US Politics, unnumbered

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

For the record, I specifically said I didn't believe either you or Gingrich was a racist (although it's impossible to really know with Newt).

True enough. I think what you actually did was say that Gingrich was tossing out racial code words that he may not personally believe, and that I was willing to overlook them. I still believe that is completely inaccurate on both counts, and I opposed your bringing race into a discussion where it didn't have any place. At least, not yet.

Now, I'd admit that it is possible that a candidate might do that, and that I might continue to support him if I really thought the only alternative was worse overall. After all, I do think there is a plenty of race-pandering that goes on by the other side. But if that was the case, I'd be fine with admitting that and lamenting the specific conduct or statement at issue, and then explaining either my continued support, or lack thereof.

[Andriy Czarchenko]

In regards to the time frame for a sure GOP nominee to arrive: remember what happened in '08 when Hillary was all but assured victory until Obama crept up and took over? She dragged that out until, what, June? I can see Mitt doing the same thing because, damn it, it's his turn.

It´s more about the number of candidates. We´ll have to remember that if you only get something like 35% of the delegates in proportional contests it becomes very hard to get a majority in the end,

[TrackerNeil]

I think for Newt to lose, he has to self-destruct. This is a really weird primary in which Gingrich's demonstrated ability to debate strongly and articulate a conservative message better than any of his opponents has trumped all the "soft" issues that usually drive these things. I can't tell you the number of Republicans I talk to who were against the guy initially because of all the baggege (including me), but have been moving his way simply because of his debate performances. It was a grudging admiration that became a very grudging support, and is now moving into much less grudging support. If he flames out, people will turn on him. But if he doesn't, I think he's got it. There is just too much grass-roots mistrust of Romney's actual position on the issues, and I don't think he has time to remedy that unless Gingrich stumbles.

I don't understand why there is more mistrust of Romney than of Gingrich. Gingrich has backtracked on nearly as many apostasies as Romney, at least Multiple-Choice Mitt never filmed an ad with Nancy Pelosi. Gingrich was pro-individual-mandate (and his foundation still is), and was pro-climate-change legislation, and he has conveniently changed course on both of those.

As I have said from the beginning, I think Romney's been so consistent in his performance at least partially because few Republican primary voters really care much about the individual mandate per se, but since it is part of "ObamaCare", they are certain it must be evil. Opposition to the ACA is really opposition to Obama, which is what really matters. I'll wager that both Gingrich and Romney secretly know the ACA is a decent piece of legislation; their opposition is purely pro forma. Not that either wouldn't sign a repeal should he become president, but I imagine they know the ACA, and particularly the individual mandate, is a conservative brainchild they would likely have supported had a Republican president championed it.

[Shryke]

I don't understand why there is more mistrust of Romney than of Gingrich. Gingrich has backtracked on nearly as many apostasies as Romney, at least Multiple-Choice Mitt never filmed an ad with Nancy Pelosi. Gingrich was pro-individual-mandate (and his foundation still is), and was pro-climate-change legislation, and he has conveniently changed course on both of those.

Because people have largely forgotten about him. It's been like 12 years since he last really mattered and his campaign imploded right after he announced too.

Romney, on the other hand, has been prominent for many years now and his flip-flopping is big news, especially with Rombamacare being a big deal right now.

Plus, Romney just comes off as fucking weaselly and fake.

[Altherion]

I think for Newt to lose, he has to self-destruct. This is a really weird primary in which Gingrich's demonstrated ability to debate strongly and articulate a conservative message better than any of his opponents has trumped all the "soft" issues that usually drive these things. I can't tell you the number of Republicans I talk to who were against the guy initially because of all the baggege (including me), but have been moving his way simply because of his debate performances. It was a grudging admiration that became a very grudging support, and is now moving into much less grudging support. If he flames out, people will turn on him. But if he doesn't, I think he's got it. There is just too much grass-roots mistrust of Romney's actual position on the issues, and I don't think he has time to remedy that unless Gingrich stumbles.

