November 09, 2012
A bad case of political denial is infecting conservatives nationwide.
Now would certainly be the time to do it. These Tea-Party members of Congress will fold like beach-chairs when faced with the prospect of middle class voters bringing home a lighter paycheck, just so upper earners can skate along.
Scot, agree -- and it's true that while the Wall Street Journal's mainline articles usually give a sense of trying to stick to researched facts and reasoned speculation, their op-ed's often often seem to be right-leaning emotion and hyperbole in the guise of researched facts and reasoned speculation. And, though they work hard at the disguise and some writers are extremely good at it (Peggy Noonan, for one), the effort is clear on thoughtful analysis, and their credibility suffers greatly.
So he wins by a razor thin majority and its an overwhelming mandate? Talk about contorting!
This comment has been removed.
Three million more American citizens. That's a fat razor.
Think back to 2010, when the country overwhelmingly rejected the path Obama had taken on the stimulus, and on Obamacare. Did a chastened Obama moderate his views to comport with the reality that his policies had been rejected? No. He doubled down on his approach, and began to pass laws by executive order. He was believed to have said "I don't need no stinkin congress".
Now, after he squeezes by with a razo thin victory, the punditry acts as though he has a voter approved mandate to raise taxes during a weak economy. They say this despite the GOP holding on to the House of Representatives, which the punditry declare is NOT a mandate to oppose tax hikes. Sounds like a very selective bit of whose victory equals a right to keep on doing what they are doing.
The fiscal cliff was created by the President, who never had any intention of reaching an agreement. It was conveniently accepted by both parties a a way to put off difficult decisions. It is at least a 50-50 chance that they will do the same thing again-agree to do nothing and extend the date from Jan 1 to July 1.
The republicans may accpts a modest increase in tax rates, as a way to get the Dems to accpet spending cuts. It will not raise any real revenue, but it will give the Dems the class warfare victory they think they have earned. So be it. The electorate has decided that slow economic growth is a fair price to pay to keep its rock star in the oval office. Republicans should hold to their principlas though, and not allow the President to bully them into submission.
The last term that would ever reasonably apply to a 332-206 Electoral victory (once Florida finally does end up as a Democtratic victory instead of merely leaning) is razor thin. Romney won the confederacy Tuesday night, but that's all. Obama won the presidency. With no snark whatsoever, I extend an open hand and invite you to join reality. We gave Bush a chance in 2000 (he did, after all, have a 90% approval rating shortly after 9/11), now it's your turn to acknowledge the will of the people.
One message from the election was this: It wasn't a mistake the first time. We really want Obama. Really. Now go back to Washington, suck it up and get the job done this time. Or we can send a much stronger message in two years. Really. We will.
Scot it is increasingly depressing to watch this floundering by the Republican Party and these so called conservatives. We just got our hats handed to us something like 332 to 206 and we call it razor thin. Then I sit down for laughs and watch FOX News and what do I see but a bunch of folks living a delusion. Crushed in the voting by women, minorities, gays and any other group that wasn't white and male they sit there and come up with hurricane excuses or even better pull off an O'Reilly and say the country has reached the point of all of those folks voting for Obama are takers and not givers. Great, lose an election and then insult everyone who just voted against you.
My favorite was and I can't remember who said it, "American's can't possibly want a European style country." Excuse me but we are and have been for years. We've got SS, Medicare, Medicaid, the ACA, unemployment everything except the shorter work week and longer vacations. It is about time real "conservatives" do what we do best, conserve that which the people have chosen and make it run efficiently and wisely. Not long after RR the Re[publican Party took these knuckleheaded religious right types seriously, then went to bed with "libertarians" which no conservative could actually like, then had a love affair with "social conservatives, an oxymoron and now everybody hates us. Many "conservatives" themselves left the Party in disgust and simply had their name stolen by these groups.
You look at the comment section and these folks have no idea what a conservative is. They think its Rush Limbaugh. The fight in the party has already started and a few real "conservatives" are talking sense but then get yelled at by these crazies, no we've got to go further right on abortion on this or that, issues that have nothing to do with conservatism. This is a nighmare scenario for the Party and if the crazies gain complete control the number of unaffliated voters will explode as the Party collapses. We need a two party system but both parties need to be sane. Right now conservatism doesn't have a real home.
You can count me as a conservative who unenrolled in disgust while exiting the polls in 2000.
