Well that is not true either. Non-Republicans/liberals here including Tiassa have been critical of President Obama on a number of issues including his policies on Gitmo, LGBT issues and healthcare reform to name a few.
The Romney File
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
Well that is not true either. Non-Republicans/liberals here including Tiassa have been critical of President Obama on a number of issues including his policies on Gitmo, LGBT issues and healthcare reform to name a few.
Yeah what excuses, what lies?
Yep, no answer. Just as I thought.
I'm sure some liberals have been. I've seen no evidence of this from you or Tiassa, however.
I suggest you go back and read my previous posts and pay close attention to what has been written when you read the words "lie, lying, and liar".
That includes Tiassa and myself. I suggest you get off your duff and do some research before you make unfounded statements.
Then you haven't been paying attention, and any assertions you make along this line can be summarily dismissed.
A familiar problem
It's something many who vote for Democrats tend to notice after enduring hyperconcentrations of "liberal media bias" that shills for Republicans that have surged into our societal bloodstream over the last decade. Rather than desensitizing through fatigue, it seems this particular outcome irritates us more and more every time we come across it.
I think where you really ran into a problem in this issue, well, was at the outset: "I think he was under the same impression the rest of us were, which is that the statement came after the attacks. Or he wasn't, and was simply being dishonest."
It's one thing to note that you hit both sides of the coin, but at the same time it needs to be pointed out that one of those hits is actually a miss: "I think he was under the same impression the rest of us were, which is that the statement came after the attacks." This does not reconcile with my perception, recollection, or available resources.
As you're probably aware, the Democratic-sympathetic blogosphere is absolutely alight with this mess, now. But the interesting thing is the Republican response. As TRMS producer and blogger Steve Benen noted, "Romney's Democratic critics haven't even had to say much, with mainstream pundits issuing many of the most notable condemnations." On the Republican side, Bill Kristol said Romney looked foolish; Peggy Noonan suggested Romney isn't doing himself any favors. Ben Smith, writing for BuzzFeed, quoted an unnamed "very senior Republican foreign policy hand" (whatever that means) not only describing Romney's attack as an "utter disaster", but going so far as to call it a "Lehman moment". He also quotes "a former aide to Senator John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign:
A "former Bush State Department official" told BuzzFeed that Romney's attack "wasn't presidential".
Yeah, so much for the anonymous sources. Republicans, according to Smith, "declined to speak for attribution, for fear of being publicly disloyal to their party's nominee".
But the Democratic operatives aren't so shy. David Rothkopf, formerly of Bill Clinton's State Department, called Romney's attack "ugly and amateurish". Heather Hurlburt, of National Security Network and formerly with the State Department said, "It makes me feel sick". Steve Clemons of New America Foundation said, "Romney blew it and revealed how seriously maladroit he is when it comes to foreign affairs and national security .... Romney gave terrorists what they want—a divided country still divided and torn emotionally and politically by the events of 9/11."
John Marshall of TPM explains:
Team Romney made a calculated decision to call an early end to the voluntary moratorium against hard politics on 9/11:
Furthermore, as Benen noted this afternoon that Team Romney was amid its third attempt in seventeen hours to find traction.
Now, here's the thing about being fair and balanced. Sure, Benen works for Maddow, and Maddow is currently the bright face of liberal media, but these are actually good questions.
One thing I find interesting is how much attention Romney's latest excrement is actually getting. When I heard it, well, it was just Mitt being Mitt. But some are putting emphasis on the fact that Romney went on the attack against the president while American personnel were under attack. And, let's face it: You might be able to find some Democrat somewhere who criticized Bush while the towers were burning, but it wasn't Al Gore, nor John Kerry, nor even "Baghdad" Jim McDermott (who earned the smear nickname making a last-ditch effort to forestall the Iraq War, and happened to be correct). If this was Jimbob McConservative, we might all laugh derisively and move on with life. But this is the Republican nominee for president.
It was a bad calculation by the RomBot.
Reporters knew it. Pundits knew it. Democrats knew it. Republicans knew it.
The idea that Romney "was under the same impression the rest of us were" just doesn't match reality.
The rest of your logical failure stems from that:
That's fallacious.
Let's put this into simplistic terms:
I guess point one is taking Jerome's side, and point two is irrelevant. Well, at least, that's what your point would suggest.
How dare those teachers apologize for Jerome! Right?
You bought a right-wing talking point. Big deal; it happens to those willing to trust Republicans and FOX News. I'm quite certain that if I'm not careful, I could easily fall for the same thing from Maddow's team. (Then again, Maddow's team is not serially untrustworthy; their biggest problem isn't oversimplification, but looking too deeply into what turns out to be a superficial notion°.)
