Why not? If they are going to do it, i’d be a damn fool not to.
Because you are painting yourself into a corner, obviously. If you are against ethanol subsidies, and the GOP is against ethanol subsidies, and you win the election by talking up how great ethanol subsidies are, what does anyone gain? Are you then going to turn around and eliminate ethanol subsidies? How do you think the voters will look on that kind of thing? How often do you think you will be able to get away with it?
I really do make an effort to convince myself that the other side is not as hypocritical as it sometimes appears. But I could use a little help here.
Regards,
Shodan
Because I am not running on how great subsidies are. I am running ads pointing out how great the Republicans think they are, in spite of a lot of talk about spending cuts. I am trying to weaken their base, while maintaining plausible deniability.
What? You are amazed liberals could be so devious and self serving, yet you find that quality endearing in Republicans? You will find I am immune to charges of hypocrisy from conservatives.
That’s not what your usage of the term “wedge” implied earlier.
It is this attitude that gives us the politicians we deserve.
Better than the politicians we don’t deserve.
This still doesn’t make any sense. If you sacrifice your principles to win an election, those who voted for you will be pissed off if you flip-flop after the election and do what you excoriated the GOP for doing. Or you don’t flip-flop, and then what is the point of winning the election?
No, actually I don’t. I am actually a lot more accustomed to seeing charges of hypocrisy and double-dealing against Republicans, and it is mildly unsettling to see someone admit so openly that they have no problem with their side acting in bad faith.
And frankly, that “he hit me back first” stuff is not a very good justification.
Okay, how about from moderates? Like I said, do you think people who voted for you partly on the basis that you were in favor of ethanol subsidies are not going to notice when you get elected and then immediately do what you condemned in the opposing party?
Regards,
Shodan
In your scenario, there isn’t any difference.
Four legs good, two legs better.
Regards,
Shodan
Why not? A wedge divides my adversary. I don’t have to run on that issue for it to be effective. I just have to point out they are against spending cuts that the Tea Party embraces, preferable using a vague third party PAC.
Have you learned nothing from the last election?
I don’t have to sacrifice my principles; I just have to point out my adversary sacrificed his.
Is there really a “Tea Party”. with actual positions on issues, rather than an inchoate rage at everything Obamist? Was anyone else surprised to hear that the Tea Party had a firm position on net neutrality, and that position was firmly supportive of Verizon and ComCast? Must be true, Dick Armey told me so, and he leads the Tea Party Express, which is totally a grass-roots organization, helped along with generous donations from such civic minded men as the Koch Brothers, the Brothers Grimmer.
I wouldn’t have thought the Tea Party had any position on net neutrality, and if they did, not one that favors the cable company, who everyhody hates! But there you go.
I think what Feat Itself is endorsing is basically hoping that one or more GOP candidates will go on the record with respect to ethanol subsidies. This person is then either at odds with the Tea Party heroes DeMint and Coburn, or is anathema to Iowa farmers. The Democrats don’t have to do anything about this - it’s strictly an inter-party thing.
This could potentially play out over and over in the next year: debt ceiling, Social Security cuts, defense cuts. It’s very easy to say you want to cut spending, and very hard to actually cut it without pissing a lot of people off.
In then end I’m reasonably confident there will be no meaningful cuts. My evidence: the GWB era.
You act like Karl Rove signed his name to all the push polls he launched.
Please. Don’t embarrass yourself by trying to appeal to my sense of shame for using the same tactics Republicans have used for years. I am not one of those self-doubting liberals who can be cowed by Jedi mind tricks, like “You liberals aren’t very tolerant of intolerance”.
Won’t work.
Thank you. Though I think we could stir the pot a little with ads that are not affiliated with any party or candidate.
Pithy, but your tactics mean we get politicians who care about getting elected, not ones who care about their principles or doing the right thing. People with your attitude are the ones who elect liars and scoundrels.
The Tea Party is against ethanol subsidies. You are against ethanol subsidies. You are attacking them for being against ethanol subsidies, in order to win elections.
Which side has sacrificed its principles?
Maybe you are willing to vote for politicians who will whore themselves out like that, but Gore tried it and lost the Presidency.
Regards,
Shodan
To a candidate who whored himself out to those who thought he would ban abortions. Yeah, we dodged a bullet that time. :rolleyes:
I’m having trouble seeing why everyone’s worked up over this. Even if this is exactly what Fear Itself is saying, so what? In a two-party, winner-take-all system like the one we’re blessed with, “sacrificing your principles” on a small issue you don’t care much about to help you win and take action on the big issues you do care about seems pretty par-for-the-course.
Are you really shocked, shocked that one would find this a good tactic?
I’m a little surprised when they are so open about it.
“Hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue.” I try, usually, to assume that even Democrats are campaigning in good faith. Here we have an indication that I can’t trust anything they say, even if I agree with it.
So you believe Bush really didn’t oppose abortion, he was just saying that? That doesn’t make a lot of sense.
I would have thought that his position on stem cells and so forth indicated he meant it. If you have some cites of him saying that it was all just a cynical ploy to win, I would like to see them. But I don’t think the mere fact that he was unable to ban abortion by executive order shows this, if that is where you are headed.
Regards,
Shodan
No you don’t. Not based on anything you have ever posted here, though in real life you might be completely different.