Third Presidential Debate, 22 October 2012

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

I agree.

I think both parties are counting on most voters not going and doing their own research on who said what.

Unfortunately I meet people everyday who prove that you'd have a good bet AND be holding the cards to back it up.

That's why commercials and the first page of the hometown paper work for them.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Badger52

Unfortunately I meet people everyday who prove that you'd have a good bet AND be holding the cards to back it up.

That's why commercials and the first page of the hometown paper work for them.

If you were king for a day, how would you address this dynamic within the Republican Party?

Would you be willing to pay the price in the short term to establish a reputation for taking the high road four or eight years down the line?

Or would you set up "laboratories" in Republican strongholds to groom politicians who could reach across the aisle without sacrificing on principle?

Or would you change the dynamic among factions within the party by, for example, benching the [fill in group here]?

Or would you try to broaden the party's diversity?

Or would you support campaign finance reform?

(I'm asking these questions because after last night's debate, I've got that sinking feeling I had back in 1996.)

[JimP]

Wow - Sigaba, you nailed it there. A "conversation" with a Massuchusetts "economics" professor that didn't like Romney. The institution wasn't U-Mass- Amherst, was it ?(they used to have an actual Marxian economics department - not sure if they still do).

That's like being the skinniest kid at fat camp. I think they hunted out the last independent, non-partisan individual in Massachusetts back in the '30's.

But you convinced me. I'm going to vote for Obama.

[blue02hd]

Originally Posted by JimP

Wow - Sigaba, you nailed it there.

My personal gem from that last exchange was " you earn respect on this board one post at a time".

I've always felt that personal experience, passion, and unfiltered honesty were always overrated metrics to dole out respect by.

I agree with one point though, if you can't articulate your OPINION without referring to a link or an ancient indirect second party unverifiable email then it appears as if you have no opinion at all.

It appears, of course, to be my humble opinion.

[JimP]

I think we're pole-vaulting over mouse-turds. The choice is clear: either go for an anti-colonialist, socialist who really doesn't like his country and has a HUGE racial chip on his shoulder; or go for Romney. Romney may not be your dream date but he's what's at the door. Either take him out and stuff a cheeseburger down his throat in an attempt to get this country back on its feet or re-lect Obama and kiss our Constitutional Republic good-by.

[Richard]

I don't think Sigaba was advocating for BHO or against MR, merely posting informed opinion of someone with experience working for an MR administration and also providing background on the originator of the information to be weighed by readers. MI types are generally glad to have that kind of material when processing information.

Personally, I don't think BHO can bring down the republic or that MR is a Holgerdanske saviour, but as Mr Eastwood so aptly put it, BHO's performance has been such that his employer - we citizens - should fire him and give MR a shot at the job. I agree and I'm sure Sigaba does, too.

Richard

[MR2]

Originally Posted by Richard

I don't think Sigaba was advocating for BHO or against MR, merely posting informed opinion of someone with experience working for an MR administration and also providing background on the originator of the information to be weighed by readers. MI types are generally glad to have that kind of material when processing information.

Personally, I don't think BHO can bring down the republic or that MR is a Holgerdanske saviour, but as Mr Eastwood so aptly put it, BHO's performance has been such that his employer - we citizens - should fire him and give MR a shot at the job. I agree and I'm sure Sigaba does, too.

Richard

+1

Holger Danske - good one!

[blue02hd]

You had me at Pole vaulting mouse turds,,,,,,

[Badger52]

especially coconut grenades.

Originally Posted by Sigaba

If you were king for a day, how would you address this dynamic within the Republican Party?

Would you be willing to pay the price in the short term to establish a reputation for taking the high road four or eight years down the line?

Or would you set up "laboratories" in Republican strongholds to groom politicians who could reach across the aisle without sacrificing on principle?

Or would you change the dynamic among factions within the party by, for example, benching the [fill in group here]?

Or would you try to broaden the party's diversity?

Or would you support campaign finance reform?

(I'm asking these questions because after last night's debate, I've got that sinking feeling I had back in 1996.)

Still, I think your questions are worth thinking on and I don't take your previous comments to be hawking for one or the other.

BLUF: I do not know.

The dynamic I spoke of in #34 is not something that I believe any non-caretaker party can address, even in 2 national election cycles. This is a problem of sloth on the part of the consumer, generationally. I personally don't think any combination of lofty measures to alter perception of the party by an electorate will achieve much, near to mid-term.

To really broaden diversity, for example, is going to need a constituency willing to come to you because they have realized that you have something that, long term, is in their best interests. Tough to do when they also are thinking about their near-term satisfaction. The "lofty thinkers" on the left (my perjorative) have alot of rhetoric but are short-term on winning and seem to do a better job of pandering to accomplish that.

Now... The idea of telling a few factions to sit down and STFU and "please, try to be quiet and not help so much" might go a bit toward broadening that diversity, by being less "guilty of exclusivity." I like that one, and have a couple of blasphemic ideas about that. Change the ionization, so to speak, so that the party attracts rather than repels.