As Benen noted, "Romney could have begun the process of putting this right this morning, but instead, after falling into a hole, he decided to keep digging."
It is, to say the least, an effing mess.
Or, from a more liberal perspective, it's another day, and another Republican.
____________________
Notes:
° but looking too deeply into what turns out to be a superficial notion — Kind of like our recent disagreement about a transvestite in a cartoon; it's not that I don't see your point, but there was some sort of "disconnect", and blah, blah, blah. But you know what I mean.
Works Cited:
Benen, Steve. "A 'Lehman moment'". The Maddow Blog. September 12, 2012. MaddowBlog.MSNBC.com. September 12, 2012. http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/09/12/13830415-a-lehman-moment
—————. "The third time isn't the charm". The Maddow Blog. September 12, 2012. MaddowBlog.MSNBC.com. September 12, 2012. http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/09/12/13833137-the-third-time-isnt-the-charm
Smith, Ben. "Foreign Policy Hands Voice Disbelief At Romney Cairo Statement". BuzzFeed. September 12, 2012. BuzzFeed.com. September 12, 2012. http://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/foreign-policy-hands-voice-disbelief-at-romney-cai
Marshall, John. "When You Learn They're Not Ready". Talking Points Memo. September 12, 2012. TalkingPointsMemo.com. September 12, 2012. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/09/when_you_learn_theyre_not_ready.php
Balerion said:
It's something many who vote for Democrats tend to notice after enduring hyperconcentrations of "liberal media bias" that shills for Republicans that have surged into our societal bloodstream over the last decade. Rather than desensitizing through fatigue, it seems this particular outcome irritates us more and more every time we come across it.
I think where you really ran into a problem in this issue, well, was at the outset: "I think he was under the same impression the rest of us were, which is that the statement came after the attacks. Or he wasn't, and was simply being dishonest."
It's one thing to note that you hit both sides of the coin, but at the same time it needs to be pointed out that one of those hits is actually a miss: "I think he was under the same impression the rest of us were, which is that the statement came after the attacks." This does not reconcile with my perception, recollection, or available resources.
As you're probably aware, the Democratic-sympathetic blogosphere is absolutely alight with this mess, now. But the interesting thing is the Republican response. As TRMS producer and blogger Steve Benen noted, "Romney's Democratic critics haven't even had to say much, with mainstream pundits issuing many of the most notable condemnations." On the Republican side, Bill Kristol said Romney looked foolish; Peggy Noonan suggested Romney isn't doing himself any favors. Ben Smith, writing for BuzzFeed, quoted an unnamed "very senior Republican foreign policy hand" (whatever that means) not only describing Romney's attack as an "utter disaster", but going so far as to call it a "Lehman moment". He also quotes "a former aide to Senator John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign:
It's bad. Just on a factual level that the statement was not a response but preceding, or one could make the case precipitating. And just calling it a 'disgrace' doesn't really cut it. Not ready for prime time.
A "former Bush State Department official" told BuzzFeed that Romney's attack "wasn't presidential".
Yeah, so much for the anonymous sources. Republicans, according to Smith, "declined to speak for attribution, for fear of being publicly disloyal to their party's nominee".
But the Democratic operatives aren't so shy. David Rothkopf, formerly of Bill Clinton's State Department, called Romney's attack "ugly and amateurish". Heather Hurlburt, of National Security Network and formerly with the State Department said, "It makes me feel sick". Steve Clemons of New America Foundation said, "Romney blew it and revealed how seriously maladroit he is when it comes to foreign affairs and national security .... Romney gave terrorists what they want—a divided country still divided and torn emotionally and politically by the events of 9/11."
John Marshall of TPM explains:
In fact, according to all available press reports and the account of the State Department, the press release in question came from the US Embassy in Egypt and preceded the attacks. So to claim it was a response to the attacks was simply false. So while American diplomats were dying in the field, Romney pops up with an egregious attempt to politicize the deaths with a flat out lie.
Behind the curtains a more chaotic and rash picture emerges.
The statement from the Romney campaign was initially released by Romney press secretary Andrea Saul at 10:09 PM — but under an embargo until midnight on September 12th. In other words, it was embargoed until September 11th was over.
Then a few minutes later at 10:24 PM the embargo was lifted and reporters were told they could use the statement immediately. There was no clear explanation of the change.
Bear in mind, this was all happening while attacks on US personnel abroad were ongoing. According to a statement released this morning by the White House, the President was told last night that Ambassador Chris Stevens was unaccounted for. Only this morning did he learn that Stevens had died in the attacks that were on-going last night.
