ahmadinejad's actions, and that he should have done his best to stir up international support for the dissidents. Personally, I think President Obama's approach was precisely correct: any outward shows of support from the American President would have allowed Ahmadinejad to portray the rebellion as evidence of American meddling in Iranian affairs – his response would have been even more brutal and bloody than it already was. I do not think President Obama gets enough credit for the way his administration handled that crisis from the get-go. But it’s a hard thing to emphasize on a campaign, and it comes dangerously close to the “victory lap” some think he should avoid when talking about bin Laden. “Getting” bin Laden is also a great thing, but campaigning on it is insane, since nobody would have reached any other decision if presented the same factors.

I'm not going to pretend that these two issues have similar levels of importance, but Gov. Romney has some issues he should be playing up, too. Several years ago the Winter Olympic Games in Salt Lake City were barreling toward disaster. They were over budget, poorly planned, and nearly became an international embarrassment for both the IOC and the United States. Gov. Romney stepped in at the last minute, and as a result of his efficacy as an executive we saw one of the most successful of the games in recent memory. Now, a bunch of people zooming down the mountain on skis is nowhere near as important on a global scale as a political uprising in a theocratic capital, but Gov. Romney's team should be using the Olympic experience as a talking point. Use it as a metaphor for the current state of affairs: a large, complex organization, far over budget, with a complete lack of leadership at all levels – do we know anyone who has brought such a situation back from the brink? I know it’s a little cheesy, but I think talking about a success is far more powerful than pointing out the other guy’s failures.