This is right. ASF seems to be misreading the line. Look at the whole thing: So what's Obama's problem with Romney? Why does he disdain him? Because Romney doesn't stand for anything, and he's not an honorable man (which is really probably just a reiteration of the first thing). That's compared to McCain, who Obama thought stood for something and was honorable. The fact that McCain's war hero status gets thrown in, seems like just a little positive addition in McCain's favor that really has nothing to do with the evaluation of Romney.
This meme that Romney doesn't stand for anything bothers me, because it's completely untrue. Romney stands for plenty. For example, as far as I can tell, when it comes to the increase in executive power over the last decade or so, Romney is right in lock-step with Obama and Bush. He's also for keeping America's aggressive foreign policy stance. Those aren't insignificant by any stretch.
Were you bothered a couple of weeks ago when he disrespected his wife and threw her under the bus by feigning disinterest in her hobby (dressage)? Romney stands for getting elected. And his "views" shift according to whatever voters want to hear. He also stands for making money. Pappa's gotta get paid.
Keeping? Romney has criticized Obama's foreign policy as being weak and passive. Romney is calling for an higher military budget and more foreign intervention. That's not keeping.
In addition to throwing Ann's dressage activity under the bus, he's also throwing a huge chunk of his palpable achievement as Governor under the bus. He's terrified to mention the state's health care because, rather than reflect an ability to work across the aisle, to his base it reflects a compromise, if not a sell out. Damn shame that, among that base especially, "compromise" no longer means "solution," but instead means a sell out.
I'm not sure I would use the word "base." I think of base as the core voters who are impassioned but make up a minority of a party -- say, African Americans and/or union members for Democrats. But most Republicans today do not want compromise. They vote for candidates who promise not to compromise, they vote for candidate who take pledges, they vote for candidates who vows not to do deals. Today's Republican Party exists to pass Republican legislation, or not to pass legislation at all.
Seems to me the charge is that he is so lacking in core conviction that were it to his advantage to say he thinks the opposite, he would.
Ah. Here it is. http://www.npr.org/2012/08/05/157668413/a-story-of-ancient-power-in-the-rise-of-rome It's an interview with historian and biographer Anthony Everitt, who specializes in Rome. I am using an Ipad, which makes excerpting a chore, but his comments on the end of the Roman Empire are interesting. In the radio interview, he specifically mentioned a certain political party that back in the day was somewhat Grand. It is worth pointing out that the Democrats should be able to do a better job selling their message than they seem to do, and I suspect that too is a failure to be able to talk to the other side.
An interesting bit from Ezra Klein - Now, I don't think Ezra has told the full story. His claim is only true if Mitt doesn't shred deductions and tax strategies for the highly wealthy. That is, if Romney lowers the tax rate on the high earners but takes away the carried interest, the Cayman games, and so forth then he could indeed fulfill his promise. Which I suspect will happen the same day that pig wings need de-icing in hell.
Edit - Never mind my caveat above, Ezra's analysis (and others') covered that already. Mitt can't make the numbers work. Period.
And that's because of the base. Reeps in Congress cannot compromise or they will be TeaBagged in the primaries. I imagine that many of those congresscritters would be happy to compromise because they are genuinely interested in solutions, but they lack the moral courage to do so because it will cost them their jobs.
Right, but the Dem base doesn't seem to have the same power as the Republican base. The Republican base wants no new taxes, every Republican takes a pledge. The Dem base of unions and African-Americans, what do they get? How do they influence Dem primaries? Not much, it seems to me.
I'm sorry, I missed your point because I'm so ********ing apoloplectic that the criminally retarded Timbers FO traded away Troy Perkins. You're absolutely right about the Dem base. Sorry. Carry on.
Do you guys really loathe The Sounders, or do you admit in your heart of hearts that you are the same city and the same people and secretly support them? Off topic I guess but this *is* a soccer board.
In a big tent party, ideological purity can't win out because no one interest group is powerful enough. The GOP has spent 30 years slowly kicking out all of the people that could prevent the insanity. Here's hoping that after the landslide in November, conservatives nationwide take a good hard look at what the part that's supposed to represent them has become, kick Limbaugh and Norquist in the nads, and work to become a relevant party in a functioning republic again.
And that's because the Dems are a "Big Tent" party and they don't have a common core issue that they will vote en masse for. Dems are also more lenient with their politicians. They are willing to put up with them disagreeing on certain points as long as they agree on their core issue. IE, a union voter might vote for a Dem that is hardline union supporter, but is pro-choice while the voter is pro-life. However, for a Republican voter, that politician would be voted out because they aren't pure enough.
Nope. Won't happen. Oh, they just might issue a massive mea culpa and swear to kick St. Rush and St. Grover to the curb, but then again, they did that in 2008. But then they quickly realized that there was still some juice in that "Dems are Teh Devil!!!111!!!" can and they kept kicking it. And when they lose this year, they'll blame it on Mitt and the fact that he wasn't conservative enough.