The Duhbate: Segment That's Number #2 - BFG edition

[Ed Oscuro]

A few custom responses for Ganelon the Invincible!

Romney's other major claim was to cut Obamacare but then he's gone out and said he still wants people with preexisting conditions to be taken care of. How much of Obamacare is left after that?

You can say you "want" something all day long, but without a plan, you'd better make the bet that he'll just gut the program. Consider that he also wants to "repeal" (i.e., hope that Congress will be gullible enough to repeal) the Dodd-Frank financial regulation. He then says he will keep the unspecific 'appropriate' parts of that regulation (which would require

How does that not seem fucking bizarre and also quite reckless? Not just from the standpoint of his wanting us to accept that his "wants" will translate into reasonable policies, but from the standpoint that his "I like it, but I also don't like it" approach deliberately (most likely) leaves fuzzy exactly whether he intends to on balance repeal or on balance preserve something. Don't be foolish - his own party wants to hear "on balance I don't like it," and swing voters who are gullible will hear "on balance I like it." In reality, we have every reason to believe that he would push harder for overturning legislation, than reinstating it, partly due to the ethos of his party on public insurance and regulation, and partly due to the fact that it's simply easier to use the butcher knife than to use the scalpel.

This is especially true if targeted legislation couldn't be used to surgically repeal parts of a plan - actually, I'm not sure that he couldn't use this approach with Dodd-Frank; of course, the defunding portions threat has been levied at the healthcare plan, but here again it acts like a butcher knife - there's absolutely no reason to believe that you can cover preexisting conditions without causing insurance companies to incur significantly higher costs; making the healthcare plan universal was intended to ensure that a wide pool of insured persons would take funding pressure off the insurance companies and off the very sick, which is the only reasonable way to make it work (keeping other things equal).

Is that supposed to be a bad thing? Especially the second part. Even a comical supervillain like Romney isn't one-dimensional.

It is a bad thing when trying to make a point.

You don't get to pull a fast one here. Look, Romney already has done a good job making the negative case against himself. Secondly, if Obama was stretching the truth so that he wasn't admitting that Romney has been a fine person (which is only sometimes true - Romney's sense of charity is, I have to venture, based far too much on his personal biases; he has given a struggling family money, but he also marched into a young expectant single mother's home, when he was in the LDS hierarchy, and tried to pressure her into giving up her baby - every time he starts chatting up "families" I just remember that he hasn't given any indication that they are now members of his group of what might be called the "good, moral people who deserve the benefit of the doubt;" I don't think it's a stretch to say he's already prejudged them. And, as the Vice-President pointed out, Romney says what he means - in the same way he pretty explicitly wrote off 47% of the American people, and that's based on conflation of two DIFFERENT populations!

You mention later on, for example, that Romney is a "caring" person. Well, guess what Chief - Obama mentioned this. If he hadn't mentioned it, don't you even pretend that you wouldn't be here bitching and crying foul.

You don't seem to know what Romney actually did at Bain or what the business was. Bain was in business for itself, and Romney directed the company in arranging takeovers of failing or vulnerable companies (often resorting to the dirty tactic of lowering their bid substantially, after outbidding everybody else and locking in their place).

You don't seem to know Romney's work history. There's a big difference between Bain & Company and Bain Capital, the private equity offshoot. And before Bain & Company, Romney was at BCG like all the other original Bain employees. That was a whole decade of management consulting before Romney started the "Bain" that everyone seems to talk about nowadays.

Sure I do. Pre-1977, worked at Boston Consulting Group (along with, for a period, Benjamin Netanyahu, who may or may not be trying to rile up American Jews against the President to help out his old buddy and conservative fellow traveler). In 1977, started with Bain & Company. Left Bain & Company to co-found Bain Capital (after being invited by Bill Bain and given an unusual indemnity against sharing any risk in starting the company) in 1984. I'm sure Romney did good work pre-1984, and he did good work after, too; however, the majority of his work experience was with the company he headed up and had the most influence over - in his tenure at Bain Capital. So BCG and Bain & Co. may reflect some things about Romney, but as the head of Bain Capital you can see the most obvious results of his management style as the whole company's focus could reflect what he wanted. "The buck stops here," after all.

