Political Roundtable Quasar of Mayhem part III

[dobrojim]

BHO was simply slow to realize that the GOP was more interested in destroying him than in doing anything that would help the country. That's what they said when he took office. That is how they have acted in the nearly 3 years since then.

There's nothing smart about this. The obvious dissonance between what an apparently intelligent man should have realized before he even took office and the behavior of the administration is what has lead so many people to doubt Obama's sincerity and conviction.

I worked on the Employee Free Choice Act campaign and on the public option aspect of the health care fight. At no point were representatives from the administration supportive behind the scenes, much less actually helpful. Most of my cohort came to the conclusion, fairly early in the Summer of 2009, that Obama and the administration was just lying when they articulated public support for those issues.

It's rather dispiriting; I hate needing to speculate about "secret motives" in order to understand elected officials' incentives and positions. It's unfortunately necessary with the administration.

For instance:

speaking of the GOP, why don't they come up with ideas that would garner them the non-white support they have failed to get instead of pretending there is a voter fraud crisis - there isn't - with their solution being to attempt to disenfranchise those who don't support them?

Because they don't want that support, and don't think they need it to be successful politically.

re the former - I appreciate your perspective. My only issue would be that it's
possible that he concluded doing what the 2 of us would probably agree was the
right thing simply wasn't going to be politically possible, even for someone with
his rhetorical gifts, even if there was widespread public support for it. I think it
might have been true that he wanted those things in his heart of hearts but that
he would ultimately fail and in so failing, hurt those causes even more. And hurt
his own re-election chances by closing the spigot of donations from certain quarters.

Re the latter - I think the smart money in the GOP would understand demographic
trends are likely to be stronger or more effective than their efforts to disenfranchise.
People have long memories about feeling mistreated. That said, short term thinking
at the expense of long term benefits, is endemic in our culture and both pol parties.
With so many elections being on the knife edge, they'd rather do everything to win
now (however despicable IMO) than develop a long term plan to address their weakness
among non-whites.

[popper]

I usually vote Repub although I supported and voted for the first black US governer, Democrat Doug Wilder. Virginia, considered a very conservative state at the time, made history with a lot of white conservative support for Gov. Wilder. He turned out to be an outstanding choice.

The reason Repubs want Obama's policies to fail is because we disagree with almost every one of them. In the beginning of the Clinton admin. we wanted his policies (the liberal ones) to fail as well. When he agreed to welfare reform and other Repub priorities I cheered him.

Repubs overwhelmingly supported Colin Powell as a potential Repub nominee for Pres. I believe he would have won in a landslide had he decided to run. He would have become the first black Pres., a Repub.

I think some members of this board are mistaken when they assert that Repubs have a problem supporting people of color for high office. We will support anyone who believes in and promotes conservative principals.

There is nothing personal about my position against Pres. Obama's policies nor was there when I vociferously criticized Pres. Bush when I disagreed with his policies. I wanted him to fail to enact policies that I disagreed with.

The Repub House has passed numerous bills in the last two years (many with bipartisan support) that would improve the economy but the Senate won't take them up. I laugh when Pres Obama and Sen Reid call the Repubs obstructionist. Of course they are, as are Dems, when they oppose a certain policy. What's the big deal?

I don't see race as a defining issue at this point in our history.

[dobrojim]

I think some members of this board are mistaken when they assert that Repubs have a problem supporting people of color for high office. We will support anyone who believes in and promotes conservative principals.

that is not what I said. that is not what McConnell said.

It's all OK to be against someone's policies. They made it
personal and said it was their top priority. They explicitly
said it was their top priority to make sure he was a 1-term Pres.
This was before he had actually done anything. I understand
partisanship but I don't recall it ever reaching this point in the
recent past.

I think the term Obama derangement disorder is an apt description.
He took what for many were very middle of the road approaches
to the stimulus (biasing it heavily in favor of tax cuts) and insurance
reform (not considering public option ie /real/ reform). For his
efforts, he got no support whatsoever. None. Not only did
he get no support, he got vilified and described in the most
extreme and unfair/inaccurate terms. These people have
no idea what being a socialist means cause Obama ain't it.

There are a great number of pubs who will vote based on
policies being proposed/promoted. I believe of those
across the political spectrum who let racial prejudice
determine or bias their preferences, there are disproportionately
more of those folks on the right than on the left. Doesn't
mean there are no racist on the left.
Doesn't mean I think all cons are racist. I certainly
don't think anyone on this board is racist. Well maybe
Ji with his comment about the lockout (half joking).