He might win the primary, but I very much doubt his chances in the general election. The guy is a living archetype of a slime ball politician. He cheated on not one, but two wives (the second time with a woman half his age whom he ultimately married). He lied to the House Ethics committee, got caught and was fined $300K (the only Speaker ever to be thus sanctioned). And he has changed his positions as often as Romney. The economy has to be really bad for independents to vote for somebody like.

[ThinkerX]

To me, it seems like the Rebuplican 'Base' such as it is, is so unhappy with the current crop of Republican presidential candidates, including the current front runners, that at least some of them will decide that even Obama, with all his problems, is preferable to either Gingrich or Romeny.

Or...barring an assassination, near total economic collapse, or really major scandal, Obama gets re-elected.

[TrackerNeil]

To me, it seems like the Rebuplican 'Base' such as it is, is so unhappy with the current crop of Republican presidential candidates, including the current front runners, that at least some of them will decide that even Obama, with all his problems, is preferable to either Gingrich or Romeny.

Or...barring an assassination, near total economic collapse, or really major scandal, Obama gets re-elected.

I doubt it. From what I have read, most of the time, most people vote according to party affiliation regardless of the candidates. I suspect that in 2004, Democrats would have voted for the Creature from the Black Lagoon if they thought it could have defeated Bush, and Republicans are probably feeling the same way for 2012 with Obama.

[Shryke]

I doubt it. From what I have read, most of the time, most people vote according to party affiliation regardless of the candidates. I suspect that in 2004, Democrats would have voted for the Creature from the Black Lagoon if they thought it could have defeated Bush, and Republicans are probably feeling the same way for 2012 with Obama.

Yeah, but when they don't like the candidate, they tend to just not vote.

[TrackerNeil]

Yeah, but when they don't like the candidate, they tend to just not vote.

I suppose we'll see. A presidential election will bring out younger and less-white voters, it's to be hoped, so we may avoid another 2010 Republican wave.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

To me, it seems like the Rebuplican 'Base' such as it is, is so unhappy with the current crop of Republican presidential candidates, including the current front runners, that at least some of them will decide that even Obama, with all his problems, is preferable to either Gingrich or Romeny.

To the extent the "base" is unhappy with Gingrich or Romney, it is because they perceive them as not different enough from Obama. The thought of actually voting for Obama himself doesn't enter the equation. And you might see a few on the fringe stay home because of that, but that number is going to be small. The vast majority of the base is so anti-Obama that they'll end up voting for the GOP nominee no matter who it is, and that's only going to become more true if Obama keeps playing the class-warfare card he played recently in KC.

The Administration looks to be gambling that a move to the left is its best bet to win in 2012. If so, then we might have a fairly clear choice presented in 2012.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I don't understand why there is more mistrust of Romney than of Gingrich.

It's actually pretty simple. Gingrich has a very solid Reagan pedigree, and a stint as Speaker where some conservative ideas got turned into legislation. He's been articulating conservative ideas pretty consistently for more than 30 years. So most Republicans believe he has a conservative core, but the fear among doubters is that he strays outside it too often for wonkish state solutions.

Mitt's pedigree is being a Massachusetts governer, a position to which someone who is a practicisng conservative really couldn't get elected. So the problem with Romney is that a lot of Republicans don't believe there is a core conservative at all. They perceive him as a moderate/liberal guy who mouths conservative positions in which he doesn't believe to hide his true beliefs. He's not a conservative who strays -- he's a moderate/liberal masquerading as a conservative.

Now personally, I read Romney differently. I read him as an overall moderate/conservative guy who had to moderate his positions to win election in Massachusetts. I heard him speak at the Federalist Society annual meeting a few years back, and he got a great reception. I think he really believes that stuff. But I can understand the doubters, because while his rhetoric is pretty good, his tenure in office doesn't provide a lot of objective support. Perhaps one good example of this is RomneyCare v. Gingrich and mandates. You could equate the two at some level, but the difference is that Romney actually enacted RomneyCare. Gingrich's individuals mandates never got to that point, so he can claim that his thoughts on that were still at an exploratory/discussion level, and that he never tried to enact it during his time as Speaker.

