The sky didn’t fall when we got the “compassionate conservative”. A hundred thousand innocent Iraqis are dead, our flag is smeared with gore, and some of our best and brightest are sacrificed on a fool’s errand. But the sky did not fall.
Say goodbye to the home mortgage interest and state and local tax deductions. If not entirely eliminated, they’ll be severely restricted.
I have $5 that says this will not happen.
Can you give a specific example of this? One of the legilative pushes in which Obama acted this way perhaps? All I remember - and I stay pretty current with the stuff - was Democrats bending over backwards to try to get some Republicans on board but failing. They’d offer as much in cuts as tax cuts to come to a deal on the debt ceiling and get rejected. Then they offered (IIRC) 4:1 ratio of cuts to tax increases, and the Republicans still said no tax increase under any circumstance.
The democrats allowed the republicans to make 200+ changes to the ACA, and then they still did everything they could to obstruct it anyway.
Quite frankly, most people on this board wish Obama acted in the way you describe, because he seems to keep trying to compromise with those whose main goal is to have him destroyed even if they have to wreck this country to do it. So I’m wondering what specifically has given you the impression that Obama is failing to try to compromise on legislative issues.
Who was the last Republican President that moved to the center?
Doesn’t the Senate hold a veto over the President’s Supreme Court nominations? Therefore, assuming the Democrats keep the Senate, couldn’t they block nomination of a judge that would overturn Roe v Wade?
I think you’re mistaken. Conservative does not equal anti-abortion. I think Thomas would vote to overturn roe v wade. Scalia might join Thomas. I don’t think Alito would, as he cares about precedent.
Alito Signals Reluctance to Overturn Roe v. Wade
Roberts, as we’ve found, cares more about the reputation of the court, and is also strong on precedent. On an issue as divisive as overturning Roe v Wade, and given that it’s considered settled law, I don’t think he’d go for it. He went through flips and twists to save Obamacare, and that was a much bigger stretch than defending Roe v Wade would be at this point.
Kennedy is almost certain come down on the side of Roe, and he’s the conservative swing vote.
So you’ve got two judges that would be very likely to vote to strike down Roe today, and three ‘conservative’ judges that won’t.
Don’t forget that Scalia is now 76 years old, and he doesn’t look particularly fit. So it could easily be him that needs to be replaced. But I think Romney would have to appoint 3 judges to have a shot at Roe, and you can bet that even if he managed to push a real conservative through on his first try, if he got a second there would be a major backlash if he tried to push a second ideologue through.
In fact, if you look at the history of appointments by conservatives, the only one that really stands out as a hard-core right wing judge is Thomas. Alito and Roberts, while generally ‘conservative’, have not been consistent in siding with ‘conservative’ decisions, and Kennedy has sided with the left as much as with the right. Roberts is very much a pragmatist who leans right but also cares about the institution of the court and will choose accordingly.
So I think Roe is completely safe. But let’s say it was overturned - all that means is that the states would have the right to decide on their own about abortion, and you can bet that all the Democratic-leaning states would legalize it anyway. I think you’d only see a handful of states that might not. So not much would change anyway.
They don’t even have to keep the Senate. You can filibuster a nominee - Democrats came very close to filibustering Alito. So even if the Republicans gain control of the Senate, unless they get 60 seats the Democrats will retain the ability to block any Supreme Court nominee they choose.
The threat of a filibuster is one reason why Presidents in both parties have tended to to pick candidates who do not have a record of extreme positions, and who have sterling qualifications. No one wants to go through another confirmation process like Robert Bork’s. Ginsberg is the farthest-left a candidate has gotten in the modern era, and other than Bork, Thomas would be the farthest right. The rest of them are all within the mainstream either on the left or right. I would argue that Thomas and Ginsberg are as well, but on the far ends of the mainstream. Only Bork was really extreme, and he didn’t make it.
As a reminder, Reagan put four justices on the bench. They were:
Sandra Day O’Connor
William Rhenquist
Anthony Kennedy
Antonin Scalia
Of those four, only one has been reliably conservative. Rhenquist was like Roberts - he cared about the institution of the court and that caused him to shy away from a lot of controversial decisions. I suspect Romney would be similar to Reagan in how he’d choose a justice. He won’t pick a conservative firebrand - just someone close to the center on the right who won’t go along with more extreme liberal decisions.
George HW Bush put two justices on the court: David Souter and Clarence Thomas. Souter was supposed to be conservative, but turned out to mostly side with the ‘left’ side of the court. As mentioned, George W Bush got Roberts and Alito, and Roberts is proving to be his own man and not reliably conservative.