The campaign also authorized Romney's top foreign policy advisor to give a blistering interview attacking the president while the attacks were continuing.
Behind the curtains a more chaotic and rash picture emerges.
The statement from the Romney campaign was initially released by Romney press secretary Andrea Saul at 10:09 PM — but under an embargo until midnight on September 12th. In other words, it was embargoed until September 11th was over.
Then a few minutes later at 10:24 PM the embargo was lifted and reporters were told they could use the statement immediately. There was no clear explanation of the change.
Bear in mind, this was all happening while attacks on US personnel abroad were ongoing. According to a statement released this morning by the White House, the President was told last night that Ambassador Chris Stevens was unaccounted for. Only this morning did he learn that Stevens had died in the attacks that were on-going last night.
The campaign also authorized Romney's top foreign policy advisor to give a blistering interview attacking the president while the attacks were continuing.
Team Romney made a calculated decision to call an early end to the voluntary moratorium against hard politics on 9/11:
This was amateur hour for the opposition campaign last night, reminiscent of John McCain's rash call four years ago to cancel the presidential debates and the campaign itself to deal with the unfolding economic crisis. There was nothing ignoble or dishonorable about McCain's suggestion. It just showed a certain rashness that was widely viewed as unpresidential.
Romney's moment was quite different — rash and shameful. Not worthy of a president. Crass, undignified and troubling on many levels.
Romney's moment was quite different — rash and shameful. Not worthy of a president. Crass, undignified and troubling on many levels.
Furthermore, as Benen noted this afternoon that Team Romney was amid its third attempt in seventeen hours to find traction.
It appears the Romney campaign is confused. Perhaps I can help focus matters by asking simple, straightforward questions they can answer at their leisure.
* Does Romney realize that the embassy condemned anti-Muslim propaganda before protests turned violent? If so, why has Romney lied about it?
* Can Romney defend the charge that the "Obama administration's first response" was "to sympathize with those who waged the attacks"?
* Can Romney defend the charge that Obama administration officials "apologized for American values"? If, in Romney's mind, criticizing anti-Muslim propaganda is implicitly the same thing as "apologizing for American values," why did the Romney campaign echo the Obama administration's condemnation of the anti-Muslim propaganda in question?
* If Romney thinks White House officials right to distance themselves from tweets from the Cairo embassy, why does Romney also think White House officials were wrong?
* Does Romney realize that the embassy condemned anti-Muslim propaganda before protests turned violent? If so, why has Romney lied about it?
* Can Romney defend the charge that the "Obama administration's first response" was "to sympathize with those who waged the attacks"?
* Can Romney defend the charge that Obama administration officials "apologized for American values"? If, in Romney's mind, criticizing anti-Muslim propaganda is implicitly the same thing as "apologizing for American values," why did the Romney campaign echo the Obama administration's condemnation of the anti-Muslim propaganda in question?
* If Romney thinks White House officials right to distance themselves from tweets from the Cairo embassy, why does Romney also think White House officials were wrong?
Now, here's the thing about being fair and balanced. Sure, Benen works for Maddow, and Maddow is currently the bright face of liberal media, but these are actually good questions.
One thing I find interesting is how much attention Romney's latest excrement is actually getting. When I heard it, well, it was just Mitt being Mitt. But some are putting emphasis on the fact that Romney went on the attack against the president while American personnel were under attack. And, let's face it: You might be able to find some Democrat somewhere who criticized Bush while the towers were burning, but it wasn't Al Gore, nor John Kerry, nor even "Baghdad" Jim McDermott (who earned the smear nickname making a last-ditch effort to forestall the Iraq War, and happened to be correct). If this was Jimbob McConservative, we might all laugh derisively and move on with life. But this is the Republican nominee for president.
It was a bad calculation by the RomBot.
Reporters knew it. Pundits knew it. Democrats knew it. Republicans knew it.
The idea that Romney "was under the same impression the rest of us were" just doesn't match reality.
The rest of your logical failure stems from that:
"Of course, you're being dishonest if you say you can't see how such a comment could be construed as an apology."
That's fallacious.
Let's put this into simplistic terms:
Two children get into a fight on the playground. Teachers, after separating the kids, ask what happened. Jorge says Jerome punched him for no reason. Jerome says Jorge called him a nigger. The teachers explain to the kids, (1) Don't call people nigger, and, (2) Violence isn't a solution.
I guess point one is taking Jerome's side, and point two is irrelevant. Well, at least, that's what your point would suggest.
How dare those teachers apologize for Jerome! Right?
