thamike: Bontesla: Nope. Read the entire thing.

Then what's with the "this?"

I'm not sure we're communicating well. Would you mind please making your point using context? I'm not trying to be snarky - I just am asking for clarity. I've reread the exchange and I stand by my statement in context with what I originally quoted.

mrshowrules: RyogaM: I don't want to hear about any polls unless something massive occurs (dead girl/live boy) or we are two-weeks from the election, no matter what they say about the likelihood my candidate will win. 6-2 months from the election, no poll results matter because too much is still in flux. Give them a rest.

I don't think there is too much fluxing right now. Weak recovery. Everybody pretty much knows what Obama and Romney are.

I'm interested in seeing the electoral projections a couple of intervals between now and then just to see how desperate Romney will get and what type of wild gambits he will try. It might also be indicative of other political races and Obama's mandate going into his second term.

I think focus will turn nationally to Congressional prospects, with only the debate highlights overshadowing that narrative.

I know the media wants a close horse race, but that is seeming less and less likely.

I know a lot of people fired up to vote for Obama this fall. They are pissed at what is happening in Florida, Wisconsin, Arizona, Texas, Virginia, etc. How they think he can fix those states, I'm not sure, but it isn't going to help any down ticket Republicans.

I mean, it's mostly Oregon people that I speak of, so he's damn near guaranteed to carry the state anyways, but I've never seen people this pissed off at Republicans.

//That we've locally had some underhanded conservative shenanigans isn't helping the GOP win hearts and minds.

Rann Xerox: T-Servo: My parents are still convinced Newt will snag the nomination at the convention, and save the world.

Tell your parents the only thing Newt is going to snag at the convention is a blowjob from future ex-wife #4.

ftfy

FeedTheCollapse: Bontesla: We have a collective knowledge of non-stop gaffes but the media drops each gaffe within a short amount of time. Compare Newt's moonbase comment to Rmoney's corporations are people comment.

but I would also argue that the reason the Moonbase comment stuck with Newt is not the candidate Romney was. What has Newt done since? Romney's gaffes dropping in favor of another gaffe has nothing to do with Romney's team fighting to keep those gaffes out of discussion, it's just that it gets replaced with yet another gaffe, then yet another, etc. If Romney's gaffes aren't sticking, why do we still discuss etch-a-sketches? They're relatively minor gaffes, but they're all part of a much larger portrait of someone out of touch, which is one Romney will have a hard time shaking.

1. but I would also argue that the reason the Moonbase comment stuck with Newt is not the candidate Romney was. What has Newt done since?

The moonbase comment stuck because either his fixers weren't fixing or because Newt insisted on this strategy. His comment stood.

2. Romney's gaffes dropping in favor of another gaffe has nothing to do with Romney's team fighting to keep those gaffes out of discussion, it's just that it gets replaced with yet another gaffe, then yet another, etc.

I didn't argue that the Romney Cycle of Gaffes is evidence of a properly run campaign although I may have been confusing in the way I conveyed this information. I argued that the Romney team is often the force in getting Romney gaffes out of the media. I then clarified my comment explaining that Romney is making their job difficult.

3. If Romney's gaffes aren't sticking, why do we still discuss etch-a-sketches? They're relatively minor gaffes, but they're all part of a much larger portrait of someone out of touch, which is one Romney will have a hard time shaking.

We discuss the etch-a-sketch because we are not the collective media. We are farkers. The "collective" media isn't discussing the etch-a-sketch comment with consistent frequency. My entire comment was centered around the way Romney's campaign is doing an effective job at minimizing his gaffes in the media. I'm not asserting that the viewers of the media are buying it.

DERP!

It's been that way for a long time you say..... The republicans have still won more presidential elections than democrats you say.... Torn to shreds you say.

WombatControl:

I realise you said "roughly self-identify" and stressed that no label is perfect, but Burke has little to offer modern American political discourse. There is no equivalent to Jacobinism in American politics today, and consequently all the rhetoric of "slow" vs "sudden" progress is meaningless. The American left are not revolutionaries nor system topplers, and American liberalism by and large is proceeding upon a path of organic progress. You could hardly want for a more cautious reformer than the current President. Burke's views on political progress simply do not survive extraction from their historical context, in which the French Revolution was the realisation of everything that he feared.

