There should be a bingo card for Fox News talking points – “Obama = terrible negotiator” would be a great fit for the corner.
Except that anyone who thinks that Obama personally negotiated the pact is an idiot.
My point is that the relationship between campaign rhetoric and governing is more complicated than adaher suggests. It’s not a 1:1 relationship, obviously. But it’s also incorrect to imply that campaign rhetoric isn’t relevant at all to assessing how a candidate will behave in office.
True. Guess who did? Hillary Clinton. She was for it before she wasn’t sure about it.
Cite?
adaher quoting Daily Kos???
:eek:
My god, it is the End Times.
If you want good bitching about Clinton, you can’t beat the liberal sites. It helps that 99% of their bitching is about true stuff.
On a cursory read-through, I see nothing in there to suggest Hillary thinks that Obama personally negotiated the pact.
But, only about 10% of that will be stuff the Pub nominee will be able to touch with a pole.
The dishonesty complaint is non-partisan though.
BrainGlutton, SHE was Secretary of State. She played a big role in negotiating and promoting the treaty. Please don’t tell me that you believe for a second that she won’t fully support TPP once elected.
Amy Goodman on why Sanders will be the next President:
You know, something just occurred to me: in the general election, the Republican nominee, to counter Sanders, would have to come out against what he believes in. If what he believes in polls well enough on its own, is it really enough to call him a socialist? I mean, yes, the nominee could go a certain distance by saying, “no, minimum wage workers don’t deserve paid leave” or what have you on a dozen different issues, but how much?
People deserve to be paid when not working? Interesting concept. I don’t think it will poll as well as you suspect.
Then there’s his call for a government takeover of health care.
That was just an example off the top of my head. My broader point still stands: his individual stances seem to be relatively popular/populist as far as I can tell, which makes me wonder how the eventual Republican nominee would counter besides yelling “socialist” and arguing that voters who would benefit from X really don’t deserve it. I’m sure Sanders’ proposals for paying for his policies could be attacked/twisted, for example. But just saying over and over “minimum wage workers are just too lazy to get better jobs,” for example, is going to do more harm than good at a certain point.
Ah, I read you. But you also hit on the problem. All policies have costs, and nearly all policies sound good when you don’t consider the costs. Sanders is a commensurate tax and spender. His time was the 1970s. Today, even the social democracies he extols the virtues of have moved on from those days.
Sanders can beat Clinton, assuming no one more appealing to the base(like Liz Warren) jumps in. But he’s George McGovern in a Presidential election.
So was the time of the phrase “tax and spend”.
Liberals don’t like accurate phrases do they? Oh yeah, the new thing is “revenue enhancements and investments”. Wow, that’s really intended to enlighten, isn’t it?
No, it’s just that “tax and spend” is no more than a silly and uninformative political moniker. Every politician taxes and spends. And each tax should be evaluated on its merits, as should each expenditure.
Is “Repeal and replace!” an accurate phrase?