You bought a right-wing talking point. Big deal; it happens to those willing to trust Republicans and FOX News. I'm quite certain that if I'm not careful, I could easily fall for the same thing from Maddow's team. (Then again, Maddow's team is not serially untrustworthy; their biggest problem isn't oversimplification, but looking too deeply into what turns out to be a superficial notion°.)
As Benen noted, "Romney could have begun the process of putting this right this morning, but instead, after falling into a hole, he decided to keep digging."
It is, to say the least, an effing mess.
Or, from a more liberal perspective, it's another day, and another Republican.
____________________
Notes:
° but looking too deeply into what turns out to be a superficial notion — Kind of like our recent disagreement about a transvestite in a cartoon; it's not that I don't see your point, but there was some sort of "disconnect", and blah, blah, blah. But you know what I mean.
Works Cited:
Benen, Steve. "A 'Lehman moment'". The Maddow Blog. September 12, 2012. MaddowBlog.MSNBC.com. September 12, 2012. http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/09/12/13830415-a-lehman-moment
—————. "The third time isn't the charm". The Maddow Blog. September 12, 2012. MaddowBlog.MSNBC.com. September 12, 2012. http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/09/12/13833137-the-third-time-isnt-the-charm
Smith, Ben. "Foreign Policy Hands Voice Disbelief At Romney Cairo Statement". BuzzFeed. September 12, 2012. BuzzFeed.com. September 12, 2012. http://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/foreign-policy-hands-voice-disbelief-at-romney-cai
Marshall, John. "When You Learn They're Not Ready". Talking Points Memo. September 12, 2012. TalkingPointsMemo.com. September 12, 2012. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/09/when_you_learn_theyre_not_ready.php
My guess would be that some of these suspicions regarding your "true" political identity ("concern troll," "shill for Romney," "Romneyite") arise in part from your continued and repeated identification of Democrats with the Left.
I mean, who does that? Any and all Leftists I know consider Obama and the vast majority of Democrats as pretty darn right-wing--or center-right at the very least. The only people I've known to consider Democrats Leftists were Right-wingers.
Romney's campaign adviser:
“Ty Cobb was the greatest hitter of all time and he batted about .355. And he is still the greatest hitter.”
Maybe Romney should fire him and hire Limbaugh:
[as the crisis developed, Romney was] "the only adult in the room" [and] "the only guy looking presidential. ... The only guy who looks like he understands what went wrong, what went right and what shouldn't be happening now."
Other antics:
Limbaugh: Liberal media is lying about the poll numbers showing Obama in the lead (perennial claim).
FAUX News: Today's poll shows Obama 48%, Romney 44%
and noting the spread among women is 14%.
You hit all the salient points. This may be Romney's John McCain moment. Or, considering the follow-ups from the press, maybe his Sarah Palin moment.
I seriously doubt that, people have tiny attention spans now, I'll bet you almost everyone who even cares will have forgotten about it by next month. The "Sarah Palin" moment was the moment that kept reminding people of its hair brained existence.
Bells
Staff member
One could say that, however, when given the chance to back away from his initial appalling comments on 9/11, he refused to do so and instead doubled down on his statement and his criticism of Obama.
Romney had a chance to correct the record, and at least acknowledge that the Cairo Embassy statement didn’t come from Obama himself, and that it preceded the killings. But he didn’t. “When our grounds are being attacked and being breached, the first response should be outrage,” he told reporters. “Apology for America’s values will never be the right course. We express immediately when we feel that the President and his administration have done something which is inconsistent with the principles of America.” The incredulous traveling press corps pushed Romney on his dishonesty but he didn’t back down.
[Source]
[Source]
There is no face or palm big enough for this face palm.
And of course Romney himself once condemned Jones and his plan to burn a Quran as “wrong on every level. It puts troops in danger, and it violates a founding principle of our republic.” Of course George W. Bush criticized the decision of Danish newspapers and magazines to publish cartoons demeaning Mohammed as likewise destructive to Western relations with the Islamic world.
So Romney wasn’t criticizing Obama’s Libya policy with his statement. He was lying. He was making cheap political points out of the killings of four American public servants. From his tin-eared criticism of our closest ally during the Olympics, to his bluster on sensitive dealings with China and Iran, to his failure to even mention troops serving in Afghanistan and Iraq during his Tampa speech, Romney is proving he would be a disaster as president.
Critics (and even some admirers) have pointed to Romney’s success at Bain Capital and noted that it was predicated on his willingness to do anything it took to close a deal. Mr. Bain will do or say anything to close the deal on his presidential run, including lie. It’s ugly, and it won’t work. Romney will pay for his cruel Sept. 11 opportunism in November.