It's really about money you know. Corporations are fine with whatever social or religious nonsense is being debated. The real power in the Republican party comes from the corporations backing the propaganda and the last thing these guys care about is abortion etc.There are always a few exceptions. Philip Anschutz being one-actually might be ideologically motivated-but most of this is driven by a desire for more money. What I find interesting is how powerful and seductive the propaganda really is. S. Lehigh talks about Victor Davis Hanson- who has a reputation of being an intellectual with something to say- but I find him and his ilk over at Pajamas Media to be just good wordsmiths with little to offer. Everyone has been taken in by the irrationality and a lament for a time of "Father Knows Best". Even the main street conservative pundits like George Will and Michael Barone got this way wrong, predicting a landslide victory for Romney. Was it wishful thinking or delusional thinking-I believe it was one or the other.
The WSJ is owned by Newscorp. Newscorp is owned by Rupert Murdock, who owns Fox News. The WSJ is a joke, just like Fox News.
and you think that the Boston Globe would have brought the murders of our ambassador and 3 others to the attention of its readers....without Fox News everynight bringing the information about the lack of security and begging for help as they were being attacked to its viewers never would have happen....the other media & newspapers like NYT were in the bag for electing Pres. Obama an never would have reported anything about this terrible incident being a terrorist attack and the lack of response for requested added security and this administration will still stone wall and use executive privilege.
"salemreader" I was at one level attracted to conservatism long ago by Goldwater who laid down a simple tenent regarding "conservatism",
"The conservative movement is founded on the simple tenet that people have the right to live life as they please as long as they don't hurt anyone else in the process."
Does that look like today's Republican Party, not even close. These folks hated Obama so much they couldn't even lay out a logical argument with which to oppose him. It was pathetic.
He also decried the religious Right:
I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in "A," "B," "C" and "D." Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism."andMark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.
Attaturk: I have to say, as someone who admires many classical conservatives, I find the state of today's GOP v. depressing. It has become untethered from factual analysis (of which more next week). I have to say, though I know conservatives all think it's great to have Fox News as a media platform, I think it has had a counterproductive side effect of dumbing down the movement's thought leaders. I mean, it's a long, long way from William F. Buckley to Sean Hannity ... JKupie: Agreed on the WSJ. A great newspaper with an egregiously counter-factual editorial page.
Do you really think Hannity or O'Reilly are "conservatives". To me they are merely entertainers throwing out raw meat to a gullible audience. I had problems with Buckley because he brought his religion with him into the argument but I do sorely miss Mr. Buckley and Mr. Vidal going at it. Now the intellectual debate is between O'Reilly and John Stewart. Stewart is at least "realistic".
Seriously I don't see a future for "conservatism" unless it moves away from this "social, anti-government, hate change mentality. I'm trying to recall when it became fashionable for "conservatives" to oppoe progress. I certainly never came across that in my readings in philosophy or politics.
I have to disagree a little on the WSJ. I've been a subscriber for 20 years. I'll agree they werer a great newspaper with an amazingly biased editorial page. Since News Corp took over, there's been a noticable bleed of the editiorial bias into the news side. Several friends have complained of the same thing.
"A bad case of political denial is infecting conservatives nationwide."
Well, no, I would say it is infecting partisan Republicans. You've laid claim to fiscal conservatism yourself, Scot, do you feel afflicted? Neither do I. Although Hanson is correct about the divisions that still exist, a returning incumbent President can afford to compromise or grandstand, depending on the issue, since he doesn't have to sell that point for re-election, while the Senators and especially the Representatives do have to worry about that. While I am concerned about the fiscal cliff whereat we totter, perhaps it is also time to re-evaluate whether or not this nation's best interests are served by a political process where re-election is job one. Personally I would favor a significant Constitutional reform to set a reasonable length of time for a term in office and eliminate incumbency.
The counter argument to that is you get a class of unelected professional beuarocrats running things, since they're the only ones who know how to get things done. We pretty much have that in Cambridge where the mayor changes every election cycle and the real power is with the City Manager.
Yes, that is very much a risk, although we already have that at all levels. I think it would give more people the opportunity to cycle from local political levels up through national levels (I also think we have too many state governments; local and federal seem like more than enough to me). Also, I should point out that I would not prohibit anyone from running again, just not for the office one is currently holding. I would also favor not being allowed to run for a different office while holding office. Sure, it forces people to go back to private life for at least a year each cycle, but I don't think that would kill any ambitions. I won't lay claim, however, to knowing what constitutes a practical solution. Cheers.
Scot, After re-reading your post I noted even you called those folks out there watching FOX "conservatives". I don't think they are. Perhaps a few but who really thinks of Coulter as "conservative". This love affair with Ayn Rand by so many. That's not conservative, it's radical. For me the problem is the name "conservative" got hijacked. I'm not sure real "conservatives" can ever get it back.
