U.S. 2012 Election
- Thread starter a_majoor
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 430
This election starting last fall was the GOP's to lose.
And based on how things have progressed so far, it will be lost.
Start off with the crap fest of candidates that ran in this year's primary.
Actually, check that, lets start with the fact that in the 2008 primaries Romney was shunned by all of the other candidates, and ended up dropping out early in the process.
Jump ahead to 2011. Romney again throws his hat in the ring. The primaries become an exercise in trying to find a nominee who was someone other than Romney. We watched every one else rise in the polls over Romney, only to flame out over one controversial statement or action after another. Meanwhile Romney never gets above 30% in the support. The primaries drag on and become a war of attrition, with only Romney left standing. He has only lukewarm support within the mainstream of his own party, and the right wing tail wagging the dog question's his sincerity.
Now, put this together with a campaign that allowed the opposition to dictate the agenda right from the start and Advisers that either are ignored (my suspicion) or just plain faulty in their advice, and you have a formula for one of teh worst run campaigns in recent history form either side of the coin.
It is very telling when respected members of the moderate conservative wing of the party come out and criticize how you have run your campaign. Bill Kristol, Rupert Murdoch and others all have said that changes need to be made. And they started saying this back in June. And they are still saying it now.
The platform policies lack detail. "We have a plan, you have to trust us." And the excuse of not wanting to give the opposition something they can use against them is just lame.
Ryan was selected to solidify Romney's credibility with the right wing conservatives. But Ryan has been muzzled, his own asset (his conservative policy agenda) set aside.
It is their election to lose. And I see no reason to doubt that they will.
And based on how things have progressed so far, it will be lost.
Start off with the crap fest of candidates that ran in this year's primary.
Actually, check that, lets start with the fact that in the 2008 primaries Romney was shunned by all of the other candidates, and ended up dropping out early in the process.
Jump ahead to 2011. Romney again throws his hat in the ring. The primaries become an exercise in trying to find a nominee who was someone other than Romney. We watched every one else rise in the polls over Romney, only to flame out over one controversial statement or action after another. Meanwhile Romney never gets above 30% in the support. The primaries drag on and become a war of attrition, with only Romney left standing. He has only lukewarm support within the mainstream of his own party, and the right wing tail wagging the dog question's his sincerity.
Now, put this together with a campaign that allowed the opposition to dictate the agenda right from the start and Advisers that either are ignored (my suspicion) or just plain faulty in their advice, and you have a formula for one of teh worst run campaigns in recent history form either side of the coin.
It is very telling when respected members of the moderate conservative wing of the party come out and criticize how you have run your campaign. Bill Kristol, Rupert Murdoch and others all have said that changes need to be made. And they started saying this back in June. And they are still saying it now.
The platform policies lack detail. "We have a plan, you have to trust us." And the excuse of not wanting to give the opposition something they can use against them is just lame.
Ryan was selected to solidify Romney's credibility with the right wing conservatives. But Ryan has been muzzled, his own asset (his conservative policy agenda) set aside.
It is their election to lose. And I see no reason to doubt that they will.
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
With this administration's Middle East policy in ruins we are now seeing a convergence of forces similar to 1979:
The economy sucks, the "misery index" is high (stagflation in 1979, massive unemployment and spiking inflation in 2012) and Americans are under violent and visible attack in the Middle East (Iranian Embassy in 1979, across a wide swath in 2012).
T6 is correct about the media being in the tank, however. Just a few short years ago we were treated to nightly newscasts on the horrible jobless recovery; George W Bush's Administration was pilloried for unemployment of 5%, and rising gas prices (until he signed an executive order opening up Federal land for exploration that collapsed gas prices in a matter of months). The Bush administration was castigated for ignoring the "good war" in Afghanistan for the "bad war" in Iraq; now that the center of activity is Afghanistan (and casualties occur on an almost daily basis) we hear almost nothing. Even the carnage in the Middle East got page A4 coverage in the NYT, which should raise a few eyebrows at least.
Events are spinning out of control, and I think this Administration simply has no idea what to do or what steps to take. So long as things could be swept under the rug then the race was for the Republican Party to lose, since events can no longer be ignored now it is wide open.
The economy sucks, the "misery index" is high (stagflation in 1979, massive unemployment and spiking inflation in 2012) and Americans are under violent and visible attack in the Middle East (Iranian Embassy in 1979, across a wide swath in 2012).
