Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyD
And the proverbial "my side isn't as bad as that other group" defense. I appreciate the timing.
Tried it with McCain, then he chose Palin as his running-mate. A decision that, still to this day, I believe is the sole reason he lost that election. Palin is anything but a moderate. And with regards to Romney, he's so spineless that no one knows where he is any more. He's as moderate or conservative as the group he is pandering to. I've said this before, Romney is the guy in the room that yells "Hey, I can be Conservative too. Let me show you."
I don't think the polarization all starts with Obama. I think his stance against the Republicans is a product of a polarizing buildup that has been happening since the latter part of Clinton. While their has been some slight decrease lately, there is no denying the obstructionist-agenda the Republicans have been pursuing since taking a majority in the House. At the same time, Obama has been just as unwilling to bend as the Republicans have been.
While Obama is losing independents in droves, the Republican primary that is focused on "who's the most conservative candidate" isn't doing anything to win those votes.
At least you subtly admit that the GOP obstruction will continue.
|
"Tried it with McCain, then he chose Palin as his running-mate. A decision that, still to this day, I believe is the sole reason he lost that election. "
Johnny, I hear this all the time. All the time. And it's demonstrably false. After McCain picked Palin, he surged ahead of Obama in the polls, and he stayed right there until the economy tanked.
I'm not saying I think Palin was qualified, or even that she was a good candidate (in my opinion). I'm saying that the economy, not her selection, doomed McCain. The polls at that time validate my theory, and dispute yours.
"there is no denying the obstructionist-agenda the Republicans have been pursuing since taking a majority in the House."
Agreed. That's also what heppend when there's a Republican president and a Democrat-controlled legislature.
"While Obama is losing independents in droves, the Republican primary that is focused on "who's the most conservative candidate" isn't doing anything to win those votes."
You might be right. Maybe the independents aren't enthralled with Romney. But as they flee Obama, there's only one other realistic place to go. If "choosing the lesser of 2 evils" it what it takes to get this Mao-ist out of the Oval Office, I'm OK with that. I'd rather have a GOP candidate that actually energizes folks. But winning this election is what's important, not how you play.
"At least you subtly admit that the GOP obstruction will continue."
I don't subtly admit, I'll say it explicitly. And furthermore, I say "thank God" for their obstructionism. If one believes in a radically conservative idea (oh, for example, that $60 trillion in debt is a bad thing), is such a person supposed to capitulate to Obama and give him a blank check?
When the Democrats resisted Bush, I kept hearing that "dissent was the highest form of patriotism". Now that Obama wears the crown, those same folks claim that dissent is the lowest form of racism.
My solution is to throw all the bums out (both parties), and elect normal people who actually know how to do things, with very strict term limits. We need true civilian legislators, not career politicians who want to stay in DC their whole lives to show what a big lasagna they are.