Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 19, 2013 12:26:45 GMT -5
No, and if he did, the media and the Democrats - but I'm being redundant - would have a field day with things like this: usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/21/21058974-chris-christie-drops-challenge-to-same-sex-marriage-in-new-jerseyHe challenged the ruling, so he doesn't support gay marriage; but he dropped the challenge, because he didn't want to be on record as fighting it. The ads write themselves. "Will this man support marriage reform in the White House? Let's not take that chance." I happen to think pragmatism is a good quality in an executive, but it will be painted as weakness in the primary and deceit in the general. There'll be lots more dog-whistles about his weight, and lots of talk about "fat cats" to the tune of those dog-whistles. He does well in national polls because he has across-the-board appeal, and I get that's a good thing. But his appeal is a product of the favorable publicity he engenders, because he's the Dems' idea of a "good Republican" - he echoes a lot of their frames, but still does enough - busting unions, opposing gay marriage - to be demonized. Romney was ideal too, because he couldn't articulate an attack on Obamacare or a defense of venture capitalism in the face of the concerted early effort to frame him in the national perception. Exactly the same thing will happen with any Republican front-runner, and anyone whose credentials are being spoken of approvingly in acknowledged lefty media enclaves in that regard is not going to offer voters a clear choice and a clean break from what I expect will be a deeply unpopular incumbent. I think Christie would make a good President, actually; but I don't believe he'll get the chance. God knows what mutt we'll have opposing Hillary in 2016.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 19, 2013 12:35:22 GMT -5
Yes, I do. I'm well aware I'm at odds with the notionally right-wing party in our two-party state here, although not with all of its members and certainly not all of its voters. forgive me for saying so, but i think you are being defensive. it is the same reaction that one gets when you suggest to someone who identifies as left wing that there are SOME left wing authoritarians out there. there is left wing authoritarianism there is left wing libertarianism there is right wing authoritarianism there is right wing libertarianism all strains of politics have their bastards. even the one you identify with. Forgive me for saying so, but I think we're agreeing. What I meant to be saying the first time around was that my conception of rightism does not agree with important elements of the GOP platform, but that it isn't unique among people who lean and even vote with the GOP. Left-libertarianism is anarchism, in my opinion. Right-wing authoritarianism is statism, in my opinion. It's just because I find a line spectrum easier to navigate than a notional circle or sphere (you can add a U-axis to Eysenck's model without much effort). Neither the GOP nor the Democratic Party are authentically of one political wing. No two-party state can be coherently bipolar; democracy is always better served by a greater number of explicit associations of individuals representing coherent philosophies.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 19, 2013 19:34:59 GMT -5
forgive me for saying so, but i think you are being defensive. it is the same reaction that one gets when you suggest to someone who identifies as left wing that there are SOME left wing authoritarians out there. there is left wing authoritarianism there is left wing libertarianism there is right wing authoritarianism there is right wing libertarianism all strains of politics have their bastards. even the one you identify with. Forgive me for saying so, but I think we're agreeing. What I meant to be saying the first time around was that my conception of rightism does not agree with important elements of the GOP platform, but that it isn't unique among people who lean and even vote with the GOP. Left-libertarianism is anarchism, in my opinion. Right-wing authoritarianism is statism, in my opinion. It's just because I find a line spectrum easier to navigate than a notional circle or sphere (you can add a U-axis to Eysenck's model without much effort). Neither the GOP nor the Democratic Party are authentically of one political wing. No two-party state can be coherently bipolar; democracy is always better served by a greater number of explicit associations of individuals representing coherent philosophies. you're right. it sounds like we agree. how did i miss that?
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Nov 19, 2013 23:46:15 GMT -5
Is it possible that Christie was being fiscally conservative by not wasting resources to fight a losing battle? The GOP should learn that lesson. BTW phoenix every time I do one of these political quizzes I end up libertarian left. It is the closest to my positions. I do not see the anarchy in it. But I refuse to be pigeonholed. I liked Jill Stein in the last election. Of course there are those of us that conclude if you do not agree with them 100% you are a liberal idiot out to destroy the country.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 20, 2013 11:51:02 GMT -5
Is it possible that Christie was being fiscally conservative by not wasting resources to fight a losing battle? The GOP should learn that lesson. BTW phoenix every time I do one of these political quizzes I end up libertarian left. It is the closest to my positions. I do not see the anarchy in it. But I refuse to be pigeonholed. I liked Jill Stein in the last election. Of course there are those of us that conclude if you do not agree with them 100% you are a liberal idiot out to destroy the country. jill stein might have been the best candidate in the race.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 20, 2013 14:22:22 GMT -5
Nearly half a million Americans thought so sufficiently to cast a vote for her in 2012...