[TrackerNeil]

Now personally, I read Romney differently. I read him as an overall moderate/conservative guy who had to moderate his positions to win election in Massachusetts. I heard him speak at the Federalist Society annual meeting a few years back, and he got a great reception. I think he really believes that stuff. But I can understand the doubters, because while his rhetoric is pretty good, his tenure in office doesn't provide a lot of objective support. Perhaps one good example of this is RomneyCare v. Gingrich and mandates. You could equate the two at some level, but the difference is that Romney actually enacted RomneyCare. Gingrich's individuals mandates never got to that point, so he can claim that his thoughts on that were still at an exploratory/discussion level, and that he never tried to enact it during his time as Speaker.

I heard it opined that Mitt Romney is like a restaurateur in a neighborhood that's slowly changing in terms of ethnicity. He started off serving Italian, but when the clientele changed he offered Chinese, or Indian, or whatever else the customers demanded. In Massachusetts he ran as a pro-choicer because that's what he had to do, and he'll just as happily do so again should the situation arise.

I'm not certain I agree with this, mostly because I am not certain human beings work this way. I think most people really want to think they hold to their beliefs no matter what, even if they never do so. So I believe it's entirely possible that Mitt really did think he was pro-choice then, and really does think he's pro-life now. The problem for the voter, of course, is wondering what the hell he'd do as president.

However, I don't see how Gingrich should be spared the same scrutiny. The man is on record supporting an individual mandate for everyone...even Mitt can't be accused of that. (He sleazes his way out of that with some burbling about federalism.) He joined forces with Nancy Pelosi to urge political action on climate change legislation. I have to wonder if whatever Newt did thirteen years ago is going to erase that in the minds of today's voters. Not that it matters much; I suppose; if the individual mandate can go from a conservative brainchild to the Death of Freedom, I guess Newt - and Mitt - can get past whatever apostasies they've embraced in their respective careers.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

However, I don't see how Gingrich should be spared the same scrutiny. The man is on record supporting an individual mandate for everyone...even Mitt can't be accused of that. (He sleazes his way out of that with some burbling about federalism.) He joined forces with Nancy Pelosi to urge political action on climate change legislation. I have to wonder if whatever Newt did thirteen years ago is going to erase that in the minds of today's voters.

Newt isn't getting a free pass on that stuff. Plenty of conservatives are still hammering him. But the difference for the masses is that Gingrich's heresies appear to be the exception, and Romney's appear to be the rule.

Not that it matters much; I suppose; if the individual mandate can go from a conservative brainchild to the Death of Freedom, I guess Newt - and Mitt - can get past whatever apostasies they've embraced in their respective careers.

Without going down this rabbit-hole again, the individual mandate was something supported by only some conservatives back in 1993-94. A great many others opposed it and said they'd never support anything that had such a mandate. In fact, it was pretty much a grass-roots rebellion among GOP members of Congress that forced them to back off the concept.

One anomoly in all this -- which I think offers an opportunity for the left to go after Gingrich if he's the nominee -- is the whole "constitutionality" issue. I do think it is unconstitutional as drafted, and that SCOTUS will find as such. However, most constitutional scholars also agree that the same goal could have been accomplished if they would have structured it as a tax rather than a mandate. So the question for Gingrich and the conservatives who oppose it on grounds of constitutionality is what happens if that argument is taken away by making it a tax?

I still think the moral opposition is there, because a mandate is a mandate whether it's direct or by tax, but the constitutional argument is completely gone, and that's what's provided some sort of haven for Gingrich.

Personally, I think the basis for Gingrich's support of a mandate concept is flawed. His argument was that people who can afford it shouldn't be permitted to free ride by not carrying insurance, only to rely later on a public bailout if they got sick and needed that care. But i don't think that's really what happens in most cases. I think people who are able to afford insurance but choose not to get it, then find themselves needing care, end up either not getting the care because they can't afford it (and don't qualify for Medicaid), or getting the care but being financially ruined in the process. Frankly, I think that's a perfectly fair result for people who choose to roll the dice and not get insurance. You are free to make your own decisions, but also free to bear the consequences of those decisions.