So far, Obama has two reliable liberals in Sotomayor and Kagan. But by and large, the history of Supreme Court appointments is that presidents don’t always get what they think they’re getting.
Perhaps. But his campaign website says:
Not, say, Kennedy. Now including Scalia and Thomas in that list may be just for show, but I’m not willing to bet on it.
He just named the four ‘conservative’ justices on the bench. Of course he’s going to say that. If he wanted to show his far-right bona fides, he would have just said Thomas and Scalia.
And if he wanted to placate moderates he would have said Roberts and Kennedy.
The point is, with Mitt, it’s more difficult than usual to calibrate these sorts of things.
In the end, you’re may be right. I might be more concerned because I live in a state that would ban all abortions in a nanosecond if Roe is overturned. Hell, we’re about 50/50 to elect Todd Akin to the Senate.
Alito said he would be hesitant to overturn Roe when he was a nominee. No offense, but that means about as much as a piece of toilet paper in a shit storm. Alito is reliably conservative. He’s not out-and-out looney tunes like Scalia/Thomas, but he’s close. Roberts/Alito/Scalia/Thomas had no qualms about upholding a dubious Partial Birth Abortion ban. Once they get someone who, unlike Kennedy, will play ball, Roe is dead.
I really wish Canadians–and other folks from countries with a Westminster system–would stop projecting this image of the USA as somewhere that solves partisanship with our constitution. George Washington tried to stop partisanship and couldn’t. We have partisans at least as insane as yours, they just gridlock each other when they have to share power.
Now, it’s true that Mitt is not the hyper-partisan ideologue that Newt Gingrich is. But the Congress he’ll end up with will be quite far to the right both socially and economically. There won’t be a Democratic Congress to compromise with.
I’m sorry, this will sound a bit nasty and “partisan,” but here goes:
Long term, one of my fears is that as the first LDS to win the Presidency, Mitt will be exalted very highly in the minds of the Mormon Church–nothing succeeds like success–and drag that community even further in the direction of the fur-coat Republican camp. Where this ends up, I don’t know. But the idea of Mitt as a major saint of an American religion gives me the willies.
More immediately, I think it increases the likelihood of a stumbling, Dubya-esque foreign policy. Romney has a lot of Bushies around him.
Possibly war. According to some sources, Romney is apparently strongly allied to Netanyahu, who is getting worryingly close to starting a war with Iran, against the advice of his intelligence agencies. Obama seems to be a cooler head so far. But I honestly don’t know for certain in what way how a Romney presidency would be different.
Very probably a repeal of the capital gains tax hike in PPACA.
Lots of GOP judges on various benches, both strict constructionists and more radical movement conservatives.
Possibly the sort of “privatization” associated with a Margaret Thatcher or James Watt: Selling off public agencies and resources to for-profit private interests. Romney has yet to convince me that he’s on the public’s side as opposed to the side of crony politics and the country club.
Remember the George W Bush administration? Unpaid-for tax cuts, public funding of private “faith-based” agencies, sticking expenses “off-budget” to mask the size of the deficit, running deficits in the short term while falsely promising to balance the budget (much) later, all that? Expect a Mitt Romney win to be seen as a vindication of that and invitation to do that some more.
On the bright side, um, the people may learn to despise Mormons so much they forget how much they hate mixed-race folks?
Are you under the impression that most US states are run by the Democratic Party now?
No, but there are very few states that are extremely conservative. Even in the states with Republican governments, there is a large minority of Democrats. And in some of those states, public opinion is pro-choice, as is the country overall. And let’s not forget that the most populous states are heavily Democrat.
I honestly think Roe is the Democrat’s victory in the same way that guns are a Republican victory. In each case, the respective sides have won the court of public opinion, and as a result governments are backing off their statist impulses in those areas. Religious conservatives love to fantasize about the day when abortion is illegal, but they don’t have a hope in hell of seeing it happen. Just like many Democrats would still like to see major restrictions on guns and an end to concealed carry and universal registration and all the rest, but don’t have a hope in hell of seeing that happen, either.
So both sides are reduced to trying to make small incremental changes around the edges.
I didn’t say partisanship would end. Of course it won’t. Negotiation in Washington isn’t about convincing the other side that you’re right. Sometimes it’s about knowing what to give up, and when, to get something you want. There’s a reason horse-trading is called what it is - you have to give something up to get something back.
Another way you can get something done in a partisan government is to use the bully pulpit to convince the people to support you. Then the other side is forced to move towards your position or risk being kicked out of office. Both Reagan and Clinton got a lot of what they wanted because the people were behind them. Both were personally popular and knew how to use their stature and office to persuade the American people to follow them.