Burke was one of the clearest, most sensitive political commentators of the day, with a rare kind of patience and pragmatism. He also believed that the essential roots of civilised society were embedded in monarchical status quo, and that change proceeded upon a certain indisputable foundation. To invoke the ideals of Edmund Burke in this debate is essentially opting out of contemporary politics and living in a bygone era of political theory

Lando Lincoln: WombatControl: It's a very different political environment - if unemployment were as high in 2004 as it is today, it's very possible that Bush would have lost.

The party that said, "people have been on unemployment long enough! Let's stop sending them checks unless we get to continue our tax breaks for rich people!" should go over well with unemployed voters this year.

Or we could do the much more logical thing and get the economy moving so that people don't need unemployment in the first place.

Isn't it interesting how the Democratic solution typically involves giving someone a government check instead of fixing the underlying problem...

WombatControl: Isn't it interesting how the Democratic solution typically involves giving someone a government check instead of fixing the underlying problem...

Isn't it interesting how the Republican solution typically involves giving a tax break to upper-income brackets instead of fixing the underlying problem...

WombatControl

Isn't it interesting how the Democratic solution typically involves giving someone a government check instead of fixing the underlying problem...

don't get sick

ManateeGag: the fact that he can't put Texas as Definately Romney means Karl is an idiot and/or Romney is 100% screwed. if TX goes for Obama, it's game over.

Texas ain't there yet, give them a another election or two and I guarantee Texas becomes a swing state. Urban voters, plenty of out of staters moving in, and a large and powerful black and Latino voting blocks.

vernonFL: FIrst of all, the election isn't until November.

Second, THE ELECTION ISN'T UNTIL NOVEMBER.

Then feel free to ignore all polls and related stories until then.

If I see you in another one of these threads, I'll remind you to leave.

Lionel Mandrake: BillCo: Well, I guess it's official then. Some hack at a lefty rag thinks Romney doesn't stand a chance. We might as well just not have the election and leave Obama in office for another 4 years.

You sound butthurt.

jehovahs witness protection: BillCo: Well, I guess it's official then. Some hack at a lefty rag thinks Romney doesn't stand a chance. We might as well just not have the election and leave Obama in office for another 4 years.

Silly man. Obama is doing away with term limits and will be king of the world for life. He's really that good.

You too.

Maybe in 2016 you guys will nominate someone electable. Nah, probably some teabagger with no chance in hell.

Won't it be Santorums' turn then?

HeartBurnKid: Weaver95: also, speaking as an American...can you PLEASE teach people from Quebec that turn signals aren't just for decoration?

And when you get done with that, how about coming out to California and doing the same?

International Turn Signal Tour? I know Flordia needs it too.

Manny Calavera: WombatControl:

I realise you said "roughly self-identify" and stressed that no label is perfect, but Burke has little to offer modern American political discourse. There is no equivalent to Jacobinism in American politics today, and consequently all the rhetoric of "slow" vs "sudden" progress is meaningless. The American left are not revolutionaries nor system topplers, and American liberalism by and large is proceeding upon a path of organic progress. You could hardly want for a more cautious reformer than the current President. Burke's views on political progress simply do not survive extraction from their historical context, in which the French Revolution was the realisation of everything that he feared.

Burke was one of the clearest, most sensitive political commentators of the day, with a rare kind of patience and pragmatism. He also believed that the essential roots of civilised society were embedded in monarchical status quo, and that change proceeded upon a certain indisputable foundation. To invoke the ideals of Edmund Burke in this debate is essentially opting out of contemporary politics and living in a bygone era of political theory

If you want to understand how Burke fits in with modern conservatism, you'll want to read The Conservative Mind by Russell Kirk, then The Conservative Intellectual Movement Since 1945 by George Nash.

But the short version is that Burke is one of the foundational authors in modern American conservatism, and there's a direct line from Burke through Russell Kirk to William F. Buckley and the entire modern American conservative movement.

So yes, Burke is very relevant to politics today.

rufus-t-firefly: vernonFL: FIrst of all, the election isn't until November.

Second, THE ELECTION ISN'T UNTIL NOVEMBER.

Then feel free to ignore all polls and related stories until then.

If I see you in another one of these threads, I'll remind you to leave.

I'm very glad I decided to read all your posts in Groucho's voice. That one was quite funny; all it was missing was the eyebrow waggle.