[Source]
So Romney wasn’t criticizing Obama’s Libya policy with his statement. He was lying. He was making cheap political points out of the killings of four American public servants. From his tin-eared criticism of our closest ally during the Olympics, to his bluster on sensitive dealings with China and Iran, to his failure to even mention troops serving in Afghanistan and Iraq during his Tampa speech, Romney is proving he would be a disaster as president.
Critics (and even some admirers) have pointed to Romney’s success at Bain Capital and noted that it was predicated on his willingness to do anything it took to close a deal. Mr. Bain will do or say anything to close the deal on his presidential run, including lie. It’s ugly, and it won’t work. Romney will pay for his cruel Sept. 11 opportunism in November.
[Source]
And to do this on 9/11..
No, really..
Was there no one in his campaign to tell him this was not only wrong, but inappropriate as well? That this would make him look opportunistic? That using a tragedy to improve one's political aspirations is not a good thing, especially on a day of national mourning and remembrance?
That's just nonsense. If you don't think Democrats are on the left of the political spectrum, you're not paying attention. And if the leftists you know call them right-wing, those leftists are probably communists or socialists.
parmalee,
Still going to vote for the lesser of two evils, not voting would be worse, and third party candidates have no chance, rather increasing public discourse on instant run off voting which would make other parties competitive and viable is the best long term goal, but for now all I can do is vote for a bad candidate over a worse candidate.
Still going to vote for the lesser of two evils, not voting would be worse, and third party candidates have no chance, rather increasing public discourse on instant run off voting which would make other parties competitive and viable is the best long term goal, but for now all I can do is vote for a bad candidate over a worse candidate.
Reiterating the Point
It would seem that a necessary component of that theory ... well, okay, let us look at this in an illustrative context:
Would you please explain to me how the Heritage Foundation became "liberal"?
By your approach to the issue, it would seem that if one party moves to a hardline position, we must equally attribute a similar shift in the other party. That is, even though the Democratic Party has been moving rightward for the last twenty years—frustrating rank-and-file liberals and infuriating leftists—you seem to think a rightward move makes them even more leftist than they were.
Remember the posts earlier in this thread, where I suggested that your argument showed attributes reflecting "the idea that balance is to grant an equal number of positive and negative considerations to the argument regardless of merit", and you responded, "Well, if it comes off that way, it isn't my intention"?
Well, you're doing it again.
Centrism is a dynamically relativistic concept. To wit, while it is true that the United States prosecuted Japanese soldiers for waterboarding in WWII, American troops for waterboarding in Vietnam, and at least one local law enforcement department for waterboarding inside the United States, centrism has resulted in an attitude that waterboarding is now acceptable. The "center" of the political spectrum constantly moves, kind of like the #1 single on the music charts constantly changes.
If you measure, then, from the center out, you get results that encourage extremism.
If you measure according to history, accounting for transformations of the political spectrum over time, you get a more accurate picture that allows for consideration of factual right and wrong, and ethical comparisons of principle and action.
This latter measurement describes the Democratic Party as drifting rightward—becoming more conservative—in recent decades.
The former, though, describes the Democratic Party as becoming more leftist by shifting its policies rightward. That is, they become more liberal by adopting more conservative policies.
I would think the problem with such an outlook becomes immediately apparent.
If the Democrats, in adopting more conservative policies, become more liberal simply because the right wing has shifted so dramatically rightward, the calculation rewards extremism.
As such, you are once again—to borrow the phrase—carrying water for Republicans.
If Democrats had been moving leftward—or even simply standing their liberal ground—these last twenty years, marriage equality, single-payer healthcare, and real consumer protections against predatory lending would all be either in effect or genuinely on the table. Waterboarding would be illegal, and Bush administration officials would be tried for war crimes. Gitmo would be closed, and a suspect ordered released by a federal court two years ago would not have been held in detention at the facility until he died this week. The Iraq War would not have happened. Glass-Steagall would not have been repealed. Our political discourse would not be wasting time arguing over women's access to contraception. Clinton would have vetoed DoMA, and found out how many Democrats were willing to override him. Unions would be stronger.
Meanwhile, Obama caved on single-payer. There are no real investigations or prosecutions of American war criminals. Gitmo is still open. Consumer protections were watered down. We're arguing over women's reproductive rights and access to contraception. Unions are severely wounded. Gitmo is open, and a man ordered released two years ago died in detention at the facility this week.
The most liberal thing Obama has done so far is to transform the Democratic Party's outlook on marriage equality—after losing the argument against in federal court—and overseen the repeal of DADT, which has been a long time coming insofar as we've been hearing stories through the Bush Wars of the need for certain personnel in our military who were being dismissed because they were gay. A liberal argument would have abandoned DoMA from the outset, and not waited until the law started losing in court. A liberal argument would have refused DADT from the outset, and not waited until necessity demanded a change. These are questions of principle, and Democrats deferred until they essentially had no other choice but to dive in.