<<I'm posting this up here again because it was buried in the replies below.>> Hey, everyone! I know we've found "system" to be difficult to take, and I agree that it feels good to say "nyah, nyah", but let's do what we can to be gracious. In fact, it's the only thing I can think of we can do that might make a difference in his provocation-- that is, if we don't react, he won't goad. Now that we've won in the voting booths, lets win on the comment board, too. As Abraham Lincoln said, "With malice toward none..." Reasonable refutation has been useless, payback in kind can only be petty, so maybe we can all try unresponsiveness. I suggest we just don't reply to any of his comments. (This is the last reply to him that you'll see from me.) Peace, all!
System, system who?
Last night Charlie Rose had a pre-election tape where panel members expressed their doubts that Obama could 'handle' the 'fiscal - cliff' looming for the "next president." Why did Charie Rose wait until after the election to show this tape?
The discussion was prior to 11/6/2012, and discussion was around the dire straights of the U.S. future and the plunging U.S. economy???!!!~
Panel members expressed their concerns that Obama lacked skills and leadership to deal with it!
Other panels expressed doubts he would win the election....So much for "Panels".
Canta: Here, you lapse into the paranoid worldview of certain other posters here. You really there Charlie Rose held back a chattering class panel on Obama to influence the election?
Scot, face it: You're a shill for the left. What's paranoid about that? If you had a sense of decency you would be ashamed of yourself. You are part of the "state apparatus," telling yourself you're a rebel and for the little guy.
System is having a great day! Lighting you guys up! Lets all hope to see some good compromise in the next few weeks before a problem arises. Winning the election doesnt make him right on the issues or excuse the press, particularly the globe, for the way they handled the campaign. Scot is at least just an Oped buy. Sure he is delusional most of the time, but I do enjoy his articles. A US ambassador died and no one seems to be asking what happened. The president lied and CBS had proof and just sat on it. Would Mitt have gotten the same treatment??? All you honest democrats should ask yourselves that. Not a huge supporter of Romney but do think he would have made a good President because of his ability to work with others. I hope the President can learn that is his biggest problem and start the ball rolling on all the work thats needs to get done. Both side should be fighting to lead the way on a multitude of issues. Lets hope the Globe can now get back to reporting and let us know who is trying and who is not.
I'll bet you consider yourself and that other guy "conservative".
The Globe and the mainstream medias bias is the most disappointing of all. We all know what Scot is about, and his beliefs are fine. But the paper shouldnt have the open Bias that he shares. Im sure now that the election is over we can have a good period of Reporting.
an you think the Boston Globe will reports the true facts on Benghazi you are delusional.
Atta--I am liberal/conservative based on the issue. I dont just follow along with the party. For example I have no problem with the US dropping billons on Green energy. I think its where we need to go as a county and a world. Im also for not drilling more in the US. That would make me liberal to many, I guess.
Well then I don't quite get the bias media, Libya or your affection for the "other" "I think I'm cute guy" things.
The media thing to me is a downright waste of time. If one doesn't know the bias of the Globe or the Herald then they are an idiot so why some folks want to waste my time posting it is a mystery. Unless that person thinks the rest of us are stupid. Which to me is someone posting the same thing over and over, now that's stupd.
As to Libya, when all the facts are in I'll decide. But I don't consider the ranting from my estranged relatives on the "radical right" to be facts any more then I consider rants from the radical left to be facts.
I'd like to see a lot less ranting and a lot more exchanging of ideas. This idea that one spews out nonsense and takes delight in being disliked doesn't help conservatism or rational discussion on the boards. Personally I think we are better served ignoring the nonsense.
Att--waiting for the facts is always the way to go---but I think we can agree that the President said the attacks were all about a video, repeatedly for 7-10 days. Then switched over to a terrorist attack at the debate. Thats not really up for a fact check. Its what happened. CBS news interviewed the day after and he made it very clear a video caused all these problems. The media should have made his positions clear for him if he was unwilling to be honest. System is usually far right but much of what Scot says is far left, in that its completely biased. Both make good points on occasion. You simply label anyone who disagrees with you as a crazy right wing racist and wash your hands of their valid points as you did with System today.
Even with the loss they think they won.
Scot--one risk with this piece is that it starts with a long scientific word ending in "logical", so a certain portion of the political spectrum may take issue with it.
Scot, it is so amazing to hear you declare that Fox News has a problem with the truth. Your media, has a problem with reporting anything that damages their preferred candidate. How many stories on the Benghazi attacks have been done in the Globe, Newsweek, the NY Times? Hardly any. Fox has covered this, and to some extent, The washington Post. But CBS News sat on footage in which Romney was proved correct, in the debate which was joined by candy Crowley. How can you declare with a straight face that the media (save for Fox) is objective?
I worry far more about the liberal media, which has zero credibility. Sean Hannitt is very partisan, but it is his job to be a commentator. The same bias exhibited by Hannity is standard among the liberal media names, who are unapologetic in their support for Obama.