T6 is correct about the media being in the tank, however. Just a few short years ago we were treated to nightly newscasts on the horrible jobless recovery; George W Bush's Administration was pilloried for unemployment of 5%, and rising gas prices (until he signed an executive order opening up Federal land for exploration that collapsed gas prices in a matter of months). The Bush administration was castigated for ignoring the "good war" in Afghanistan for the "bad war" in Iraq; now that the center of activity is Afghanistan (and casualties occur on an almost daily basis) we hear almost nothing. Even the carnage in the Middle East got page A4 coverage in the NYT, which should raise a few eyebrows at least.
Events are spinning out of control, and I think this Administration simply has no idea what to do or what steps to take. So long as things could be swept under the rug then the race was for the Republican Party to lose, since events can no longer be ignored now it is wide open.
- Reaction score
- 5,021
- Points
- 1,260
Thucydides said:
But,Thucydides it's not just "this administration's Middle East policy" which lies in ruins; it is America's Middle East policy, going all the way back to Eisenhower (the last of the really good presidents ~ infinitely superior, in every respect, to the much overrated Saint Ronald Reagan). I lay much of the blame at the feet of the Dulles brothers and the deleterious influence of 'Wild Bill' Donovan who left America with a misguided understanding of intelligence and of the applications of terrorism.
- Reaction score
- 63
- Points
- 530
E.R. Campbell said:
Past Presidents supported our allies. On the other hand President Obama encouraged the replacement of pro-western leaders which has seen a resurgence of the Muslim Brotherhood,an organization that has spawned a number of terror groups including AQ.
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 7,964
- Points
- 1,040
>The platform policies lack detail. "We have a plan, you have to trust us."
The platform policies have enough detail to be "fact-checked", and both Romney and Ryan defend ideas that have made it all the way into legislation in the past. (Legislation is usually fairly detailed.) And the "trust us" line is essentially the entire platform of the administration. The incumbent, holding the executive, with the entire apparatus of the executive branch at his command, should be able to provide some specifics. I suppose he either can not (has no real idea what to do) or will not (does not want to deal with current events, and does not wish to advertise which side projects he wishes to take up in lieu of dealing with current events).
The platform policies have enough detail to be "fact-checked", and both Romney and Ryan defend ideas that have made it all the way into legislation in the past. (Legislation is usually fairly detailed.) And the "trust us" line is essentially the entire platform of the administration. The incumbent, holding the executive, with the entire apparatus of the executive branch at his command, should be able to provide some specifics. I suppose he either can not (has no real idea what to do) or will not (does not want to deal with current events, and does not wish to advertise which side projects he wishes to take up in lieu of dealing with current events).
- Reaction score
- 63
- Points
- 530
Compared to a President with no executive job experience,Romney will be breath of fresh air. The anti-oil crowd will be gone and maybe we can get serious about developing our own resources to get off the crack that is middle east oil.
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
While I have to agree with ERC that the foundations of America's Middle East policy are misguided, the specifics of this Administration's policy was laid out in a speech in Cairo in 2008, and promulgated ever since. Essentially the idea that if Americans were to "reach out" to Islamic peoples, stop supporting dictatorial regimes (even if they were American cilents) and show far less support to Israel then Islamic radicalism would be defanged and American interests in the region preserved at a much lower cost.
While this was the public face of the policy, the bowing to Middle Eastern leaders, the Apology tour, snubbing of Isreal and the Green revolution in Iran, supporting the "Arab Spring" and Libyian uprising without checking who was behind it and who would benefit the most and all the other pieces did not deliver any tangeble benefits, and the rest of the Middle East policy was simply to continue the various initiatives of the Bush Administration. The fact that these two paths are contradictory apparently never crossed anyone's mind either.
So the 0300 phone call finally came and no one was there to answer. Since the entire region may well fall into disorder or even regional war as various factions, would be hegemons and ethnic groups seek to benefit from the shifting of pieces, I predict it will be many years before any US or Western policy besides containment will be viable or even possible.
While this was the public face of the policy, the bowing to Middle Eastern leaders, the Apology tour, snubbing of Isreal and the Green revolution in Iran, supporting the "Arab Spring" and Libyian uprising without checking who was behind it and who would benefit the most and all the other pieces did not deliver any tangeble benefits, and the rest of the Middle East policy was simply to continue the various initiatives of the Bush Administration. The fact that these two paths are contradictory apparently never crossed anyone's mind either.
So the 0300 phone call finally came and no one was there to answer. Since the entire region may well fall into disorder or even regional war as various factions, would be hegemons and ethnic groups seek to benefit from the shifting of pieces, I predict it will be many years before any US or Western policy besides containment will be viable or even possible.