[fugop]

The notion of "supporting" legislation has to entail more than lip service. Every time anyone came up with a strategy for advancing either the Employee Free Choice Act or the public option, the administration -- Rahm in particular, but occasionally Messina -- would quash the idea. And not just raise obstacles -- they would go ballistic, threatening funding, cutting off access, etc.

http://www.thenation.com/article/159577/obamas-enforcer

They didn't just think that EFCA or the public option were politically non-viable, they ensured that they were. It's possible to write the shenanigans off as simple incompetence, but it's incredibly condescending and fanciful to do so. Rahm, Messina, and Obama are smart people, and know exacrtly what they are doing. It's just not tenable to constantly excuse their activity, and its obviously predictable outcomes, as the result of mistakes.

I usually use the term "poliodicy" to describe the "Obama administration has its heart in the right place" position. Gottfried Leibniz coined the term "theodicy" to reconcile the problem of evil and the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent deity. His conclusion was that we must live in "the best of all possible worlds" and that observed evils were not actually evil at all, but necessary difficulties that serve some unknown greater good.

The same Liebnizian logic is occasionally employed when people struggle with the dissonance of admitting that they were wrong to trust a leader. It's a hard, and again, dispiriting, realization.

[Nivek]

I usually vote Repub although I supported and voted for the first black US governer, Democrat Doug Wilder. Virginia, considered a very conservative state at the time, made history with a lot of white conservative support for Gov. Wilder. He turned out to be an outstanding choice.

I studied this election, and while Virginia did make history in electing Wilder, a significant racial component at the time was revealed. In that election, Wilder was on the right (more popular side) of every important issue. He had previously won state-wide elections. He had progressively responsible elected positions. He had the endorsement of every major newspaper and nearly every kind of organized group there was. And, he was running against a wackadoo who had lost several elections.

Pre-election polls showed Wilder with a significant lead (about 9 points if I recall correctly). Exit polls showed a 10-point win for Wilder. He ended up winning by a half a percentage point.

I agree Wilder ended up being an excellent choice. I voted for him myself (my first gubernatorial vote, as a matter of fact). And, Wilder did get some conservative support. Mostly, he won with liberals, moderates and blacks. Wilder was smart as hell. He ran an under-the-radar "get out the vote" campaign in the black community. He spent his Sundays going to black churches to stoke support and make the case that he needed blacks to turn out at the polls.

I think some members of this board are mistaken when they assert that Repubs have a problem supporting people of color for high office. We will support anyone who believes in and promotes conservative principals.

I think you're partly correct here. There are many Republicans/conservatives who truly don't give a crap about race. However, anti-minority racists tend to place themselves within the Republican party. And, I think it's impossible to deny that some Republican leaders are only too happy to use racial coding and racist attitudes as a wedge.

The Repub House has passed numerous bills in the last two years (many with bipartisan support) that would improve the economy but the Senate won't take them up. I laugh when Pres Obama and Sen Reid call the Repubs obstructionist. Of course they are, as are Dems, when they oppose a certain policy. What's the big deal?

I dunno. The GOP has opposed Obama on implementing things they have previously agreed with. It's been tough not to see them as obstructing for the sake of obstruction.

I don't see race as a defining issue at this point in our history.

I wish I could agree. In many ways, I do agree. But, I'm a white man married to a black woman, and I see the implicit racism all the time. I see how store personnel will follow her around the store -- without ever offering assistance (even when it's clear she wants help) -- but will immediately offer help to me, and then leave me alone when I say no. That's one very small example -- I could give plenty more.

Racial attitudes are changing, but it's still a significant issue.

[Zonkerbl]

Yeah I think it's a fallacy that the only way for Republicans to win over minorities is to become more liberal. That's just false -- there are a lot of issues where minorities lean conservative, particularly religious ones.

I think the problem we have right now is a natural tendency to calcify over time if there are no new issues. The right drifts right and the left drifts left until there's no overlap between the parties and therefore no opportunity for compromise.

I think cutting the deficit and turning the Federal government into a 21st century engine of growth instead of perpetuating the 20th century model of sloth and inefficiency resonates on both sides. I talk to Dems about about using metrics to measure the benefits of aid so that it can be distributed more efficiently and their ears prick up. I talk to Republicans about having the government intervene only to correct market failures so that markets can do their job properly and their eyes twinkle. We can make the government work smarter, to do more with less. Anyway, everybody realizes the baby boomers are going to bankrupt social security and medicare, so we've got to come to an agreement eventually, or we can end up like Greece. We've got to hold hands and jump into the abyss together.