You can also get things done by forming close personal relationships and gaining the trust of the other side. Reagan and Tip O’Neil were about as far apart as you can get ideologically, and they were both partisan firebrands when they wanted to be, but they had an excellent working relationship and honestly liked each other. That made their relationship more productive.
George W. Bush, on the other hand, was not so much liked. His demeaning little nicknames for people and his swagger put off a lot of people, and his lack of eloquence made it hard for him to convince the skeptical.
I think Obama genuinely dislikes most Republicans, and treats them that way. From what I understand, he’s not that well liked even among Democrats. That puts him at a distinct disadvantage when trying to persuade others.
I didn’t find any of the below nasty at all. Seemed like reasonable worries/criticisms from a left-wing perspective, except for maybe the Mormon paranoia.
Sure - just like Obama was exalted in the black community, and Bush was exalted among southern conservatives. But that doesn’t mean he’ll be considered a ‘saint’ any more than John Kennedy was considered a Catholic saint because he was the first Catholic president. Mormons aren’t nuts - no more so than any other religious people, anyway.
I think this is a reasonable fear from your perspective, and maybe from mine as well. We’ll have to wait and see.
You don’t think IRAN has perhaps something to say about this? My personal belief is that the best way to get a war is to elect someone who is seen as weak and feckless, and I think that’s exactly how Obama is seen by foreign leaders - killing Bin Laden notwithstanding.
You should hope so. Your major trading partners have all made large cuts to their capital gains taxes, making the U.S. less competitive in global markets. Canada’s capital gains rate is about half of what yours is.
He’ll probably try. But recent history shows that presidents of both parties are having a real time getting ideologues confirmed to the various courts.
I disagree with your characterization, but that’s okay. I understand why you wouldn’t like this, but I think it would be a great thing. The best way to conserve something is to give someone an ownership stake in it. Buffalo were almost extinct until Buffalo farming came along. Private tree farms go to great lengths to replant and conserve, lest they lose the value of their forests. Farmers go to great lengths to maintain the health of their land, even when that means foregoing crop revenue in favor of a rehabilitating year of summer fallow.
On the other hand, public spaces often get neglected. Open water fishing often leads to overfishing. Private fisheries maintain their stocks. And so it goes.
I was no fan of Bush’s economic policies, but you should recognize that he was doing exactly what Obama advocates - tax cuts for the middle class, deficit spending, unrealistic expectations for economic growth used to create pie-in-the-sky budgets, a fed that held interest rates artificially low, yada yada.
In my experience, the more you get to know most Mormons, the more you like them. I have yet to meet a Mormon who didn’t turn out to be a genuinely nice person. I don’t know much about their faith, but I do know there’s a strong emphasis on living a moral life, taking care of your body, treating your neighbors as family, being self-reliant, keeping your word, caring about the community, etc. And they really mean it, unless many other Christians who seem to go through the motions but don’t act like they’re supposed to.
One simple change…Nobody would be called a racist for simply disagreeing with the president if Romney won.
I think the biggest problem with a Romney presidency is we really don’t know what he plans to do. We know he’s taken a contrary position on every issue, from taxes to regulation to entitlements to healthcare to Roe v Wade to… well, name it. The man is a stuffed suit and at best caricature of the moneybags guy on a Monopoly box.
Sam, I remember you calling Kerry an “empty suit” in 2004. Romney is very much that person, as empty as your caricature of Kerry, and I’m surprised you can support him. He’s a plutocrat with no center, no core beliefs, who will say or do (and has said and done) anything to be president. He argued well last night, and Obama let him, but he’d argue completely different positions if the audience he stood in front of called for that. I don’t trust either his conservatism or his centrism because he can’t be both of those people.
What would a Romney presidency be like? It depends on who he surrounds himself with, but it wouldn’t end with that. His polices would tend toward whoever bent his ear last, on whatever the topic of the day was. He would lurch from crisis to crises with no clear direction, like a low-level manager completely out of his depth. He’s not qualified for this job either by experience or by temperament, and his priorities would blow with the wind, different every week with no clear direction or foundation.
That’s what has me (along with Medicare reform, which OTOH may be a fight better taken up a few years from now) not a definite supporter of Obama yet. OTOH, the beast of affirmative action may be slain this year considering the Supreme Court is taking up a case against it.
Todsay’s Boston Phoenix addresses the implications of a Romney presidency. The Phoenix being a left-leaning bunch, they don’t care for it:
http://thephoenix.com/Boston/news/145114-how-much-damage-could-a-president-romney-do-let-u/