Sigh. Debate has taken place, constantly takes place, and will continue to take place, in Congress and elsewhere. To say that something can’t be done (“the Republicans just can’t be talked to/reasoned with”) that has been done continuously for four years (and well before that) is just plain silly.
Actually, I’ll pick up on your (perhaps unintentional) metaphor of this board as a microcosm of the Repub/Demo debate. Some people have, with spittle-flying-from-lips vehemence, indeed proved themselves incapable of dialogue. However, most have been reasonable.
I don’t really want to debate any point other than my original one: that just perhaps, the current political mudfest should be changed to an examination of the issues at hand. Since a resounding portion of the responders, Democratic supporters presumably, have shouted “HELL NO!!!,” I, sadly, appear to have received my answer.
When you want to make an assertion that is non-ludicrous, try to avoid stating that something that actually happens hundreds of times a day never happens/is impossible.
The “inconsequential and trivial exception” referred to is the hundreds, perhaps thousands of times Congressional Democrats and Republicans meet (“behind the scenes,” if you like) to hammer out deals–every single day Congress is in session.
Look: for four years, in election years and off years alike, the GOP and its fellow traveler groups have been demonizing Obama as a Kenyan Muslim socialist who wasn’t born in the U.S.A., is unAmerican, anti-American, has done “apology tours” apologizing for things America has done.
Can you come up with a single instance of where GOP party leaders (Romney, Ryan, Boehner, Cantor, McConnell) have condemned such vilification of Obama by their followers?
Me either.
People who make up shit out of thin air and throw it at you aren’t people who you can reason with. End of story. And I’m not gonna waste a whole lot of time in trying to reason with them if they themselves haven’t been doing it, but their followers have, and they haven’t pushed back.
I’m sure I could come up with such an instance, but that’s not the point. The moment you assert that such mudslinging has been unidirectional (i.e., only the Republicans ever attack the Democrats, NEVER the other way around), then effective debate dies. EACH side claims the other makes unreasonable personal attacks, while ignoring the fact that BOTH sides do so.
And for what it’s worth, Obama’s “apology tour” was precisely that, but its target wasn’t the countries he visited: it was the American electorate, since what he was really doing was excoriating GWB. Much more subtle than “he’s really a Muslim!,” granted, but still character assassination.
If you like, both sides have been fighting dirty, but perhaps the Democrats, while eye-gouging, throwing dirt and rocks, etc. have not so far tried to kick the other guy in the balls.
Oh wait, I just saw the “Romney killed my wife” ad.
Well, the cartoonish logic in the cartoon conflates Romney with all the right-wing nutjobs who have been saying that Obama is a Muslim, etc. It’s kind of stupid to do that.
In point of fact, Romney hasn’t based his campaign on making those kinds of personal attacks on Obama, though I’m sure that someone without a life could find something on YouTube where he did make a personal remark of some kind. But any reasonable observer would conclude that the character attacks have mostly been Democrat–>Republican rather than the opposite.
But both sides have let their nutjob fringes rave largely unrestrained, though as I said, I’m sure each side has tried to rein in its crazier element at some time or the other (and no, I’m not going to go digging for a “cite” for that), when they’ve crossed the line (wherever that line may be).
Though I do have to note that Obama didn’t repudiate the pack-of-bullshit “Mitt Romney killed my wife!!!” PAC ad that appeared recently.
Just FTR, I don’t think the world will end if Romney is elected. Or even that he is “evil” (or at least not INTENTIONALLY so;)).
But I also think that this is a pretty damned important election. That EVERY election is pretty damned important, actually.
The balance of the Supreme Court could very well rest in the balance…one more Right-leaning appointee could easily tip the balance on Roe v. Wade and other important rulings.)
And Romney is a supply-sider Neo-con (the man actually uses the phrase “New American Century” in his campaign literature! :eek:) whose economic and foreign policies would differ little from Bush’s (e.g. more tax cuts for the rich and giant corporations, “regime change” in Iran, etc…)
We saw where THAT got us. For my sake, that of my kids, and that of the nation, I feel pretty damned strongly about NOT going back to those days.
Yeah, and health care…my late husband would probably still be alive if “ObamaCare” had been in place 5 years ago. While I prefer SINGLE-PAYER, some very important reforms were included in the Act.
I think it is possible to make strong statements about the POLICIES and IDEOLOGY of a candidate without personally attacking the PERSON, but sometimes the line is unavoidably thin.
And of course, negative campaigning WORKS. Always has. It’s nothing new. Some of the personal attacks and charges made against candidates by their opponents 150 yrs ago would NEVER be tolerated today.
I’d like to gently suggest that you at least consider a couple of challenges to things you obviously believe are absolute truth:
That tax cuts for the rich and “giant” (as opposed to merely pretty honkin’ big) corporations are necessarily, automatically, a bad thing.
That the economic woes of the last few years were directly, proximally, and primarily caused by the economic policies of the GWB administration.
Now, you (and most others reading this) are probably snorting, “Of course they are! Of course they were!” However, these are, in fact, not easily answered questions–unless you resort to ideology to answer them, or, more precisely, to avoid answering them.
(I am wondering, by the way, why GWB takes a full hit for the economy in 2008, and well beyond according to the Democrats, but Obama is not the least bit to blame for the current economic non-recovery. But I digress.)