- Reaction score
- 63
- Points
- 530
It was Europe's dependence on Libya oil that caused the campaign to topple Ghaddafi. Nothing has changed in that regard. Notice the west hasnt had the same sense of urgency in dealing with Syria. A Syria without Assad might benefit that corner of the world. Syria is probably more strategic. A friendly pro-western regime would help Israel and Lebanon. Isolating Hizbollah has to be a priority.
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
Going back to the other threads, I think the best possible outcome we could see in Syria is a splintering into 3 or 4 micro polities (a Kurdish enclave and an Alawite enclave as a minimum). This is "best we can hope for" best, not best possible outcme for us (worst possible outcome is Syria is taken over by Islamic radicals as much of the "Arab Spring" seems to have become). Spreading this idea to the entire region, as Lawrence Solomon suggests in this piece in the National Post, might be a viable Western strategy and shift enough pieces to enable an Islamic reformation (what is happening now is more akin to an Islamic counter Reformation).
Will any future administration try this? Hard to say; while it is Wilsonian in conception many people will see this as George W Bush on steroids, sowing democracy across the Middle East. (This won't be true, BTW; this program has no explicit provision for the development and nurturing of the institutions that run in the background and support liberal democratic polities and cultures). As a war plan, it is exceptionally devious and requires a minimal outlay by the West, and allows the various religious, political and ethnic factions in the Middle East to fight it out to their heart's content rather than taking the fight to the West. Given the impressive amounts of recoverable oil that new technologies like fracking and horizontal drilling have unlocked in North America, the threat of the oil weapon is no longer as all powerful as it was even a decade ago, so *we* have far more flexibility to work out a new, coherent or at least applicable to the 21rst century Middle East policy.
Will any future administration try this? Hard to say; while it is Wilsonian in conception many people will see this as George W Bush on steroids, sowing democracy across the Middle East. (This won't be true, BTW; this program has no explicit provision for the development and nurturing of the institutions that run in the background and support liberal democratic polities and cultures). As a war plan, it is exceptionally devious and requires a minimal outlay by the West, and allows the various religious, political and ethnic factions in the Middle East to fight it out to their heart's content rather than taking the fight to the West. Given the impressive amounts of recoverable oil that new technologies like fracking and horizontal drilling have unlocked in North America, the threat of the oil weapon is no longer as all powerful as it was even a decade ago, so *we* have far more flexibility to work out a new, coherent or at least applicable to the 21rst century Middle East policy.
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 430
I don't see a Romney Administration having any better shot at improving the Middle East situation than the previous 5 Administrations.
It's a problem whose roots go deep, back to European Colonialism. Short of letting the whole thing go up in flames, and resolve itself back into the precolonial tribal separations, all anyone will be able to do is act as a global firefighter.
It's a problem whose roots go deep, back to European Colonialism. Short of letting the whole thing go up in flames, and resolve itself back into the precolonial tribal separations, all anyone will be able to do is act as a global firefighter.
It doesn't really matter which one gets in. They are almost twins policy wise. Romney has in practice been very moderate despite his current protestations and VP choice. Obama makes Reagan look like Jimmy Carter. If you are a bit older and remember policies all I see is two Republican candidates.
Obama clearly has it in the bag now though. He would have to shoot himself not to get elected with this much of a lead.
Here's an idea for the Middle East. Let them work it our amongst themselves.
Obama clearly has it in the bag now though. He would have to shoot himself not to get elected with this much of a lead.
Here's an idea for the Middle East. Let them work it our amongst themselves.
- Reaction score
- 63
- Points
- 530
Obama is closer to Karl Marx than he is to Reagan. Today's Democrat Party platform has many similarities with the Communist Party USA. In fact when Obama started out he was part of Chicago's New Party.
http://keywiki.org/index.php/Barack_Obama_and_the_New_Party/Progressive_Chicago
http://keywiki.org/index.php/Barack_Obama_and_the_New_Party/Progressive_Chicago
Then you have drunk the kool aid and probably never read Marx in your life. That is so absolutely absurd as to be laughable. It's a pathetic sound bite that has no proof what so ever behind it.
Obama is moderate and much further right than the Canadian Conservative Prime Minister.
Obama is moderate and much further right than the Canadian Conservative Prime Minister.
- Reaction score
- 5,348
- Points
- 1,060
Nemo888 said:
You'll do well to follow the policy we've placed on this, and other political threads, about personal attacks and hyperbolic rhetoric. You're already standing with one foot off the ramp, don't let your mouth push you off completely.
Milnet.ca Staff
Similar threads