Compare to the right wing: Human rights are out; civil rights are out; children who are sexually abused should be forced to have babies if they become pregnant unless they can prove they fought back hard enough; women's status as human should be revoked if they become pregnant ... this sort of thing is a bit extreme. And that's just the social issues. Republicans have come to reject Keynesian economics. Racism is acceptable. Reality is anathema.
It seems rather a stupid suggestion that Democrats shifting policy outlooks rightward are actually becoming more liberal simply because Republicans have leapt extremely rightward. But, if we account for the abstract quota system that demands the behavior of each party be shoehorned into a plus-one/minus-one code of honor in which one must dredge up a criticism of one side before their criticism of the other is valid, well, the idea that "Democrats are on the left of the political spectrum" suddenly makes sense—especially as it excludes genuine leftists from the political spectrum.
Think of it this way:
As "liberals", the Democrats have steadily migrated from somewhere in the blue range—say, about 480 nm—to somewhere in the green ... let's say 500-520 nm. Republicans have leapt over the last twenty years from the orange—maybe 600-620 nm—to the red end, and in several issues into the infrared, in excess of 700 nm.
You, meanwhile, are proscribing the left end of the political spectrum somewhere in the green, around 500 nm. Such an argument effectively excludes leftists—≤480 nm—from the spectrum.
Do you really wonder why people are questioning your political identification?
Sure, I tagged you as a Romneyite to make a point, but you're now reiterating it for me.
Balerion said:
It would seem that a necessary component of that theory ... well, okay, let us look at this in an illustrative context:
• In 1993, the Clinton administration undertook the notion that the health insurance sector needed reform. Whispers of single-payer rippled through liberal circles with hopeful excitement; in conservative circles, those suggestions raised fear and outrage.
• The Republican Party offered a counterproposal, a policy that would avoid single-payer by forcing Americans to enroll in a private-sector insurance plan. This plan was devised by the right-wing Heritage Foundation.
• The Clinton health insurance reform effort failed.
• In 2006, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, under the gubernatorial guidance of a Republican named Mitt Romney, enacted a version of the Heritage plan.
• In 2009, the Obama administration revisited the issue as public dissatisfaction with health insurance companies' greedy and often dishonest behavior grew.
• President Obama, meeting with health insurance representatives, killed early the possibility of pursuing a single-payer plan; the most forgiving interpretation of this in liberal circles was that Obama made a careful political calculation based on the reasonable belief that pushing a single-payer plan would result in political chaos and wreck his chance to accomplish anything positive.
• Obama settled on the Massachusetts plan, which had shown positive results in its early years after enactment.
• Conservatives pitched a legendary temper tantrum, denouncing the plan as "socialist", among other things.
• The Republican Party offered a counterproposal, a policy that would avoid single-payer by forcing Americans to enroll in a private-sector insurance plan. This plan was devised by the right-wing Heritage Foundation.
• The Clinton health insurance reform effort failed.
• In 2006, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, under the gubernatorial guidance of a Republican named Mitt Romney, enacted a version of the Heritage plan.
• In 2009, the Obama administration revisited the issue as public dissatisfaction with health insurance companies' greedy and often dishonest behavior grew.
• President Obama, meeting with health insurance representatives, killed early the possibility of pursuing a single-payer plan; the most forgiving interpretation of this in liberal circles was that Obama made a careful political calculation based on the reasonable belief that pushing a single-payer plan would result in political chaos and wreck his chance to accomplish anything positive.
• Obama settled on the Massachusetts plan, which had shown positive results in its early years after enactment.
• Conservatives pitched a legendary temper tantrum, denouncing the plan as "socialist", among other things.
Would you please explain to me how the Heritage Foundation became "liberal"?
By your approach to the issue, it would seem that if one party moves to a hardline position, we must equally attribute a similar shift in the other party. That is, even though the Democratic Party has been moving rightward for the last twenty years—frustrating rank-and-file liberals and infuriating leftists—you seem to think a rightward move makes them even more leftist than they were.
Remember the posts earlier in this thread, where I suggested that your argument showed attributes reflecting "the idea that balance is to grant an equal number of positive and negative considerations to the argument regardless of merit", and you responded, "Well, if it comes off that way, it isn't my intention"?
Well, you're doing it again.
Centrism is a dynamically relativistic concept. To wit, while it is true that the United States prosecuted Japanese soldiers for waterboarding in WWII, American troops for waterboarding in Vietnam, and at least one local law enforcement department for waterboarding inside the United States, centrism has resulted in an attitude that waterboarding is now acceptable. The "center" of the political spectrum constantly moves, kind of like the #1 single on the music charts constantly changes.