Rann Xerox: T-Servo: My parents are still convinced Newt will snag the nomination at the convention, and save the world.

Tell your parents the only thing Newt is going to snag at the convention is a blowjob from future wife #4.

Is it bad that makes me jealous? Because damn that sounds good right now.

/The beej. Not so much wife #4.

sweetmelissa31: Somacandra: 2.bp.blogspot.com

Isn't that your Prime Minister posing in a sweater vest and petting a kitten while rape-raping public pension plans ?

I don't even care, holding a cat makes me want to vote for said cat holder. Cases in point:

[www.cbc.ca image 207x207]

[multimedia.heraldinteractive.com image 315x275]

[whyevolutionistrue.files.wordpress.com image 290x512]

Unless a dead hooker rolls out of Obama's trunk, this is a slam dunk. The only demos Romney has for sure are Mormons, 1%-ers and straight-up racists. He's too Mormon for the religious right, too weird for rednecks, too liberal for teabaggers and too "purty" for hillbillies. He makes Bob Dole seem charismatic and John McCain seem sincere, and can't say 3 words off the script without putting his foot in his mouth. He ran in the primaries against a bunch of has beens and never weres, spent millions of dollars of his own money, and still had trouble finding someone to vote for him.

The only question is if he'll keep to the script and lose by 10% or shoot from the hip and make it an Obama landslide.

WombatControl: If you want to understand how Burke fits in with modern conservatism, you'll want to read The Conservative Mind by Russell Kirk, then The Conservative Intellectual Movement Since 1945 by George Nash.

But the short version is that Burke is one of the foundational authors in modern American conservatism, and there's a direct line from Burke through Russell Kirk to William F. Buckley and the entire modern American conservative movement.

So yes, Burke is very relevant to politics today.



If you think Burke, Kirk or Buckley are in any way influencing the current conservative movement, you must have just emerged from a 30 year coma.

Bag of Hammers: WombatControl: If you want to understand how Burke fits in with modern conservatism, you'll want to read The Conservative Mind by Russell Kirk, then The Conservative Intellectual Movement Since 1945 by George Nash.

But the short version is that Burke is one of the foundational authors in modern American conservatism, and there's a direct line from Burke through Russell Kirk to William F. Buckley and the entire modern American conservative movement.

So yes, Burke is very relevant to politics today.


If you think Burke, Kirk or Buckley are in any way influencing the current conservative movement, you must have just emerged from a 30 year coma.


Didn't Burke believe in an hereditary nobility, an elite class ruling the poor majority? ...So, yeah, that does bear resemblance to today's Republicans.

/I'll side with Paine, thanks.
//Fark Burke

The GOP has a white-knuckle deathgrip on their platform of "Anyone but Obama".

That platform doesn't resonate with undecided voters.

Especially when the "Anyone" is Rmoney.

Bontesla: vernonFL: FIrst of all, the election isn't until November.

Second, THE ELECTION ISN'T UNTIL NOVEMBER.

Short of Obama being associated with a dead girl/ live boy scandal, November is prolonging the inevitable.

Provided the live boy was over 18 (and preferably hot), I'd be hella pissed at the hypocrisy but at the same time likely to not just vote for him again, but once again volunteer.

WombatControl:If you want to understand how Burke fits in with modern conservatism, you'll want to read The Conservative Mind by Russell Kirk, then The Conservative Intellectual Movement Since 1945 by George Nash.

But the short version is that Burke is one of the foundational authors in modern American conservatism, and there's a direct line from Burke through Russell Kirk to William F. Buckley and the entire modern American conservative movement.

So yes, Burke is very relevant to politics today.

There's a direct line, yes. I never said that Burke wasn't influential on the conservative movement, rather that a so-called "Burkean" approach to the issues has no real significance today, when there is no equivalent to Jacobinism, no American radical utopianism. Since the end of the Cold War, there isn't a credible case to be made for the threat of communism; it's telling that right-wing pundits would love to link President Obama to socialism, but the attempt is vacuous. The American left is frankly centrist, and the Democratic party has just presided over four years of glacial reform that has in fact alienated its base for not being rapid enough.