[fugop]

Conservative efforts at minority outreach have failed miserably over the years. There's been talk about it since at least the mid-nineties, and it's never amounted to anything, despite significant effort and resource expenditure.

In fact, the problem has gotten worse. Each new minority group courted by the GOP has been offended and eventually alienated after initial outreach. Muslims in Mishigan, for instance, were heavily targeted in the late nineties, especially by Norquist and company. 9/11 overturned those efforts. Latinos were courted by the Bush administration, extremely heavily, to the point where there were some credible electoral inroads. The immigration fight overturned much of that. Outreach to south Asians -- Indians/Hindus in particular -- was actually going pretty well for the GOP until the macaca incident.

Each effort by the GOP to broaden its base eventually results in backlash against the person responsible for the outreach. Norquist has routinely been attacked by his opponents for loving terrorists (Frank Wolf did it recently) based on his ties to Muslims. Rick Perry is struggling with immigration in the Republican primary. Support for outreach transforms into apostasy and either blacklisting or flip-flopping.

Not exactly apposite, but David Williams went after Steve Beshear for bringing a $180 million Indian facility to KY, based on Beshear's participation in in some sort of Hindu-derived groundbreaking ceremony.

[popper]

I love this thread. Great discussion.

I think we will see a higher percentage of blacks vote for the Repub in this next election. There are hundreds of thousands of small businesses, especially in the south, that are owned by blacks. I have talked to half a dozen or so and 80% of those oppose Pres. Obama on economic concerns. They voted for him the first time but their businesses are struggling and they believe Repubs are better suited to jump-start the economy.

Same with the Jewish and Hispanic vote. I don't think the Repubs will win a majority in any of the above mentioned blocs but a few percentage point swing can make a big difference in a handful of states.

Another factor that could sway the vote in favor of the Repubs is the possibility that Sen. Rubio is added to the ticket. I believe he could be the X factor in the coming election.

[nate33]

I think some members of this board are mistaken when they assert that Repubs have a problem supporting people of color for high office. We will support anyone who believes in and promotes conservative principals.

that is not what I said. that is not what McConnell said.

It's all OK to be against someone's policies. They made it
personal and said it was their top priority. They explicitly
said it was their top priority to make sure he was a 1-term Pres.
This was before he had actually done anything. I understand
partisanship but I don't recall it ever reaching this point in the
recent past.

Are you serious? Do you not remember George Bush's first year?

Political parties always oppose the other party's President. They may give lip service of modest support in the first few months, but by the time the next election season rolls around, they ALWAYS make a maximum effort to make sure he is a one-termer.

[fugop]

What legislation did Bush propose in 2001 that Democrats opposed purely for political purposes? I don't recall any significant cases.

Democrats have historically split when a faction of their caucus agrees with a piece of Republican legislation. Republicans are lately united against legislation when the conservative faction of their party disagrees with it.

[dobrojim]

my recollection is that W got some Dem votes for some things he did.

Pubs will cut off their nose to spite their faces before they
vote for even pub ideas, like insurance reform, end of life
counseling, tax cuts...if Obama proposes them.

And I challenge you to find someone who says I hope
Bush fails (as president, not as a candidate for re-election).

[fugop]

I love this thread. Great discussion.

I think we will see a higher percentage of blacks vote for the Repub in this next election. There are hundreds of thousands of small businesses, especially in the south, that are owned by blacks. I have talked to half a dozen or so and 80% of those oppose Pres. Obama on economic concerns. They voted for him the first time but their businesses are struggling and they believe Repubs are better suited to jump-start the economy.

Same with the Jewish and Hispanic vote. I don't think the Repubs will win a majority in any of the above mentioned blocs but a few percentage point swing can make a big difference in a handful of states.

Another factor that could sway the vote in favor of the Repubs is the possibility that Sen. Rubio is added to the ticket. I believe he could be the X factor in the coming election.

This is wishful thinking, as in the last two decades. The black vote will be a smaller percentage of the overall electorate in 2012, and you may see some decline from the historic 2008 levels, but it will be minuscule, a statistical aberration. Commentators have been predicting a reduction in the Democratic proportion of the Jewish vote for a decade. The opposite has happened. Rubio will play out much like Palin did with the women's vote -- not at all. The corruption stories around him will be catastrophic for a Republican ticket, especially should Perry get the nomination.