Here's some facts: Bain Capital was in business for itself. Under Romney, Bain resorted to dirty tricks to enter the final negotiations stage in takeovers of multiple companies, so often that some brokers (I think that's the term, think of a matching service for leveraged buyout turnaround firms like Bain, and the companies seeking to be bought) eventually decided not to invite Bain Capital to the talks because of their proven track record of underhanded tactics. Under Romney, the company switched focus from its initial venture capitalist (which, again, isn't quite close to a "consulting" business; venture capitalists are, again, in business for themselves, although they will provide expertise to those they invest in) towards leveraged buyouts. Finally, under Romney, it's not completely clear when Romney stopped working for the group, when around 1999 he stepped down from daily managerial duties (although on paper was still named in a management capacity for some years) to work on the foundering Salt Lake City games (which were a success). There is some confusion here about what it means to be a "consultant."

Clearly, consulting-type duties were a major part of Romney's work, but not for the same goal that you normally think of a financial consultant working - which is to make their clients better off, for a fee. Bain Capital's goal, throughout its venture capital and leveraged buyouts phases, was to manipulate (not meant in a negative sense) others in a direction that would make Bain Capital money. As has been said countless times elsewhere, this did not mean making money for the old management of a firm, much less its workers. If Bain Capital decided that current management at a company was good, sure they would likely have provided assistance to them, including consulting services. But the consulting was always subordinated to the goal of making Bain Capital money; if Bain Capital decided that current management or anybody at the old company was no good, they obviously gave them the boot right away.

I'm not a person who doesn't know Romney's work history. I'm also not bending any of the facts to make a point about it, and I'd be happy to point you towards sources if you need 'em.

[Ganelon]

In reality, we have every reason to believe that he would push harder for overturning legislation, than reinstating it, partly due to the ethos of his party on public insurance and regulation, and partly due to the fact that it's simply easier to use the butcher knife than to use the scalpel.

I don't see the "every reason" to just assume that he'll follow the party line. You said you're a fan of looking at the record. Does Romney's record as governor or any other position indicate he'll push to the far right? Otherwise, join the club on not having a clue what Romney will do if he gets elected.

If he hadn't mentioned it, don't you even pretend that you wouldn't be here bitching and crying foul.

I think I would say the same to you: focus on your main points and then elaborate on them. As is, I'm not really sure what your points are, even if they're perfectly clear to you.

-Romney has created his own problems? Sure, no disagreement there.
-Obama is stretching the truth? I don't follow. Romney's ads have specifically mentioned Obama being a good person and I didn't mention anything about Obama stretching the truth.
-Does Romney pre-judge? I think most business leaders tend to make quick decisions from intuition, for better or for worse.
-Would I cry if Obama didn't mention Romney was a good guy? I don't see what Obama would gain by speaking positively about Romney in the first place unless he has to. Obama's the one with high personal likability here, where the effective argument is to acknowledge that strength and then diminish it by explaining why it isn't relevant. That's why it's a smart strategy for Romney to risk bringing up a positive point for his opponent in order to present a more earnest criticism of Obama's alleged ineptitude. Romney isn't well-liked as a person so Obama has nothing to gain by referring to him as such.

I'm not sure what any of these points have to do with my original objection against Obama not making an organized attack against Romney in the first debate so if you didn't misunderstand my point and want me to understand you, then you'll have to link them together.

I'm sure Romney did good work pre-1984, and he did good work after, too; however, the majority of his work experience was with the company he headed up and had the most influence over - in his tenure at Bain Capital.

Agreed for the most part about Bain Capital being a less-than-positive business influence under Romney's leadership, but that wasn't the initial point I made and to which you objected to. I specifically mentioned Romney's early management consulting days—as opposed to his later private equity days—and I wasn't referring to that time as good or bad, just that he's had a lot of time to practice telling folks what they want to hear. I'm very confused as to whether that long explanation about Bain Capital was a rebuttal to my point or whether it's a new point you're making, in which case I don't understand it.


Edit: I could be wrong but it sounds as if you mistakenly believe that I have a pro-Romney or anti-Obama agenda and that my posts are filled with hidden implications to that effect. My points in this topic were for the sake of having effective and entertaining debates and trying to understand the candidates' approaches, not promoting a political agenda for either side. There are no ulterior digs to analyze. Now, if a moderate libertarian were a major factor in the race instead, then it'd be a different story...

Note that "effective" debating does not necessarily imply making points that are honest or that have a lot of substance.

[Ed Oscuro]

In reality, we have every reason to believe that he would push harder for overturning legislation, than reinstating it, partly due to the ethos of his party on public insurance and regulation, and partly due to the fact that it's simply easier to use the butcher knife than to use the scalpel.

I don't see the "every reason" to just assume that he'll follow the party line. You said you're a fan of looking at the record. Does Romney's record as governor or any other position indicate he'll push to the far right? Otherwise, join the club on not having a clue what Romney will do if he gets elected.