I'll admit I'm not a specialist in Burke. My thesis supervisor was an expert on Napoleonic history, I wrote a few papers on Robespierre, I took a few classes on the French and American revolutions, but never focused on Burke. What I do know about Burke is that his ideas were created in a Revolutionary context that can no longer be plausibly conjured up in modern America. I should note that I'm Australian, where politics are markedly to the left, and I'm living in Europe, where politics are drastically to the left. From my outsider perspective, the American political climate just doesn't lend itself to Burkean theory. The entire political landscape, and the apparatus of reform, is simply too different to anything that Burke, or his predecessors, had in mind. In global terms, American leftist reform is destined to be piecemeal.

To expand a little further, the term "conservative" in modern America has so altered that trying to retain the term but prefixing it with labels like "Burkean" is just swimming against the tide. The modern American conservative movement recognises social change has taken place and identifies that change as intrinsically dangerous and immoral. American conservatism demands social change - nothing less than the banishing of decadence from American society, the reestablishment of an older and purer way of life. This is close to Jacobin idealism than Burkean conservatism. In contrast, the Democratic Party is achieving reform piece by painstaking piece. The modes of political reform have changed hands, so what, in practical terms, is the benefit of going back to Burke?

Spaced Lion: wippit: As a Canadian, I am increasingly worried that roughly 1/2 the population of the Superpower along our border is insane...

*coughcoughcoughHarpercough*

/In other news, I've already begun stockpiling popcorn.



Popcorn does go stale. Allow me to suggest waiting a good bit longer to stock up.

/it doesn't pop as nicely after being in the cupboard a few months

Manny Calavera:

The short version is that Burke's philosophies are a great deal deeper than that. Reflections on the Revolution in France goes much deeper than just a critique of the French Revolution - there's a great deal of moral and political philosophy as well.

And yes, Burke is very relevant to modern American conservatism - even Rick Santorum quoted him in a speech not too long ago. If you read enough National Review, you'll see his name come up frequently - same for The Weekly Standard.

The argument that modern American conservatism "demands social change" and wants to "banish decadence from American society" doesn't match what American conservatism stands for these days. If anything, American conservatism hearkens back to original principals, but is in many ways more forward-looking than American liberalism - American liberals want to take the country back to the 1950s on everything but social issues (where they're stuck in 1968). They want high taxes on the rich, high unionization, a manufacturing-oriented economy - what Walter Russell Mead calls the "blue state model". American conservatism stands for a model much more amenable to the 21st Century - a model based on decentralization of power, more preferences to the individual, and an emphasis on international trade (although both parties have economic protectionists in their ranks).

In discussing Obama, I think that you're mistaking what Obama would like to do with what Obama can do. I have little doubt that Obama wants a European-style single-payer system. What he could do was create ObamaCare - a system that was set up to fail and move the country towards a European-model system. Having read both of his autobiographies, I've little doubt that Obama is a radical - but you are correct that the American system of politics is geared against radical change. Obama is a socialist, but he's a Fabian socialist. Yes, Fabian socialism is incremental, as is Burkean conservative, but beyond that superficial similarity they would move society in entirely different directions.

I've found that Europeans and Australians have a tough time understanding American politics (and the other way around is true too). Our left-wing is generally not as far left as the European left (which is frequently Communist), but that doesn't mean that there isn't a wide gulf between the two wings of American politics. The fact that we don't have a parliamentary system but political duopoly also is confusing to a lot of Europeans - the sort of political horsetrading between the ideological edges and the mainstream happens within our political parties rather than between them. This minimizes the power of ideological groups in American politics.

WombatControl: Lando Lincoln: WombatControl: It's a very different political environment - if unemployment were as high in 2004 as it is today, it's very possible that Bush would have lost.

The party that said, "people have been on unemployment long enough! Let's stop sending them checks unless we get to continue our tax breaks for rich people!" should go over well with unemployed voters this year.

Or we could do the much more logical thing and get the economy moving so that people don't need unemployment in the first place.

Isn't it interesting how the Democratic solution typically involves giving someone a government check instead of fixing the underlying problem...

Hey, we get it - you are scared of the future, and don't want to lead, or follow - but would you be so kind as to get the f**k out of the way?

WombatControl: In discussing Obama, I think that you're mistaking what Obama would like to do with what Obama can do. I have little doubt that Obama wants a European-style single-payer system. What he could do was create ObamaCare - a system that was set up to fail and move the country towards a European-model system. Having read both of his autobiographies, I've little doubt that Obama is a radical - but you are correct that the American system of politics is geared against radical change. Obama is a socialist, but he's a Fabian socialist. Yes, Fabian socialism is incremental, as is Burkean conservative, but beyond that superficial similarity they would move society in entirely different directions.