[DanteGabriel]

To the extent the "base" is unhappy with Gingrich or Romney, it is because they perceive them as not different enough from Obama. The thought of actually voting for Obama himself doesn't enter the equation. And you might see a few on the fringe stay home because of that, but that number is going to be small. The vast majority of the base is so anti-Obama that they'll end up voting for the GOP nominee no matter who it is, and that's only going to become more true if Obama keeps playing the class-warfare card he played recently in KC.

The Administration looks to be gambling that a move to the left is its best bet to win in 2012. If so, then we might have a fairly clear choice presented in 2012.

The "base" for both sides can be relied upon to vote for their party's candidate. The middle 40-50% that can be swayed either way will decide the election, as always.

[TerraPrime]

So the GOP isn't allowed to discuss issues you admit are legitimate because you personally are suspicious of their motives. I'll simply say I don't find that a convincing enough reason to ignore legitimate issues of public policy, or to condemn a canddiate who tries to discuss them.

You calling it "a legitimate issue of public policy" doesn't take away the racial dimension of it. *shrugs*

And, really, that is the core of it. It's called legitimacy. The GOP, in my eyes, has not earned the legitimacy of talking about race issues without being examined with a skeptical eye. Despite the public apology for the Southern Strategy, it seems that a significant number of them still use something from that playbook in their campaigns. Until that stops, I'm not going to just give the benefit of doubt to any politician with an ® next to their name. The GOP made the bed, so they can sleep in it, far as I can tell. I believe in conservative parlance, it's called "taking responsibility"?

As for Gingrich's urban policy spiel: I'm not saying that his proposed policy is racist. I'm saying that the characterization of the urban poor that he employs is racist. To wit:

GINGRICH: Well, think about somebody who grows up in a neighborhood where nobody goes to work. They live in -- they live in a housing project where there are no examples of success. They don't acquire any of the habits. I first started thinking about this years ago, when liberals would say, Oh, you don't want to get a hamburger-flipping job. And I thought to myself, That's exactly backwards. Any job beats no work experience. Any job is the first step up on the -- on the ladder of success.

You probably don't see it, but to me, this is the same narrative of "poor people are poor because they are lazy"? I mean, really, how many housing projects have he studied? How many community centers that serve those projects have he visited to gain this insight? I suppose it's possible that there is genuine data there but I am going to assume that he built the whole fancy policy on the assumed notion that people in urban housing projects are failures because they don't know how to work hard, until I see evidence indicating otherwise on the wherewithals of his premise.

Re: Tracker

No, I don't assume that all Republicans are racists. I simply don't assume that they're not, like I do with most other people. Republican politicians, and some of their ardent supporters, need to earn my trust that they're not racists (not that they would care about what I think, but you know). It means that the same innocuous-sounding gaffe may be written off as an one-off mistake coming from someone else, but not from a Republican. They too often use dog whistles and coded messages for me to give them any passes.

And make no mistake, Gingrich's message about urban policy is itself a dog whistle ("black/poor people are lazy").

[Brienne the Beauty]

I think people who are able to afford insurance but choose not to get it, then find themselves needing care, end up either not getting the care because they can't afford it (and don't qualify for Medicaid), or getting the care but being financially ruined in the process. Frankly, I think that's a perfectly fair result for people who choose to roll the dice and not get insurance. You are free to make your own decisions, but also free to bear the consequences of those decisions.

I think that's uncommon. I'm sure it happens, but not often. Remember, it is not just the person who gets sick that bears the consequence of those decisions, but also those who end up getting stuck with the bill they cannot pay, which is ultimately the rest of us, through our medical costs rising and being passed on to our insurance.

You are imagining a young guy, who goes without health insurance because he wants to spend the money on going out, but then gets sick and everyone else gets the bill for his partying. Stop it. It's just as likely to be a woman in her 30s working part-time, going without insurance so her kids can have it.

