What's new
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

Sorry. Outright lies are not "distortions."

Oh you meant outright lies like the Romney ad claiming the affordable care act taxes wheelchairs, or that Obama gutted the work requirement for welfare receipients.

Unfortunatley that has become the political climate that we live in and it goes both ways.
 
Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

Oh you meant outright lies like the Romney ad claiming the affordable care act taxes wheelchairs, or that Obama gutted the work requirement for welfare receipients.

Unfortunatley that has become the political climate that we live in and it goes both ways.

I don't approve of any "distortions" by Romney, nor any political candidate for that matter. And it's only a little surprising that you think these alleged "distortions" justify His Chicagovaluesness' lies. The fact is the claims in the Romney ads, which I haven't seen, are interpretations of the impact of His Newtoneness' policies (like Paul Ryan pushing granny and her wheel chair off a cliff). Tough. Partisan. Opinions. Obviously from Romney's perspective. However, the babes involved in that commercial are either Republican or they're not. No interpretation. Subject to empirical proof. And at least two of them are not.

This is obviously no big deal to you because your guy is running the cheapest, sleaziest campaign at least since LBJ in '64. But I'm just old fashioned enough to think if you're going to identify people as "Republican," or "Catholic" or whatever, they actually should be what they're claiming to be.

Your attitude mirrors the "fake but true" standard established by Dan Rather with his October surprise of Bush in '04. It was wrong then. And it's wrong now. It is an argument that the ends justify the means. I don't think they do. Surely His Transcriptlessness can find some actual Republican women to regurgitate his talking points. Then again, maybe he can't.
 
Last edited:
Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

I don't approve of any "distortions" by Romney, nor any political candidate for that matter. And it's only a little surprising that you think these alleged "distortions" justify His Chicagovaluesness' lies. The fact is the claims in the Romney ads, which I haven't seen, are interpretations of the impact of His Newtoneness' policies (like Paul Ryan pushing granny and her wheel chair off a cliff). Tough. Partisan. Opinions. Obviously from Romney's perspective. However, the babes involved in that commercial are either Republican or they're not. No interpretation. Subject to empirical proof. And at least two of them are not.

This is obviously no big deal to you because your guy is running the cheapest, sleaziest campaign at least since LBJ in '64. But I'm just old fashioned enough to think if you're going to identify people as "Republican," or "Catholic" or whatever, they actually should be what they're claiming to be.

Your attitude mirrors the "fake but true" standard established by Dan Rather with his October surprise of Bush in '04. It was wrong then. And it's wrong now. It is an argument that the ends justify the means. I don't think they do. Surely His Transcriptlessness can find some actual Republican women to regurgitate his talking points. Then again, maybe he can't.

I think you misunderstood my post. What I was saying is that these types of ads have become a mainstream part of our political culture. I think that is unfortunate.

But having watched the "Republian women for Obama" ad again, I disagree that it is a lie. The women said things like "I voted for Bush Sr and Jr", "I voted for Regan 8 times", "I was a republican since I was 18". The article discredited the ad by saying that two of them previously voted for Obama. In case you didn't keep track of your calander, you could have voted for Bush Sr and Jr and also voted for Obama. Likewise, you could have voted for Regan and also Obama. The only facebook like they referenced was in regards to Abortion. Certinally there are pro-choice republicans out there. Heck when I voted for Romney for Governor he said he was pro-choice....I guess thats what worked for him politically at that point.

The Romeny ad on the other hand clearly says that Obama-care taxes wheelchairs and it does not. Thus an outright lie.

But let me get this straight. When your guy runs a misleading ad it is a partisan interpretation of policy, but when the other guy does its a lie? Makes sense.
 
Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

I think you misunderstood my post. What I was saying is that these types of ads have become a mainstream part of our political culture. I think that is unfortunate.

But having watched the "Republian women for Obama" ad again, I disagree that it is a lie. The women said things like "I voted for Bush Sr and Jr", "I voted for Regan 8 times", "I was a republican since I was 18". The article discredited the ad by saying that two of them previously voted for Obama. In case you didn't keep track of your calander, you could have voted for Bush Sr and Jr and also voted for Obama. Likewise, you could have voted for Regan and also Obama. The only facebook like they referenced was in regards to Abortion. Certinally there are pro-choice republicans out there. Heck when I voted for Romney for Governor he said he was pro-choice....I guess thats what worked for him politically at that point.