The mainline Republican tradition was popular with certain demographics. Jewish folks voted for Rockefeller Republicans in New York. As the mainline tradition fades further into the rearview mirror, the holdouts either quit voting (through death or disillusion) or leave the Party.

[dobrojim]

The same Liebnizian logic is occasionally employed when people struggle with the dissonance of admitting that they were wrong to trust a leader. It's a hard, and again, dispiriting, realization.

I'll admit to being more optimistic that things would change more than I probably
should have been. That said, I don't regret for a NY minute casting my ballot
for BHO when the alternative was Grampy McSame. It's too bad that this is
'the best' that our system is currently able to come up with. I blame the
concentration of wealth, no effective limits on political spending and
incredibly refined gerrymandering for much of this situation.

[dobrojim]

I usually vote Repub although I supported and voted for the first black US governer, Democrat Doug Wilder. Virginia, considered a very conservative state at the time, made history with a lot of white conservative support for Gov. Wilder. He turned out to be an outstanding choice.

I studied this election, and while Virginia did make history in electing Wilder, a significant racial component at the time was revealed. In that election, Wilder was on the right (more popular side) of every important issue. He had previously won state-wide elections. He had progressively responsible elected positions. He had the endorsement of every major newspaper and nearly every kind of organized group there was. And, he was running against a wackadoo who had lost several elections.

Pre-election polls showed Wilder with a significant lead (about 9 points if I recall correctly). Exit polls showed a 10-point win for Wilder. He ended up winning by a half a percentage point.

I agree Wilder ended up being an excellent choice. I voted for him myself (my first gubernatorial vote, as a matter of fact). And, Wilder did get some conservative support. Mostly, he won with liberals, moderates and blacks. Wilder was smart as hell. He ran an under-the-radar "get out the vote" campaign in the black community. He spent his Sundays going to black churches to stoke support and make the case that he needed blacks to turn out at the polls.

I think some members of this board are mistaken when they assert that Repubs have a problem supporting people of color for high office. We will support anyone who believes in and promotes conservative principals.

I think you're partly correct here. There are many Republicans/conservatives who truly don't give a crap about race. However, anti-minority racists tend to place themselves within the Republican party. And, I think it's impossible to deny that some Republican leaders are only too happy to use racial coding and racist attitudes as a wedge.

The Repub House has passed numerous bills in the last two years (many with bipartisan support) that would improve the economy but the Senate won't take them up. I laugh when Pres Obama and Sen Reid call the Repubs obstructionist. Of course they are, as are Dems, when they oppose a certain policy. What's the big deal?

I dunno. The GOP has opposed Obama on implementing things they have previously agreed with. It's been tough not to see them as obstructing for the sake of obstruction.

I don't see race as a defining issue at this point in our history.

I wish I could agree. In many ways, I do agree. But, I'm a white man married to a black woman, and I see the implicit racism all the time. I see how store personnel will follow her around the store -- without ever offering assistance (even when it's clear she wants help) -- but will immediately offer help to me, and then leave me alone when I say no. That's one very small example -- I could give plenty more.

Racial attitudes are changing, but it's still a significant issue.

I may have put it inelegantly in my previous post - perhaps a better way to put it
would be to say if you took a hypothetical racist person, that person would be
like to feel more comfy and at home in the Republican party that only recently
ran the Harold Ford Call me ads. And you can probably find equivalent ads
in virtually every election cycle since 1964 (or earlier). Helms, Barbour,
Strokin Strom, Bush (willie horton)...it's a substantial list. The hypothetical
racist isn't going to be as comfy in the party of John Lewis and Barney Frank.

[hands11]

President Clinton on Morning Joe today: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/ns/ ... /#45205500

He's still smart.

Government/Private partnership.

I tried pitching that idea 20 pages ago when we were talking about solar and infrastructure.

It made to much common sense to be excepted to some here. We need lower taxes, less regulation and pure private industry capitalism. That seems to be their only solution. Never mind that other countries will continue to outpace us if we do it that way because they are doing government and private industry partnerships.

[hands11]

I worked on the Employee Free Choice Act campaign and on the public option aspect of the health care fight. At no point were representatives from the administration supportive behind the scenes, much less actually helpful. Most of my cohort came to the conclusion, fairly early in the Summer of 2009, that Obama and the administration was just lying when they articulated public support for those issues.