I'm at least open to the ideas of a number of thinkers associated with the libertarian left - Proudhon leaps to mind, although whether he's your sort of libertarian I don't know, and if you can't see the anarchism of the author of "property is theft [...] property is liberty" then I can't help you see it.
I haven't yet decided if all political distinctions devolve to subjective differences about the nature and quality of properties (especially, economic goods), but I tend toward that view.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 20, 2013 15:50:04 GMT -5
and looking ahead to 2016, i am not seeing much to improve that record. So you don't think Christie has a ghost's chance of getting through the GOP primary process? not unless the TP gets clobbered in 2014. i actually think the odds of that are better than most others here do.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 20, 2013 16:26:00 GMT -5
The principal difference between Tea Party candidates and non-Tea Party candidates in 2014 will be their stance on Obamacare. Not the debt, or the deficit, or Iran, or education, or lots of other important things - like, whisper it softly, job creation - OBAMACARE. That is what the President has ensured.
For you to believe that the TP face a backlash in 2014, given that only 7% of House Republicans are in seats Obama won in 2012 and only two Republican Senators were considered at all unsafe immediately after the shutdown (and one of them, Mitch McConnell, strengthened his standing by brokering the end of that shutdown), you have to believe that Obamacare is going to become a net-positive for its supporters within that timeframe.
You have to believe that a law whose popularity has been upside down consistently since it was first debated, notwithstanding the fact that people have been enjoying its benefits without its costs for the most part up to this point and are now seeing the first rebated and subsidized tranche of billing and freaking out even at that, will become popular.
You have to think the way Obama does about Obamacare. You have to think the way Pelosi does about Obamacare. You have to think the way Debbie Wassermann-Schultz does about Obamacare. At least, you have to say you think what they say they think.
This is nonsense. It's not at all clear that a revision to the law could pass the House, pass the Senate, AND avoid a Presidential veto. If one could, it's hard to see how it improves Democrats' prospects. We're in a situation where Republicans in Congress earn more confidence from voters on the question of effectively running the government weeks after shutting it down. That's how badly Obamacare damages the Democratic brand.
Do you think Obama will fire Kathleen Sebelius? To coin a phrase: what difference, at this point, would it make? Micahel Brown, official in charge of Bush's Katrina response, tendered his resignation a fortnight after Katrina hit. It didn't help Bush's popularity, as it turned out, but can you imagine what the response would have been if Bush had said, "no, Brownie, I won't have it. You get out there and keep on doing a heckuva job!"
Obama's mea culpa last week indicates where his head's at: bunker mentality. Yuval Levin described it very well. Having had weeks to think about it, the President determined his best play was to try to fling some blame around, at the insurers, at the states, at Republicans, all while repeating "this is all on me." Polls suggest it didn't work. What it did do was allow minor state officials to pointedly and publicly remind the President that the law of the land doesn't change because he wants it to; it changes because Congress changes it, and Obama is in the embarrassing position of needing exactly the change he shut the government down rather than accept in October (because so perfect is the clusterfuck of Obamacare that it actually reframes the shutdown, correctly in my view, as a crisis manufactured from end to end at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue). The problem with a bunker is you have really short horizons: Obama is now facing a year in which his half-solutions to past problems manifest as successively bigger problems even while he catches the flak for the original half-solutions.
I think the consensus that he is out of his depth in the Presidency is coalescing; it's not at the tipping-point yet, but it's inching closer the closer we get to election season. If we reach the stage where Senator Shaheen is in toss-up territory in New Hampshire, Senator Reid may seriously have to act to save the Senate majority for his party and let the President fend for himself as a lame duck on a lonely pond.