Going into Old Yeller mode, I read awhile back in the blogosphere a comment on this whole thing, at this point in our history, characterized as, "You can take the long windy path to the ambush, or you can walk straight down the trail. You have (xx) days to make your decision."

[Surf n Turf]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

Or would you set up "laboratories" in Republican strongholds to groom politicians who could reach across the aisle without sacrificing on principles.

Sigaba,
As the democrats have expunged the “moderate elements” within the party, I believe that it is nearly impossible to “reach across the aisle” without coming away feeling unclean / dirty (think Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Chuck Shumer & Maxine Waters)..
That party’s (House & Senate) only interest is promoting Social Justice and wealth redistribution. I’ve lived in to many socialist countries to wish that abomination on America..
SnT

elections-have-consequences.jpg

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by JimP

Wow - Sigaba, you nailed it there. A "conversation" with a Massuchusetts "economics" professor that didn't like Romney. The institution wasn't U-Mass- Amherst, was it ?(they used to have an actual Marxian economics department - not sure if they still do).

That's like being the skinniest kid at fat camp. I think they hunted out the last independent, non-partisan individual in Massachusetts back in the '30's.

But you convinced me. I'm going to vote for Obama.

Originally Posted by blue02hd

My personal gem from that last exchange was " you earn respect on this board one post at a time".

I've always felt that personal experience, passion, and unfiltered honesty were always overrated metrics to dole out respect by.

I agree with one point though, if you can't articulate your OPINION without referring to a link or an ancient indirect second party unverifiable email then it appears as if you have no opinion at all.

It appears, of course, to be my humble opinion.

JimP and blue02hd--

I've been making it clear for four years what I think of the incumbent and that I will not be voting for him. I didn't realize that I need to rehash my personal and intellectual indictment of the man on a regular basis.

I also have been quite clear that I am increasingly unimpressed with the GOP ticket. If one reads the quotation within the context of the present discussion, it is clear that the point is to provide information that will help some manage their expectations of a Romney administration.

I understand that American politics are charged to the point where, in many quarters ideological concerns trump almost every other concern. But maybe it is because I'm an egghead trained to think a certain way or maybe it is because I'm from L.A. and live in an environment where how we feel about a subject doesn't automatically preclude a dispassionate--if not articulate--discussion of that subject's strengths and weaknesses.

In any case, to be quite clear, my opinion based upon my research of the facts is that the GOP is charting a course towards political irrelevance. The habit of some to tune out POVs they don't like is just one of many reasons why this is happening.

[Razor]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

...I've been making it clear for four years what I think of the incumbent and that I will not be voting for him. I didn't realize that I need to rehash my personal and intellectual indictment of the man on a regular basis.

I also have been quite clear that I am increasingly unimpressed with the GOP ticket. If one reads the quotation within the context of the present discussion, it is clear that the point is to provide information that will help some manage their expectations of a Romney administration...

I don't think many folks here actually believe Romney is the best candidate to ever grace a ballot. The larger point, however, is that when everyone's lunch choice is either a stale balogna sandwich or moldy cat food, no one is really interested in hearing how the sandwich doesn't measure up to a Porterhouse steak.

[Gypsy]

Originally Posted by XngZeRubicon

And was I the only one annoyed by the President's facial expressions? I'm sure he was coached to come across as aggressive, but he looked like he was giving the stink eye all the time.

No you weren't the only one. I can't stand looking at the guy so it is a chore for me to watch the debates. He also looked smarmy to me.


Oh, and he really should read Horse Soldiers.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Razor

I don't think many folks here actually believe Romney is the best candidate to ever grace a ballot. The larger point, however, is that when everyone's lunch choice is either a stale balogna sandwich or moldy cat food, no one is really interested in hearing how the sandwich doesn't measure up to a Porterhouse steak.

Razor--

IMO, this information is not about comparing Romney to the ideal candidate. Instead, the information allows one to focus attention to the interregnum if Romney wins.

Presidents-elect often reward members of their campaign staff with appointments to the transition team and then to the actual administration. I've provided a bird's eye view of Romney's past habit of surrounding himself with advisors who prioritize politics over sound policy and ideological consistency. In this campaign cycle, Romney's campaign has been inconsistent. In last night's debate, Romney was poorly prepared for his opponent's line of approach. In brief, the people around Romney are enabling him to turn the prospect for victory into a growing probability of defeat.

So this is not about comparing a sucky sammich to the Porterhouse steak. This is about making sure the Imodium is close at hand.

My $0.02.

[Peregrino]

Sigaba - When there are only two choices, bad and unconscionable, denigrating the bad choice is equivalent to advancing the unconscionable cause. I'm not ecstatic about Romney but the alternative is unspeakable. Time to demonstrate a little pragmatism. Though, given that many of us here have spent our entire adult lives standing shoulder to shoulder with our uniformed brethren holding back the darkness so others could quibble about trivialities; perhaps we have a more jaded perspective. Maybe sniping the only viable hope available for staving off the darkness a little longer just because he isn't perfect is the "principled" position - even if it might detract from his chances to defeat the incumbent. Personally, I think it's well past time to get behind the only alternative we have. YMMV