He had one poor debate performance. That didn’t change the result of the election, nor did his two better debate performances. Obama won because he was the better choice, by far, to be president. And he was a better candidate.
In the 2nd and 3rd debates (especially the 3rd), Obama was doing just fine before any supposed help from the moderators.
I wouldn’t rely too much on my memory if I were you. School wasn’t “too hard” and I didn’t just “get” athsma…like my parents, I’ve had it all my life.
Obama just didn’t show up in the first debate. He thought, with some justification, that Romney just wasn’t worthy of being on stage with him. Consequently, he let Romney tell lie after lie and didn’t call him out. Then he wisened up and cleaned Romney’s clock in the second and third debates.
Just checking out your military expertise…
You know, I think part of the dysfunction in the Republican party is that there’s no single perfect candidate that would satisfy everyone who calls themselves conservative.
For example, a candidate who took seriously the demands to cut spending on every front would eventually piss off the constituency that demands their Medicare and Social Security be considered sacrosanct. (Which, in my mind, is the central hypocrisy of the Tea Party.) He would also eventually piss off the corporate constituents who want subsidies. He would eventually run into conflicts with the strong-military and invade-ISIS constituents. (After all, what’s left to cut if you won’t touch 95% of the budget? Just NPR and Planned Parenthood, basically. Well, go get your billion dollars in tax cuts, then. That’ll really make a difference.)
Speaking of the military and ISIS, there’s a fundamental disconnect between the isolationists and the interventionists, and there’s plenty of both identifying as Republican. (I’m sure this is part of Trump’s appeal. Mexico will pay for the wall. ISIS will be so scared they’ll just go away. We won’t actually have to do anything. He proposes the magical fantasy world that satisfies both groups.)
A candidate who took seriously the demands to end immigration and deport immigrants would also run afoul of the corporate constituents who might prefer an immigration fix, but who mostly depend on immigrants of one type or another (i.e. agricultural laborers and skilled knowledge workers).
A candidate who takes seriously most of the social issues conservatives value (especially the knee-jerk bigots) would run afoul of the conservatives who argue for limited regulation and more personal freedoms. Same-sex marriage and legal marijuana, for example, are both the federal government dealing with rights that some would argue are relegated to individuals or states through the 9th and 10th amendments.
So, anyway, I don’t see any Republican candidate satisfying more than half the party, and it’s been that way for a while. It’s why so many Republicans fall back on party loyalty and the anything-but voting strategy. As long as the party is dysfunctional and hypocritical, there’s no candidate who can please more than a minority of it.
I’m afraid you’re trying to fire an empty gun there, BB. I was ordered to begin discharge procedures upon my return home from bootcamp. The order came from a Navy doctor (and officer) following an athsma attack who explained that while the Navy appreciated my desire to serve my country, it would be too troublesome to make sure medication to treat my athsma wa always on board whichever ship I got assigned to. So I followed orders and did so. Had I stayed in the Navy I’d have served according to my orders and not whinged about how we shouldn’t be fighting this war or that because certain of my friends in the service might be called upon to do what they joined for (ostensibly, it seems), which was to fight when called upon to do so.
“Obama got help from the moderators” is an actual conservative narrative that they’re pushing? I’ve somehow been blissfully unaware of this.
You joined to fight pointless wars of choice that would weaken America and strengthen our enemies? Wow. [yes, I recognize that you didn’t really mean this – see the 3rd paragraph of this post]
My buddies and I joined to protect the United States. I’d certainly follow any lawful order while I was serving, which could include actions that I believe are against America’s interest. And now I will criticize and condemn any advocacy of wars of choice that will further weaken us and strengthen our enemies.
Are you really saying that it’s wrong of me to challenge support for pointless wars of choice which would weaken us and strengthen terrorists? I understand you might disagree that an invasion would do this, but considering that I honestly believe this to be true, how could I not criticize it?
Reagan. The answer is always Reagan. Nevermind that he raised taxes and increased the size of government, the man could sure speak!
I agree with some of what you say here (it reflects some of my own position, as expressed upthread), but you seem to be implying that lack of conservative unity is the same as hypocrisy.
I’m not sure that’s true.
Yes, there are people in the conservative movement who can be hypocritical (for example, screaming for lower taxes and smaller government, and also calling for a bigger military or corporate subsidies), but i don’t see anything particularly hypocritical (or even necessarily dysfunctional) in the fact that there is no single and coherent conservative or Republican vision of the world.
I think that much the same could be said about liberals and Democrats. Hell, the left/liberal end of the spectrum is, in some ways, historically more prone to fracturing and factional disputes than the right. Hillary Clinton is, on many issues, far too hawkish and conservative for me, and yet if she gets the Democratic nomination next year i will root for her to be elected. I like Obama, but he’s not my ideal candidate either. And Democrats are just as prone to party loyalty and “anything but” strategies as Republicans. I’m not even sure that’s necessarily a bad thing, given the realities of the political world.
Ideology and principles and values and beliefs are messy things, and these fault-lines in our political landscape really shouldn’t be that surprising. For me, it’s perhaps even more surprising that, despite all the different interests, we end up managing to build messy coalitions and get the whole thing down to a couple of parties and a couple of candidates at election time.
True. The left, in any nation, is “supposed” to have certain fundamental humanitarian values held in common, or some idea of a “common” good, but we are as prone to corruption as anyone else. Which is why left and right should co-operate and reach compromise. And I say this as what many of you would call an “extreme” leftist.
Pick your choice, but realise most of your candidates are completely ridiculous.
Voldemort, at least according to bumper sticker I saw today.