And yes, we should have had universal health care long ago, and yes, the Republicans are probably to “blame” for that. But they had their reasons for opposing it–and it’s too much of a leap from disagreeing with those reasons (as I do, and I’m sure you do) to saying that the Republicans are evil, selfish assholes.
The point I’m trying to get across is that we should think less viscerally and more cerebrally about who we choose for our leaders and what we want our (ostensible) representatives to do for us.
German expansionists of about a century ago had very strong, very understandable, “good,” reasons, rooted in what they considered conservative values, for expanding Germany at the expense of other nations. Doesn’t make them right, doesn’t make anyone else a pig for saying they were wrong.
Don’t be more ridiculous than you need to be. The cartoon demonized Romney himself (not just the Republican party), and implied that the statements made by the extremist wing of his party were his own. My saying that Romney has refrained from such tactics doesn’t narrow the scope of my earlier statement(s). In any case, it was a very, very stupid (and unfair) cartoon, and doesn’t deserve further discussion.
OK, I will. That taxes should be collected solely to fund the activities of government, and that said activities should have as their purpose the common good of the people.
Depends on how extensive the nutjobs are. If they’re all but running the party that nominated you, and you’ve repeatedly demonstrated an unwillingness to push back against them, then you own them.
We aren’t talking about some 2% fringe of the party here, after all. We’re talking about Rush Limbaugh, Donald Trump, a pretty fair number of Congresscritters, and vast swaths of the GOP portion of the electorate.
Besides, I didn’t say Romney had to push back against them - although maybe I should have. I opened the field to a number of top party leaders - the Presidential ticket, the Speaker of the House, the House Majority Leader, and the Senate Minority Leader.
Having been through the era 10-15 years ago where practically every Democrat around was asked whether he disavowed Al Sharpton’s remarks anytime he said something problematic, I think that’s perfectly fair.
But since you asked for stuff that Romney has personally said, I’ll put a bunch of that in my next post, just so this one doesn’t get too big.
[ul]
[li]According to a Romney commercial, President Obama “quietly announced a plan to gut welfare reform by dropping work requirements.” The voiceover tells viewers, “Under Obama’s plan, you wouldn’t have to work and wouldn’t have to train for a job. They just send you your welfare check… and welfare to work goes back to being plain old welfare.”[/li][li]In reference to voting rights in Ohio, Romney wrote on Facebook that Obama believes “it is unconstitutional for Ohio to allow servicemen and women extended early voting privileges.”[/li][li]In the same written message, Romney argues that Obama intends to “undermine … the voting rights of our military.”[/li][li]In a speech in Des Moines, Romney said in reference to the deficit, “Instead of cutting it half, he actually doubled it and more.” He went on to say in Iowa that Obama is “the first president in history to have a deficit above $1 trillion.” (George W. Bush’s final budget had a deficit of $1.3 trillion.)[/li][li]At a press availability in Nevada, Romney said, “The president has now raised taxes on the middle class.”[/li][li]Romney went on to say, “The president, the other day, you heard what he said. I simply couldn’t believe what he said. It may go down as the most famous quote of his entire presidency. When he said, ‘If you have a business, you didn’t build that, someone did that for you.’ He does not understand that it’s entrepreneurs of all kinds that have built this country, free individuals reaching excellence, reaching for achievement.”[/li][li]In a statement responding to the July jobs report, Romney argued, “President Obama doesn’t have a plan” to create jobs. (Romney hasn’t heard of the American Jobs Act? Obama made a rather big deal about it last fall.)[/li][li]In his speech at the Veterans of Foreign Wars National Convention, Romney said the president, in his “dealings with other nations,” has given “apologies.”[/li][li]A Romney campaign ad a few weeks ago claimed, “Where did all the Obama stimulus money go? Friends, donors, campaign supporters, special interest groups.”[/li][li]At a speech in Irwin, PA, Romney said, “I’m ashamed to say that we’re seeing our president hand out money to the businesses of campaign contributors… That kind of crony capitalism does not create jobs, and it does not create jobs here.”[/li][/ul]
Source: Steve Benen, Chronicling Mitt’s Mendacity, Vols. 29, 28, 27, 26. I could have gone back farther, but that seemed like enough for one post.
Aside from the fact that many if not most of these assertions of Romney’s are at least somewhat true, I don’t see anywhere in them evidence of any personal attacks on Obama’s person or character. Rather, I see attacks on his policies and actions. That, I have no problem with–from either side.
I’m sure you could just as easily come up with a similar list of statements by Obama about Romney that would have a similar critical tone. Again, I have no problem with that at all.
What I object to is the attempt to paint Romney as a felon, a tax evader (as opposed to a tax avoider, which is perfectly legal), and a heartless Simon Legree-like wife-killer, per the recent PAC ad. I also, naturally, object to Obama being called a secret Muslim, closet socialist, etc.
I don’t see anything in your list that justifies the aforementioned cartoonist’s supposed point–that Romney has no basis for complaining about the Democratic campaign’s personal attacks on him because some nutjob Republicans have been calling Obama a Muslim, etc.
OK, have any of the leading Democrats–or Obama himself–disavowed the “Mitt Romney killed my wife” ad, especially since the assertions it’s grounded in are completely untrue?
I suppose you would excuse this lack of disavowal by saying that the Democrats’ nutjobs don’t “all but run” their party the way the Republicans’ do, which would seem like an awfully convenient rationalization to me.
