I thought this was an interesting article written by a republican businessman about his take on the current republican party, and in particular Mitt Romney for president.
Perhaps more than any other article I've seen to date, it explains most of my problem with the party too.
Curious to see what you gentlemen think of his perspective and arguments.
"A life-long Republican, voted for John McCain, and supported Mitt Romney as the most realistic candidate in the primaries."
And this guy isn't racist he is just efficient.
Again, someone pretends to like Reagan. Again, because Reagan was apparently smart enough to take advice from his political enemies. These people will soon go extinct. The GOP in this age stands a chance to win elections. The only Congressional victory of the last half-century for the GOP came with Mr. Gingrich, so I fail to see what pragmatism has to offer the GOP. 2010 was not a complete victory, but it was better than anything else except 1994, & it was just as ideological.
I think his point is this isn't a zero sum game - the whole country wins or loses - pragmatism has much to offer in the way of getting things fixed. Unless you feel that it is not the job of our politicians to run the country well.
Occasionally, it is a zero-sum game. Obama's successes -- Obamacare, particularly -- were too often America's failures. Sometimes getting in the way of a bad idea, or a bunch of them, is 'running the country well'. Sometimes it is the most pragmatic option.
I actually don't disagree with you there, from a conceptual standpoint. Provided that the reasons are pragmatic, and not dogmatic.
I think it is the job of politicians to concern themselves with the common good. Running the country is not such a big part of it. Conservatives differ with liberals most seriously about what parts of the country can damn well run themselves & what parts require gov't to run them. But we do not think the primary function of gov't is to run things; it is to remind people that some things are public, although people like to concern themselves with the private almost exclusively. Politics in the comprehensive sense requires an understanding of that distinction. Politics in the restrictive, common sense deals only with gov't.
I have yet to see what pragmatism has to offer except Democratic victories. I think liberals are pathetic when they have to pretend to like any Republican, especially when they have to pick among the dead or the ones who lost. I think liberals are especially pathetic when they offer conservatives advice on political tactics.--They should be insane to offer advice which leads them to lose elections; they are not much saner to think Republicans are the losing party they once were.
Political compromises are--like all alliances--creatures of circumstance. There is nothing to recommend them in general. But especially in America, standing on principle & denying pragmatism is important for conservatives. Whether you refer to the peculiarly American pretense to philosophy or the peculiarly liberal politicking that FDR started--it's impossible to take politics seriously without opposing pragmatism. Liberalism will die when 'policy' talk dies. Conservatism will only triumph when the sobriety of law returns to the political discourse.
Sounds like he should've been voting against conservative candidates for a long time ... for the exact same reasons you have been. He isn't conservative. You can have him.
He claims that he's bothered by ideology. But, from the rest of the article, it is clear that ideology doesn't bother him ... conservative ideology bothers him. His definition of "compromise" seems to be Republicans meeting Democrats on their side of the aisle. He says he's disappointed with Obama's performance, disagrees with Obama's policies in theory -- though I can't figure out which one he disagrees with -- then blames Romney more than Obama for the results. Nonsensical, but his conclusion fits right in with Obama campaign spin.
He's for higher taxes. He's for more spending. He's for socialist healthcare. He's for higher deficits. He's against 'entitlement' reform. He wants to raise the cap on FICA taxes. He's pro-choice. He's pro-gay-marriage. He is for big government because we need big government to control big corporations. He is 'spooked' by the concept of corporate rights. He's more concerned with what Romney does with his money than what Obama does with ours. He voluntarily pays more taxes than he has to (what a moron) -- because he apparently thinks the government will do more with his money than he will -- and is upset because Romney didn't (did Obama?). He's for government-funded education Pre-K through PhD. He thinks we need more unions. He thinks we need to redirect defense spending to "infrastructure". He thinks "infrastructure" is the ticket to prosperity. He thinks our unemployment benefits should be perpetual. He thinks the only reason Romney isn't a financial criminal is because the law is wrong (heh).
I can't think of a single reason a guy like that shouldn't vote for Obama. That he voted for McCain (if he's legit) reflects poorly on John McCain. Good riddance.
It is encouraging, however, that this marks the FIRST voter I have seen that has been converted to Obama since the last Presidential election. I've seen a lot of '08 Obama voters that won't be voting, a lot that will be voting Romney, and certainly a lot of immovable '08 Obama voters that are on board for '12 ... but this is the first voter I've seen that didn't vote Obama in 2008 that will in 2012. It bodes well that he represents such a rarity.
That's pretty much the response I expected I would get from you JB, and I agree - he doesn't fit under the current definitions of conservative. But then, I would argue, neither did most past "conservative" presidents.
He's for higher taxes. When necessary to combat deficits. He's for more spending. When necessary to combat financial collapse. He's for socialist healthcare. As were many "conservatives" especially when it may save money, and the whole labeling all things "socialist" angle is part of his point. He's for higher deficits. In the short term, if necessary. He's against 'entitlement' reform. No, he's not - reform good - abandonment to a private system without a backup plan, bad. He wants to raise the cap on FICA taxes. Because it's currently a regressive tax - something that is rarely considered a good thing. He's pro-choice. He's pro-gay-marriage. No, he thinks they should be states rights decisions, not federal.
Your ifs are laughable: Only a liberal would grant them. A man who decides to support the liberals' hero in a time of crisis is no conservative. Nobody who would pick Mr. Obama over Mr. Romney in this year's election could be a conservative. If this election is not a typical fight against massive gov't spending running endless deficits with not even a pretense of fiscal responsibility, then no election can be. If this is not the right election to ask, in the vulgar manner: Are you better off then you were four years ago?--like Reagan famously did, then no election is.
Are you better off then you were four years ago?
I hope the question is asked. For me, at least, the answer is yes.
Your ifs are laughable: Only a liberal would grant them.
I suppose that is so. With that said, I do prefer a deficit over a depression. If it is liberal to make a allow one ill to prevent a worse one, then so be it.
The deficit is a certainty. That Mr. Obama promised the economy would be significantly better than it is--that is also certain. That a depression was the inevitable alternative--that's just liberalism talking. Just like it's liberalism talking when measuring the man's achievements against his own promises is carefully avoided. Again, your ifs are there, this time unstated: Liberalism.
As for the fact that you may be better off, so the question should be asked: Typical liberalism. Like that ineffable Ms. Kael wondering that nobody she knew had voted for Nixon. Like the inenarrable Mr. Obama assuring America that the private sector is doing fine, it's the public sector that needs increased spending. Does it occur to you that you did not even state, much less argue that a majority of Americans are doing better off than they were four years ago?
Does it occur to you that you did not even state, much less argue that a majority of Americans are doing better off than they were four years ago?
I do not know the answer, so I thought it best to not make assumptions. I believe the majority are doing better (or feel they are). But we shall see in November.