The Romeny ad on the other hand clearly says that Obama-care taxes wheelchairs and it does not. Thus an outright lie.

But let me get this straight. When your guy runs a misleading ad it is a partisan interpretation of policy, but when the other guy does its a lie? Makes sense.


Two of the women in the "Republican women for Obama" spot in fact, are Democrats. And have been for years. And the impression the ad leaves that they are recent "converts" is a lie. And you're okay with it because "Romney does it too." Got it.

Rationalize all you want. The hack is running the only kind of campaign available to a failed president. Thus we've been treated to "vampire," "felon" "murderer" and now fake Republican women. I've said it many times now, it may work. But at least we can dispense with the hagiography about how this ward healer is somehow "different."

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/08/republican-women-for-obama.php
 
Last edited:
Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

So Romney again was asked about his lack of appeal to women voters. His response was something like we need jobs and women want jobs. Why is this a problem? Women already know how he feels about jobs.

Women also care about social issues. On average, they are specifically not looking for more socially conservative policies. Social conservative policies always come to the front when the GOP gets into office and Romney's evasion would make anyone suspicious that a bait and switch will happen again.
 
Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

So Romney again was asked about his lack of appeal to women voters. His response was something like we need jobs and women want jobs. Why is this a problem? Women already know how he feels about jobs.

Women also care about social issues. On average, they are specifically not looking for more socially conservative policies. Social conservative policies always come to the front when the GOP gets into office and Romney's evasion would make anyone suspicious that a bait and switch will happen again.

The polls have them in double digits that women are not favorable towards Romney because of the GOP hardline on issues that concern them. Birth control and abortion, healthcare especially if she's a single mom, poor, etc. are relevant as those cuts affect them. An example, is the church, excommunicated a nun and a woman she helped. The woman had to abort because it meant her life and the nun supported her in this decision. This example shows why some women will vote against Romney/Ryan and the recent Akin remarks didn't help. Equal pay is another issue that shouldn't be an issue.

The Black vote is astounding to me, 94-0 I believe. I can see why they're trying to make voter registration more difficult or ID checks more stringent to invalidate some voters in key swing states.

It's a planned response, instead of answering the question just deflect and make believe jobs and the economy is the only issue that matters to women or anyone else for that matter. What the Republicans do too is not explain too that they have done everything to obstruct any good legislation that will make Obama look good as far as jobs and the economy. To quote them, "we will make him a 1-term President" at the expense of the country. To the GOP, their party comes first and they want to satisfy the Tea Party demands before the interests of the nation.

The Ryan/Romney budget cuts questions are circumvented when specific questions regarding the budget are not answered and they usually say Obamacare stole billion dollars (716 billion????) from medicare without explaining how.

I notice Crist in FLA is being badmouthed since he came out to endorse the President. I believe he was a GOP governor now an independent. I respect a guy who is honest and not afraid to voice his opinion.

I talk with many of my minority friends and most of them don't believe in the GOP unless they're rich. That includes Blacks, Latinos, Asians, etc. I myself am Asian and my parents emigrants, never finished high school, didn't know English much. But they made sure we kids got our education and we all made it through college and doing OK. We're not rich but we made it. I just feel our children will struggle with the way congress has messed things up for the poor, working class, and middle class.

If they're making a pitch for the women vote, maybe it's too late. The damage is done and maybe the money they raise for ads may or may not work in their favor.
 
Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

Even I have to admit it was pretty low of Obama to send a hurricane to Tampa to disrupt the GOP convention. :mad::p Time to call in a special counsel. :D

But watching Old Pio flip his lid reminds me of how little people actually think of Mittens chances. Even more amusing is the lengths the media will go to in order to keep the "its a tie race" mantra going for as long as possible. Some idiot on NPR today was actually arguing that having the GOP convention delayed a day was a positive thing for the Republicans (no, it wasn't Cokie Roberts who said it). I mean, where do they find these bozos?

Even better are polls that have an Obama 9 point advantage in registered voters, but a 2 point advantage in "likely" voters. Gimme a break. I can easily see a registered voter vs likely voter gap because older, retired, whiter voters tend to be more reliable. But a 7 point difference?