You're asking me questions assuming I said (or at least asserted) some things I don't believe I meant to, but I'll try to work on those along with what I did say which is fair game for your response.

So, here's something I think is a reasonable assumption: On most issues Romney will fall somewhere between Obama, at the center-right, and Tea Party / Randian fantasy.

My overall point in responding to DragonInstall's "too much propaganda" reply should be this: When you have a choice between one guy and another, you can ask questions about what each probable policy change would do, and whether the candidate will adopt it - ideally, that is; in this election, as you justly note, the Romney campaign has taken noncommittal to extremes I don't think have been seen before in a Presidential race. But even when you don't know what the candidate is going to do for sure, you can still assume he's not often, if ever, going to the left of Obama's policies. You can also assume that, no matter what popular misconceptions both candidates use about the Presidential Mandate, he will have to deal with Congress to get legislation passed. If he won, that could most likely go with picking up some seats in the House or even the Senate; it also might go with a Democratic majority. If the Democrats keep Republicans from attaining supermajorities in both houses, as seems likely, he's not likely going to deliver on his legislative promises. If the Republicans win, we can forget a concilatory, Obama-like Romney on issues his own legislators care about, because they're going to pass things whether he likes it or not, and he will sign it unless he wants to risk using political capital to differ from his own legislative base.

That's about all I really need to address that point, but here's some details in case somebody cares, which I hope is true: When I was originally posting about using the record, I was talking about (I think, it's my response to the "too much propaganda" post, which could have been much better written) looking at a variety of things - what the ex-Governor says he wants to do, and what people have said about that. Romney wants to get a target on taxes, and other people say that can't be. This doesn't mean you can't reasonably extrapolate, and I bet that if elected he would forget some of his promises to the far right, as he's already done so during the debate (his VP pick did the same on abortion, "clarifying" exceptions where earlier he apparently had promised to not allow any). He would end up being, like I've said, a Republican Obama in term of most of his policies, meaning essentially the same policies wrapped up in a few extra bits of rhetoric. Examples abound, but the one I can think of right away is in the area of foreign policy. Obama's been out there with the drone strike list. He can't be everywhere, though, seeing all facts: A Romney Administration would be prone to the same little embarrassments and slips in attentiveness that the Obama Administration has seen in many areas, from the gunwalking scandal at Justice (that the Republican House has all but absolved Obama and Holder of) to the deaths of the ambassadors in Libya. The thing about China the Terrible Currency Manipulator? There's an issue where we don't know what he would do, if only because it seems like such obvious electoral rhetoric - but I could sympathize with a "damn the torpedoes" mentality about it, using the Presidency to reflect the crude, but honest, resentment of many Americans (which of course does not take into account the niceties of the Chinese situation). Romney's made such a big deal out of it, and consistently, that it would be terribly awkward for him not to go through with that promise. (The rest of the stuff he mentioned about unfair trade practices slipped by Obama during the debate, but the current Administration has a track record of being the toughest on China in this area to date.) Yet making that statement could very easily poison his relationship with the new Chinese government from "day one," and it wouldn't result in any new steps being taken. Looks like useless posturing to me, and by using an approach of thinking about what will happen in either case, it makes Romney look not like I want a potential President to look. Of course, most people will simply blindly say "of course Romney should call out those cheats," which is all kinds of obnoxious to me: China's been reforming, they've got a massive project to modernize their infrastructure and hopefully move to a more egalitarian society in spite of great ethnic and other sources of diversity, and a looming age crisis, and so on. It's not my intention that the President should bow to the wishes of China, but it seems to me there has been a reason why many Presidents tend to treat cases of less clear-cut adversity than the Soviet Union with kid gloves.

When I write about using the record, I'm also talking about looking at the facts as commonly understood by professional economists (not me, obviously) and others about the current Administration's performance. When somebody just says "[I keep hearing the economy has been bad, and I keep hearing Obama has done bad; therefore] Obama has done bad the last four years," be it Romney or DragonInstall, that's ignoring basically everything that's been done. Of course somebody could say "this Administration actually has screwed the pooch and here's why," and give me an argument from these facts. But merely saying "the economy has been bad" identifies only the apparent reality, not its cause. It's like saying "the ship nearly sunk, therefore it's the captain's fault." Not enough evidence to make that decision, especially if the Captain went against the popular rhetoric and had people manning the pumps even when it wasn't convenient for them.

If he hadn't mentioned it, don't you even pretend that you wouldn't be here bitching and crying foul.