You, clearly, don't align with the Tea Party. It offends your sense of propriety, or something. Fine. The violence done by this President to the constitutional workings of the legislative and executive branch dwarfs the incivility, naivete, and obstinacy of the congressional Tea Party caucus: and it does so in ways that hit voters directly in the pocketbook and have his fingerprints all over them.
I'm telling you, Obamacare will be the issue in 2014. The backlash comes two years later.
|
|
bean29
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 22:26:57 GMT -5
Posts: 9,971
|
Post by bean29 on Nov 20, 2013 16:55:59 GMT -5
I posted this before. I no someone in the HRISP. He needs back surgery. HRISP refused to approve anything for the last few months of 2013 - so whoop tee do-they can extend the plan for 3 months and continue to refuse to approve anything. They will collect the premiums and have an even larger surplus.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 20, 2013 18:15:57 GMT -5
The principal difference between Tea Party candidates and non-Tea Party candidates in 2014 will be their stance on Obamacare. Not the debt, or the deficit, or Iran, or education, or lots of other important things - like, whisper it softly, job creation - OBAMACARE. That is what the President has ensured. For you to believe that the TP face a backlash in 2014, given that only 7% of House Republicans are in seats Obama won in 2012 and only two Republican Senators were considered at all unsafe immediately after the shutdown (and one of them, Mitch McConnell, strengthened his standing by brokering the end of that shutdown), you have to believe that Obamacare is going to become a net-positive for its supporters within that timeframe. You have to believe that a law whose popularity has been upside down consistently since it was first debated, notwithstanding the fact that people have been enjoying its benefits without its costs for the most part up to this point and are now seeing the first rebated and subsidized tranche of billing and freaking out even at that, will become popular. You have to think the way Obama does about Obamacare. You have to think the way Pelosi does about Obamacare. You have to think the way Debbie Wassermann-Schultz does about Obamacare. At least, you have to say you think what they say they think. This is nonsense. It's not at all clear that a revision to the law could pass the House, pass the Senate, AND avoid a Presidential veto. If one could, it's hard to see how it improves Democrats' prospects. We're in a situation where Republicans in Congress earn more confidence from voters on the question of effectively running the government weeks after shutting it down. That's how badly Obamacare damages the Democratic brand. Do you think Obama will fire Kathleen Sebelius? To coin a phrase: what difference, at this point, would it make? Micahel Brown, official in charge of Bush's Katrina response, tendered his resignation a fortnight after Katrina hit. It didn't help Bush's popularity, as it turned out, but can you imagine what the response would have been if Bush had said, "no, Brownie, I won't have it. You get out there and keep on doing a heckuva job!" Obama's mea culpa last week indicates where his head's at: bunker mentality. Yuval Levin described it very well. Having had weeks to think about it, the President determined his best play was to try to fling some blame around, at the insurers, at the states, at Republicans, all while repeating "this is all on me." Polls suggest it didn't work. What it did do was allow minor state officials to pointedly and publicly remind the President that the law of the land doesn't change because he wants it to; it changes because Congress changes it, and Obama is in the embarrassing position of needing exactly the change he shut the government down rather than accept in October (because so perfect is the clusterfuck of Obamacare that it actually reframes the shutdown, correctly in my view, as a crisis manufactured from end to end at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue). The problem with a bunker is you have really short horizons: Obama is now facing a year in which his half-solutions to past problems manifest as successively bigger problems even while he catches the flak for the original half-solutions. I think the consensus that he is out of his depth in the Presidency is coalescing; it's not at the tipping-point yet, but it's inching closer the closer we get to election season. If we reach the stage where Senator Shaheen is in toss-up territory in New Hampshire, Senator Reid may seriously have to act to save the Senate majority for his party and let the President fend for himself as a lame duck on a lonely pond. You, clearly, don't align with the Tea Party. It offends your sense of propriety, or something. Fine. The violence done by this President to the constitutional workings of the legislative and executive branch dwarfs the incivility, naivete, and obstinacy of the congressional Tea Party caucus: and it does so in ways that hit voters directly in the pocketbook and have his fingerprints all over them. I'm telling you, Obamacare will be the issue in 2014. The backlash comes two years later. 2016 is too far away for me to predict anything other than the fact that ObamaCare will not be repealed during that time.
|
|