I also worked on and supported EFCA and the public option...both of which were strongly supported by organized labor, which I'm proud to be a part of. (We're going to have a BIG win in Ohio today.)

You're right when you say the Obama Administration never came out strongly in favor of either EFCA or the public option. However, I disagree with you when you say that the administration was "lying" when it said it supported those measures. I believe the Obama administration supported both EFCA and the public option in principal but decided that neither was going to be able to get through Congress and decided against wasting any political chits on them.

Because they don't want that support, and don't think they need it to be successful politically.

Not only do the Repubs believe they don't need non-whites to win elections, I'm guessing that they fear losing some white support if they embraced what might be considered "liberal" positions in order to win over more blacks or Hispanics.

Theirs is a sinking boat. They have to cheat, steal and lie in order to hold on as long as possible so they can pass legislation to rigs the game so they can hold on while it takes years to reverse the rigged system they implement. They have to break the unions and make sure people can't vote while they lead the religious right by the nose.

On the other side, some religious people are coming to their senses and starting to realize that groups like Occupy have more in common with them then the power freaks that want it to be everyone for themselves. They see the unity, democracy and giving when they visit the Occupy movement.

This country has lost it's soul to making money and greed is its new God.

[hands11]

I usually vote Repub although I supported and voted for the first black US governer, Democrat Doug Wilder. Virginia, considered a very conservative state at the time, made history with a lot of white conservative support for Gov. Wilder. He turned out to be an outstanding choice.

The reason Repubs want Obama's policies to fail is because we disagree with almost every one of them. In the beginning of the Clinton admin. we wanted his policies (the liberal ones) to fail as well. When he agreed to welfare reform and other Repub priorities I cheered him.

Repubs overwhelmingly supported Colin Powell as a potential Repub nominee for Pres. I believe he would have won in a landslide had he decided to run. He would have become the first black Pres., a Repub.

I think some members of this board are mistaken when they assert that Repubs have a problem supporting people of color for high office. We will support anyone who believes in and promotes conservative principals.

There is nothing personal about my position against Pres. Obama's policies nor was there when I vociferously criticized Pres. Bush when I disagreed with his policies. I wanted him to fail to enact policies that I disagreed with.

The Repub House has passed numerous bills in the last two years (many with bipartisan support) that would improve the economy but the Senate won't take them up. I laugh when Pres Obama and Sen Reid call the Repubs obstructionist. Of course they are, as are Dems, when they oppose a certain policy. What's the big deal?

I don't see race as a defining issue at this point in our history.

Just curious. Can you show me one of these bills that you think is a good idea and show me the bipartisan support.

[hands11]

As for racism. Lets just put it this way.

I have heard the N word many times in my life from no black people.

I cant think of one time that the person who said it was a Dem.

So while every R is not racist, the one that are out there live in that party or the TP branch of it.

At least that is what I have seen in my lifetime.

[hands11]

The same Liebnizian logic is occasionally employed when people struggle with the dissonance of admitting that they were wrong to trust a leader. It's a hard, and again, dispiriting, realization.

I'll admit to being more optimistic that things would change more than I probably
should have been. That said, I don't regret for a NY minute casting my ballot
for BHO when the alternative was Grampy McSame. It's too bad that this is
'the best' that our system is currently able to come up with. I blame the
concentration of wealth, no effective limits on political spending and
incredibly refined gerrymandering for much of this situation.

Personally, I count my blessing that we got Obama instead of McCain and Sarah.

As for small business people, the ones I talk to feel the same way and plan on voting for Obama again.

[popper]

I haven't personally met any Repub that is racist. Not saying they don't exist but in my adult life I have never met one. Sure, I've heard jokes and stereotypical comments about every ethnicity, as I'm sure you have as well, but I never got the impression that the comments were anything more than macho banter.

I have no doubt there are racist in this country but I can assure you that they don't all reside in the Repub party nor are they all white. I can also assure you that the vast majority of Repubs that I kwow would condemn such behavior in the strongest terms. Prejudice is ugly but will always be with us. I grew up poor in the south and the wealthy whites called us "white trash." It hurt but what are you going to do. They call me white trash and I call them silver spoons. Life goes on and so must we. Prejudice is ignorance and everyone I hang out with and have befriended over the years understand this.

Once again, I don't want Obama, Reid, Pelosi, etc. to succeed because I think our country would be worse off, not because of their race, sexual proclivity or any other irrelavent differentiator.