If you measure, then, from the center out, you get results that encourage extremism.
If you measure according to history, accounting for transformations of the political spectrum over time, you get a more accurate picture that allows for consideration of factual right and wrong, and ethical comparisons of principle and action.
This latter measurement describes the Democratic Party as drifting rightward—becoming more conservative—in recent decades.
The former, though, describes the Democratic Party as becoming more leftist by shifting its policies rightward. That is, they become more liberal by adopting more conservative policies.
I would think the problem with such an outlook becomes immediately apparent.
If the Democrats, in adopting more conservative policies, become more liberal simply because the right wing has shifted so dramatically rightward, the calculation rewards extremism.
As such, you are once again—to borrow the phrase—carrying water for Republicans.
If Democrats had been moving leftward—or even simply standing their liberal ground—these last twenty years, marriage equality, single-payer healthcare, and real consumer protections against predatory lending would all be either in effect or genuinely on the table. Waterboarding would be illegal, and Bush administration officials would be tried for war crimes. Gitmo would be closed, and a suspect ordered released by a federal court two years ago would not have been held in detention at the facility until he died this week. The Iraq War would not have happened. Glass-Steagall would not have been repealed. Our political discourse would not be wasting time arguing over women's access to contraception. Clinton would have vetoed DoMA, and found out how many Democrats were willing to override him. Unions would be stronger.
Meanwhile, Obama caved on single-payer. There are no real investigations or prosecutions of American war criminals. Gitmo is still open. Consumer protections were watered down. We're arguing over women's reproductive rights and access to contraception. Unions are severely wounded. Gitmo is open, and a man ordered released two years ago died in detention at the facility this week.
The most liberal thing Obama has done so far is to transform the Democratic Party's outlook on marriage equality—after losing the argument against in federal court—and overseen the repeal of DADT, which has been a long time coming insofar as we've been hearing stories through the Bush Wars of the need for certain personnel in our military who were being dismissed because they were gay. A liberal argument would have abandoned DoMA from the outset, and not waited until the law started losing in court. A liberal argument would have refused DADT from the outset, and not waited until necessity demanded a change. These are questions of principle, and Democrats deferred until they essentially had no other choice but to dive in.
Compare to the right wing: Human rights are out; civil rights are out; children who are sexually abused should be forced to have babies if they become pregnant unless they can prove they fought back hard enough; women's status as human should be revoked if they become pregnant ... this sort of thing is a bit extreme. And that's just the social issues. Republicans have come to reject Keynesian economics. Racism is acceptable. Reality is anathema.
It seems rather a stupid suggestion that Democrats shifting policy outlooks rightward are actually becoming more liberal simply because Republicans have leapt extremely rightward. But, if we account for the abstract quota system that demands the behavior of each party be shoehorned into a plus-one/minus-one code of honor in which one must dredge up a criticism of one side before their criticism of the other is valid, well, the idea that "Democrats are on the left of the political spectrum" suddenly makes sense—especially as it excludes genuine leftists from the political spectrum.
Think of it this way:
As "liberals", the Democrats have steadily migrated from somewhere in the blue range—say, about 480 nm—to somewhere in the green ... let's say 500-520 nm. Republicans have leapt over the last twenty years from the orange—maybe 600-620 nm—to the red end, and in several issues into the infrared, in excess of 700 nm.
You, meanwhile, are proscribing the left end of the political spectrum somewhere in the green, around 500 nm. Such an argument effectively excludes leftists—≤480 nm—from the spectrum.
Do you really wonder why people are questioning your political identification?
Sure, I tagged you as a Romneyite to make a point, but you're now reiterating it for me.
Last edited:
Agreed. I don't care much for the Democrats, and certainly not the Republicans, but what differences there are are vitally important. In brief, two attributes distinguish the parties:
1. The GOP is the "party" of hatemongers--racists, misogynists, homophobes, xenophobes, etc.
2. They are also the party of unabashed liars.
A Throw of the Dice and the Rules of the Game
I would add a broader point.
Let us imagine for a moment that the Democratic Party actually is liberal. I mean, it's not impossible; Rep. "Baghdad" Jim McDermott will soon retire, but he has been one of the party's most consistent liberals over the years. So, yes, there are liberals in the party, but that doesn't mean the party is actually liberal right now. So let us imagine for a moment that the Democratic Party actually is liberal.
Okay, now I'm going to stretch the bounds of imagination.
Let us also imagine, for a moment, that this liberal Democratic Party actually did its job.
I know, I know. But work with me here, please.