I think people who can afford insurance but choose not to get it are probably on the edge of being able to afford it. Remember that if you don't get health insurance through a job, it is easily a thousand dollars a month, probably more in some places. That means that people starting up a business often go without it. We want to encourage entrepreneurship, don't we? And a lot of businesses have to start and fail before we get big successes like Apple. If people are too afraid to quit their jobs to start a business on their own, the entrepreneurial spirit will be harmed, and that's a large part of what makes America so successful.

A lot of businesses are also preferring to hire contractors than full-time employees because it increases their flexibility. But those contractors need healthcare too. Again, it'd be about a thousand a month. So you could end up with someone earning what would be a decent amount in salary if they were salaried with benefits, but unable to afford an insurance plan.

The world is more complicated than you imagine. "Choosing" to go without insurance is rarely out of choice, in the same way as people "choosing" to live in a bad area rarely do so out of free choice. So when someone is mugged and beaten because they live in a bad area, it is not truly their fault, even if with scrimping and saving they could have afforded a studio apartment (for their four person family) in the good part of town. Likewise, if someone "chooses" to go without health insurance (perhaps so they don't have to live in the bad area of town?) they are rarely making a truly free choice.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

The "base" for both sides can be relied upon to vote for their party's candidate. The middle 40-50% that can be swayed either way will decide the election, as always.

True. How the economy is doing may end up being the biggest issue, because the GOP theme is going to be that "big changes" are needed, and that's a much stronger argument if things aren't going well. I aslo think what happens in Europe is going to be important. Not only because of the impact on the U.S. economy, but because of the whole argument as to whether the U.S. should be more closely following Europe's lead in terms of entitlements, benefits, etc. As of right now, all the GOP candidates are using the "we don't want to become Greece" line. If those problems spread and engulf more of Europe, then the GOP is going to be able to push even harder on the claim that the European model is a failure. Rightly or wrongly, most Americans have an image of Europe as being more "socialized" than we are, and a collapse there will tar that model in the same way that the collapse of the Soviety Union tarred communism. I can see the GOP banging that drum hard next year.

[Verboten]

I'm not sure if this is relevant to the current discussion but I did spend four years of my childhood on welfare, my mother herniated a disk and sustained permanent injuries while she went to University, and I do have to say that when you are on social assisstance you feel like shit. People look down on you, call you lazy, opportunistic, you have to accept charity for things you can't afford and even when you are able to buy something nice there's always the nagging feeling that you didn't earn this, you got it because people felt sorry for you. I honestly think that a minimum wage job is a better alternative, sometimes, than being on social assistance because when you have a job, you can feel like you earned everything you own and that you personally are making life better for your family. I don't support Gingrich's stance on child labour and I highly doubt he's thinking of the same things I'm thinking but he does have a point about menial jobs being better than welfare for some.

[TrackerNeil]

No, I don't assume that all Republicans are racists. I simply don't assume that they're not, like I do with most other people. Republican politicians, and some of their ardent supporters, need to earn my trust that they're not racists (not that they would care about what I think, but you know). It means that the same innocuous-sounding gaffe may be written off as an one-off mistake coming from someone else, but not from a Republican. They too often use dog whistles and coded messages for me to give them any passes.

And make no mistake, Gingrich's message about urban policy is itself a dog whistle ("black/poor people are lazy").

Oh, I quite agree. The GOP has too long a history with that kind of nastiness for anyone to assume that a loaded phrase was unintentional. The term "urban youth" is one that give me fits, because that just means "black kids."

I guess it gets my hair up to see anyone accused of racism because 1) that's a dreadful thing to say about anyone; and 2) it's generally pretty fruitless. Almost no one sees himself as racist, and if he's accused of such will generally go ballistic and end the discussion. (Not that you made such an accusation...I'm speaking generally here.) I find it's better and more productive to focus on the statement or action than the person. Saying "you said something racially insensitive" is in my mind far more likely to result in a discussion than "you ARE a racist", which brings about verbal warfare.

[Brienne the Beauty]

but he does have a point about menial jobs being better than welfare for some.

So how does firing people from menial jobs and forcing them on welfare help this? This would just teach their children that working menial jobs will get them screwed over.

There's no problem with kids doing some small job to get pocket money. I did. But they can already do that. So what does Gingrich want exactly?