You got what you wanted, pal. Let's see how you like it.
We love it, thanks.
Richmond: Well, I have read quite a few in the NYT, the Washington Post, WSJ, LA Tmes, &tc, some of which we have run (we don't have our own international team any longer). Now, what we haven't run and, to the best of my knowledge, no one else in the credible media has, is Fox's anonymously sourced (apparently single anonymous source as well, at least on the key allegation) story alleging people stood by and did nothing during the attack, despite calls for help. It's instructive that the CIA, headed by Gen. Petraeus, has said that's not so. I know that conservative partisans want to make this into a scandal and coverup, but Richmond, if you want the real reason that the credible media hasn't reported it that way, well, apply Occam's Razor. Hint: It's the same reason that, after checking it out during the campaign, the credible media didn't cover the birther allegations. I know that proved frustrating to poor Mr. Trump, but some of us live in the real, evidence-based world.
Scot-There is a story about what happened here. No one thinks the administration just let these guys die. Most wonder why marines werent on hand and why security wasnt granted. The Presidents changing story line on this did in fact happen and should have raised some eyebrows in the media. I certainly do think the media (globe) should have covered it. After the first debate, why didnt the globe review all his public interviews for the week after and say, his narrative was that a video inspired a protest that got out of hand and this was not a terrorist attack. He then changed that at the debate. That isnt a FOX spin on it, its what happened. The point being Scot, a US ambassador did die, so its not a birther issue. The medias job is to let the public know what happened. Instead, the media decided to take the lets wait until after the election approach on it, and called FOX nuts for mentioning it.
As one person wrote some time earlier - maybe the Republicans will finally have their "McGovern Moment" and disengage themselves from the more fanatical members of the party. Unfortunately the party has been hijacked and the real contributions of the Republican Party are not heard anymore.
Amen...you are spot on.
Companies plan massive layoffs as Obamacare becomes reality
This is the guy the American voters rejected! From today's Wall St. Journal:
I know most Republicans don't click links, but this is just too good to pass up even if no one reads it! Are we Obama voters smart or what!
Sec of state and CIA director resign, the press is missing a great strory
"charlieboy" Had to go out. Well didn't have to go out went out to play golf.
Anyhow as to Tierney and Brown. I don't live in Mass. any longer so I tend to stay out of Mass. political questions unless they are purely philosophical. Politically I didn't have a big problem with Brown and I don't know much about Tierney except something about a gambling problem in the family.
As to Scott I didn't say he was down the middle I just think he leans towards fiscal conservatism, but believes in Keynesian economics, just as I do. He is I am quite sure socially liberal.
Frankly from my perspective a conservative doesn't have to just ignore reality over ideology. Keynes economic theory works. It has for many years. Now we can debate as to how far we go with it, but I'm not going to deny it works.
As to the size of government. I am always cracked up by those who go we are heading towards a European framework. We aren't heading towards it. We've been there for years. It's time we recognized this for what it is and figure out ways in which we can make it function efficiently. People do not want to go backwards. They do not want to dump the safety net. No, the conservative response to this now should be, fine this is what you want, the conservative thing to do is to establish how we pay for it.
Secondly, the "conservative" movement must get away from this "religious", morality, bedroom intrusion nonsense. That is not "conservative". It is in fact "big" government something we should be opposed to. This is the 21st century, the Burke, Buchanan, Buckley view of government is no longer viable. Conservatism needs a re-write it is not a religion written in stone. It is a political philosophy adaptable to modern times.
Reality has a liberal bias.
While Mr. Obama is busy bashing his fellow Americans, he is once again extending the Olive branch to Iran's leaders. And did Obama actually send Valerie Jarrett into to negotiate with Iran (and presumably spill a few more military secrets along the way)? Our "Commander in Chief" shows again and again that he actually HATES the military, and is perfectly happy to slash military spending. And THAT's how he thinks that he can BLACKMAIL House Republicans into accepting his tax increases...And he has been told time and time again that raising taxes on the Rich will not reduce the deficit in any way. Therefore one has to conclude that Mr. Obama is NOT SERIOUS about tackling the deficit. ..But he IS serious about slashing America's military, and while he said, in Campaign Mode "I will not allow Iran to posess a nuclear weapon", he and Hillary Clinton have decided that Iran is, after all, a soverign nation and all nations have the right to possess nuclear weapons. Just notice Obama's response now to the Iran attack on an American drone..NO military response from the US, and NO announcement about the attack until AFTER the election.
Scott Lehigh, again, produces a bitter, nasty column attacking republicans. This, while his own employer, the Boston Globe, has been over-the-top Obama cheerleaders who have absolutely nothing criticail to say about their Dear Leader Obama. It it absolutely pathetic.