If the Democrats were liberal and did their jobs, then our society would improve, life get better, and so on.
If Republicans do their jobs, then society becomes more stratified, justice erodes, and "America" is replaced by a massive game of King of the Hill.
As far as I can tell, this is the reason liberals keep coming back to Democrats in recent years. We don't like the party's constant timidity and inefficacy about policy. We don't appreciate the steady rightward drift of the Democratic Party. But, still, the Democrats serve as a bulwark against the right-wing apocalypse our conservative neighbors pursue through the Republican Party.
Leftists and liberals in the United States have long been looked poorly upon.
I think of an associate who, on poker night with the guys, always makes sure to include a round of a ridiculous dice game called CLR ("Center-Left-Right"), in which people roll customized dice and then pass poker chips around until one person has all the chips in the predetermined pot. It's a stupid game, but if you control the bleeding through a round of Hold 'Em, you can usually recover your losses if you're the lucky one. Last poker night I played, I lost a little at Hold 'Em, but not badly, held my ground in other games, and actually came out a few dollars ahead for the night because of CLR.
It's a stupid game.
But nobody is trying to weight the dice, or prescribe different rules for different players in order to ensure that a specific person wins. It might be a stupid game, but it's still a fair game.
That's kind of how I see the Democrats. They're playing a stupid game most days, but they're still trying to play a fair game. Republicans are trying to stack decks, load dice, and prescribe different rules to the various players.
I don't want American society to be a rigged game.
But, hey, I'm a leftist, which means I'm not part of the Balerion political spectrum, so what does my opinion count for?
Parmalee said:
I would add a broader point.
Let us imagine for a moment that the Democratic Party actually is liberal. I mean, it's not impossible; Rep. "Baghdad" Jim McDermott will soon retire, but he has been one of the party's most consistent liberals over the years. So, yes, there are liberals in the party, but that doesn't mean the party is actually liberal right now. So let us imagine for a moment that the Democratic Party actually is liberal.
Okay, now I'm going to stretch the bounds of imagination.
Let us also imagine, for a moment, that this liberal Democratic Party actually did its job.
I know, I know. But work with me here, please.
If the Democrats were liberal and did their jobs, then our society would improve, life get better, and so on.
If Republicans do their jobs, then society becomes more stratified, justice erodes, and "America" is replaced by a massive game of King of the Hill.
As far as I can tell, this is the reason liberals keep coming back to Democrats in recent years. We don't like the party's constant timidity and inefficacy about policy. We don't appreciate the steady rightward drift of the Democratic Party. But, still, the Democrats serve as a bulwark against the right-wing apocalypse our conservative neighbors pursue through the Republican Party.
Leftists and liberals in the United States have long been looked poorly upon.
I think of an associate who, on poker night with the guys, always makes sure to include a round of a ridiculous dice game called CLR ("Center-Left-Right"), in which people roll customized dice and then pass poker chips around until one person has all the chips in the predetermined pot. It's a stupid game, but if you control the bleeding through a round of Hold 'Em, you can usually recover your losses if you're the lucky one. Last poker night I played, I lost a little at Hold 'Em, but not badly, held my ground in other games, and actually came out a few dollars ahead for the night because of CLR.
It's a stupid game.
But nobody is trying to weight the dice, or prescribe different rules for different players in order to ensure that a specific person wins. It might be a stupid game, but it's still a fair game.
That's kind of how I see the Democrats. They're playing a stupid game most days, but they're still trying to play a fair game. Republicans are trying to stack decks, load dice, and prescribe different rules to the various players.
I don't want American society to be a rigged game.
But, hey, I'm a leftist, which means I'm not part of the Balerion political spectrum, so what does my opinion count for?
That's a horseshit GOP canard - typical of your output - intended to distract from the extreme right-wing bent of the modern Republican party.
The Democratic party has become a broad-spectrum party encompassing the entire sane, rational portion of the political spectrum (liberals on the one hand, conservatives on the other). The GOP has become the party of the fringe right. You can be a very much committed right-winger, while still remaining firmly to the left of the GOP (and so, captured by the Democratic party). Indeed, such a description nicely explains your own political identity (minus the susceptibility to GOP talking points, possibly).
If it keeps going this way, the GOP will eventually wither and die, and the Democratic party will bifurcate into a new set of left/right parties. And that bifurcation will probably take the form of the left wing breaking off to form their own party, leaving the Democratic party as the new right-wing party.
I doubt the GOP will die rather they will eventually discharge the fringe or keep it weak within its own party, and start moving their average opinion in line with the populace which has become increasing egalitarian and non-white. The very fact they choose the most moderate candidate over tea party candidates is evidence of this.