The final kicker though was a great piece I saw in politico about how Romney has a chance to break the race wide open during the debates. Gee, when did that ever happen? Oh, that's right - 1980. For the bazillionth time, Mittens ain't Reagan and Obama ain't Carter. All these 60 year old geezer pundits need to get their frame of reference out of an election that took place 32 years ago in a much different political climate.
 
Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

Two of the women in the "Republican women for Obama" spot in fact, are Democrats. And have been for years. And the impression the ad leaves that they are recent "converts" is a lie. And you're okay with it because "Romney does it too." Got it.

Rationalize all you want. The hack is running the only kind of campaign available to a failed president. Thus we've been treated to "vampire," "felon" "murderer" and now fake Republican women. I've said it many times now, it may work. But at least we can dispense with the hagiography about how this ward healer is somehow "different."

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/08/republican-women-for-obama.php

Obama lies; Romney give a partisan interpretation. Noted.
 
Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

Yeah, Mitt, women want jobs.

They just know they won't be able to get one if they're pregnant 7 years out of ten because you outlawed their birth control.
 
Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

My feelings, pretty much exactly.

The issue is pretty clear.

The Dems run on a fuller platforms (Obama recently backed gay marriage). Meanwhile the GOP nearly always runs on fiscal responsibility and small government and that's it. Which is enticing due to our fiscal deficit which has been caused by Washington overall.

The problem is when the GOP gets into office they drop the focus on fiscal responsibility and focus almost exclusively on social conservative issues...which almost nobody wants (and is a big part of the reason they never campaign on them). In the end, I don't see the 'fiscal responsibility' in gay marriage bans, voter restriction laws, stand your ground, aggressive military policies, questionable policies targeting Hispanic such as education, and allowing for full hidden entity campaign contributions.
 
Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

Not sure why the GOP has fundamentally misread the electorate IMHO with their emphasis on social issues, but I have a theory.

Simply put the people funding and running the Presidential campaign this year, as well as a good portion of the press, see more strength in The Mittster than the voters do. I've read this over this past year even with a fair minded but right of center Economist week in and week out. You'll also see it when a Charlie Cook or Stu Rothenburg is rating the election. These people aren't all collectively biased on purpose. The problem we have is from pundits to campaign managers to big donors they're almost always old white guys with the occasional old white woman thrown in. People of this ilk keep coming back to the 1980 election because it was their generation's game changer. What they see in Romney is a tall, 60 something year old, wealthy white guy with an Anglo last name. THIS is the kind of man Americans elect as President!!!

When you have a guy who connects with the public on multiple levels (Reagan, Bush II) its easy to sneak social conservative red meat in there. People's attitudes didn't change about Roe v Wade after Reagan won, nor did the rate of abortions go down over his Presidency. People voted for Reagan on foreign policy and economic issues with social conservative stuff thrown in (he remains the nation's only divorced President), not the other way around. The problem is Romney is never going to make that connection. Simply put, people don't like him. For that reason, taking a position like rape victims are barred from making their own reproductive choices sticks out like a sore thumb. If you don't trust a candidate, who knows what he's capable of? Maybe even going along with a lunatic position like this.

So, all these frankly older people keep expecting none of this insane knuckledragger social conservatism to matter because voters will warm to Romney on other issues and pooh-pooh this crap. That's not going to happen. The Republicans would have been far better served keeping a lid on this stuff, sorta like Bush II did, and run on a disciplined economic message than getting caught up in this trap. Really, if an anti-abortion or anti-gay rights bill gets to Mittens desk, who really expects him to defy the Republican Congress and veto it? There's no way this notion won't be on voters minds, particularly women and those under the age of 50 come election day.
 
Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August



I agree almost completely with that op-ed.

My question comes in with this theoretical shrinking of the GOPs reach and electability. I've been hearing this for the past couple of election cycles yet we see a House full of right-wing wackos, a Senate that is evidently in play and state governments dominated by Republicans - even in places that are traditionally blue.

When will this theoretical shrinking actually happen to the point that we see it in actual results? When will the disdain for the angry (and scared) white man party outweigh the fear-voting that we see due to tough times - people vote conservative when things are going bad?

Many declared the GOP dead or at least rendered impotent after November of 4 years ago. Not so.



As a side...