Honestly Obama is a radical socialist because he enacted health care reform based on a GOP idea from the 90's.

You are a farking nut.

Geotpf: FeedTheCollapse: it's not entirely analogous, but I think 2004's Democrats mirrors 2012's Republicans in that they're running solely on anti-incumbency and not on an actual platform.The actual issues may be different, but the strategy seems to be the same.

Yup, it's 2004 all over again, merely with the parties switched. Oh, and Obama's more popular (and did better in his first election) than Bush was. Both Kerry and R-Money are "safe" "moderate" candidates who suck at the actual getting elected part. Both can easily be stereotyped as "out of touch rich guys" who simply can't connect with the "common man".

Kerry won his debates. Romney will not.

BillCo: Well, I guess it's official then. Some hack at a lefty rag thinks Romney doesn't stand a chance. We might as well just not have the election and leave Obama in office for another 4 years.

Lefty rag? This is the Washington Post, which was so far up W Bush's butt they could have looked out his mouth.

SlothB77: any chance he can carry his home state of massachusetts?

Ha, I doubt that. So maybe he can be compared to Al Gore, stiff bastard.

Alphax: Kerry won his debates.

I disagree. Kerry was stiff and stilted. Bush attacked and Kerry did that awkward "huh huh" chuckle thing.

Bush: "I own a tree lot? Wanna buy some wuuuuud?"
Kerry: Huh huh huh.

The "wanna buy some wood?" mockery completely PROVED Kerry's point about wealthy men taking high tax deductions for so-called "small businesses" by keeping a wood lot or a handful of cows, which were generously included in all of Bush's "small business" numbers and tax cuts.

I was literally throwing things at my TV for all of those debates. Right there I knew Kerry was going to lose that election.

Bill_Wick's_Friend: Alphax: Kerry won his debates.

I disagree. Kerry was stiff and stilted. Bush attacked and Kerry did that awkward "huh huh" chuckle thing.

Bush: "I own a tree lot? Wanna buy some wuuuuud?"
Kerry: Huh huh huh.

The "wanna buy some wood?" mockery completely PROVED Kerry's point about wealthy men taking high tax deductions for so-called "small businesses" by keeping a wood lot or a handful of cows, which were generously included in all of Bush's "small business" numbers and tax cuts.

I was literally throwing things at my TV for all of those debates. Right there I knew Kerry was going to lose that election.

Kerry was relaxed, smiling, and gave intelligent answers. Bush gave nonsensical answers on the first one, as if stoned, and on the later ones acted like he was offended by Kerry's very presence.

Any time I hear the phrase "Fabian Socialism", I immediately think of John Birch and his hysterical little band of monster shouters.

----

WC: Not to get too far off-topic, but I was about to abandon using the term "Fark Liberal™," but I've determined that it works at a deeper level than I'd intended it suddenly pulled an excuse out of my butt
to keep using it, cunningly hidden behind an ever expanding smokescreen of roughly pseudo-Burkean Traditionalist elitism.

wippit: As a Canadian, I am increasingly worried that roughly 1/2 the population of the Superpower along our border is insane...

Naaa, even us libs are around 1/4 insane. That would make for those who took basic fractions a grand total of 5/8 crazy total ((1/2•1/4)+(1/2•1)).

Alphax: Bill_Wick's_Friend: Alphax: Kerry won his debates.

I disagree. Kerry was stiff and stilted. Bush attacked and Kerry did that awkward "huh huh" chuckle thing.

Bush: "I own a tree lot? Wanna buy some wuuuuud?"
Kerry: Huh huh huh.

The "wanna buy some wood?" mockery completely PROVED Kerry's point about wealthy men taking high tax deductions for so-called "small businesses" by keeping a wood lot or a handful of cows, which were generously included in all of Bush's "small business" numbers and tax cuts.

I was literally throwing things at my TV for all of those debates. Right there I knew Kerry was going to lose that election.

Kerry was relaxed, smiling, and gave intelligent answers. Bush gave nonsensical answers on the first one, as if stoned, and on the later ones acted like he was offended by Kerry's very presence.

But, it's hard work. Link