My solution for all of this would be a 4 party system:

Liberals - the far left

Democrats - left of center, blue dogs, Reagan democrats

Republicans - fiscal conservatives, socially moderate

The Religious Right - the far right


this would give nearly everybody a party they could identify with and force elected officials to work together (compromise) to get things done.

I would think that would break down 20:30:30:20 and be perfect. One can dream...
 
Last edited:
Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

Liberals - the far left

Democrats - left of center, blue dogs, Reagan democrats

Republicans - fiscal conservatives, socially moderate

The Religious Right - the far right

Have to rename your parties.

Whiny Dems - Far left.
Dems - left of center, blue dogs, Reagan democrats.
Libertarians - fiscal conservatives, socially moderate.
Republicans - Big government, big religion.
 
Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

Gurth,

Interesting point. I'd say that if they lose this election the chickens have been coming home to roost in the GOP since 1992. Really, it would be 4 out of 6 and outvoted 5 out of 6 elections. Furthermore it would validate the most left wing expansion of govt since at least the 70's environmental legislation.

To the larger point, any of the two major parties is always going to have some significant presense. Nobody is going the way of the Whigs. During Reagan's time the Dems ran the House throughout his term. Dems ran Senate for 3 out of 8 Bush II years and were 50/50 in the first year. Conversely GOP held Congress for 6 out of Clinton's 8 years. The House I would expect to move eventually along with the public's leanings. The Senate is a lot trickier. You can either have someone who's likability transends their politics and gets them elected or they're running against a weak opponent. Either way its 6 years in and maybe longer (think Kirk, Brown or Begich). You could also have someone who's been in so long they keep winning even though the state's politics have shifted (Landreau).

The pattern I've seen is when a state starts voting a certain way for President, you eventually see the shift flowing down to lower level races. Take CA and TX for example. TX shift occurred in 1980 for Prez but it took another 14 years to completely take over the state level. CA shift happened in 1992. 18 years later party couldn't win on state or federal level in massive GOP year. Eventually the states with an out of the margin of error partisan leaning in each Prez race will align their state politics accordingly (WVA, PN, MI) but it doesn't happen overnight and can be delayed if a state party is particularly weak and disorganized.
 
Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

Have to rename your parties.

Whiny Dems - Far left.
Dems - left of center, blue dogs, Reagan democrats.
Libertarians - fiscal conservatives, socially moderate.
Republicans - Big government, big religion.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/VHTLIi3erIg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>a
 
Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

Gurth,

Interesting point. I'd say that if they lose this election the chickens have been coming home to roost in the GOP since 1992. Really, it would be 4 out of 6 and outvoted 5 out of 6 elections. Furthermore it would validate the most left wing expansion of govt since at least the 70's environmental legislation.

To the larger point, any of the two major parties is always going to have some significant presense. Nobody is going the way of the Whigs. During Reagan's time the Dems ran the House throughout his term. Dems ran Senate for 3 out of 8 Bush II years and were 50/50 in the first year. Conversely GOP held Congress for 6 out of Clinton's 8 years. The House I would expect to move eventually along with the public's leanings. The Senate is a lot trickier. You can either have someone who's likability transends their politics and gets them elected or they're running against a weak opponent. Either way its 6 years in and maybe longer (think Kirk, Brown or Begich). You could also have someone who's been in so long they keep winning even though the state's politics have shifted (Landreau).

The pattern I've seen is when a state starts voting a certain way for President, you eventually see the shift flowing down to lower level races. Take CA and TX for example. TX shift occurred in 1980 for Prez but it took another 14 years to completely take over the state level. CA shift happened in 1992. 18 years later party couldn't win on state or federal level in massive GOP year. Eventually the states with an out of the margin of error partisan leaning in each Prez race will align their state politics accordingly (WVA, PN, MI) but it doesn't happen overnight and can be delayed if a state party is particularly weak and disorganized.

The only thing it would validate is the results of your brainwashing experimentation from the 60's. That's what happens with sheeple.
 
Re: The 2012 Presidential Election Part I - The guns of August

The only thing it would validate is the results of your brainwashing experimentation from the 60's. That's what happens with sheeple.

Odd since I wasn't even alive in the 60's but you being wrong for the umpteenth time isn't illegal. If it was you'd be serving about a dozen life sentences by now. :D
 
Back
Top