I think I would say the same to you: focus on your main points and then elaborate on them. As is, I'm not really sure what your points are, even if they're perfectly clear to you.

A very valid point here, so I did my best especially with my first paragraph to be very concise. I went back to my original "too much propaganda" response and couldn't see a message straight away. I agree that's bad.

I'm sure Romney did good work pre-1984, and he did good work after, too; however, the majority of his work experience was with the company he headed up and had the most influence over - in his tenure at Bain Capital.

Agreed for the most part about Bain Capital being a less-than-positive business influence under Romney's leadership, but that wasn't the initial point I made and to which you objected to. I specifically mentioned Romney's early management consulting days—as opposed to his later private equity days—and I wasn't referring to that time as good or bad, just that he's had a lot of time to practice telling folks what they want to hear. I'm very confused as to whether that long explanation about Bain Capital was a rebuttal to my point or whether it's a new point you're making, in which case I don't understand it.

I see where the discussion went wrong now, when I assumed "Bain" meant "Bain Capital," and not Bain & Co. (where Romney didn't start his career - that was actually Boston Consulting Group, so you didn't really jog my memory there). It seems reasonable to steer the discussion toward where and when Romney was able to best achieve his vision of what a company should do - not at the expense of misrepresenting what you're saying, of course. His vision of the role for Bain was best exemplified in his leadership of Bain Capital, rather than what he did fresh outta college at BCG or when he joined B&C. Yeah, I did have to look it up to make sure I had the details. But at the same time I believe you've said that Romney's Bain Capital work is too highly studied, which I disagree with. It most certainly is the most relevant thing, for much the same reason that some nice stories about Philanthropist Romney don't wipe out his own telling the story (and defense of the telling) that half the country is close to irredeemable.

I have few problems with what Bain Capital actually did, other than obviously intending to get to the final stage of negotiations so they could just renegotiate prices to their liking without competition. Companies can't work as charities, so a lot of what they did had to be tough love, and in the current system it's (wrongly, often) the shareholders who have the final say about what's good for a business, rather than the regular workers. But this all clearly highlights that the role of government should not be just to allow companies to work as free from meddling as reasonable, but it also highlights that what government should do is often fundamentally unlike what a private company does.

About believing you have some hidden agenda - no, I'm just trying to deal with what I see right here. It is difficult enough just to make a point and remember the facts, which are relevant for everybody, than to try to weave it into some history of a poster - so sometimes I have good exchanges, and sometimes I have ones that rile up old friends...I know people from all political backgrounds can hold all sorts of beliefs, even ones not suggested by their previous posts.

I am really less interested in 'making Democrats' than I am in helping people to see a better way to interpret and deal with the statements and promises the candidates make. Sometimes I even call out the Democrats for shoddy arguments and poor thinking (I don't think I have done that here, though).

[Ganelon]

But even when you don't know what the candidate is going to do for sure, you can still assume he's not often, if ever, going to the left of Obama's policies.

In light of Romney's political circumstances and rhetoric, I would agree. But in light of Romney's record, I still maintain that it's hard to say. Isn't the most left-wing legislation Romney passed the same most left-wing policy Obama passed—Romneycare/Obamacare? If the real Romney is in the middle of the "severe conservative" and the "liberal Republican," then I don't personally think that's a bad draw. I agree with your point that if Republicans control a supermajority of Congress, then Romney will stick to the party line. And my gut feeling is that's not a good mix. But that occurrence seems doubtful. In a traditional split Congress, Romney has a better track record of working across party lines.

As for the economy, most economists agree that the President doesn't have much power. Outside of that, I haven't seen much that economists agree upon. If these economists were predominantly prescient, then they'd be billionaires instead. The jury is out on whether the stimulus has been effective. Therefore, I'd agree that it's not clear how much Obama has helped or hurt the economy.

I see where the discussion went wrong now, when I assumed "Bain" meant "Bain Capital," and not Bain & Co. (where Romney didn't start his career - that was actually Boston Consulting Group, so you didn't really jog my memory there).

I mentioned he started at BCG... Let's just say I've had some understanding of these industries and the major players since well before this election started. I'm not a fan of private equity because it's not clear they add overall market value instead of just taking value away from other entities.

[BulletMagnet]

In a traditional split Congress, Romney has a better track record of working across party lines.

Obama's Congress was pretty evenly split, and Conservatives still managed to stamp out (or did their damndest to stamp out) pretty much everything he proposed, just to spite him (and, to repeat once again, openly admit as much): how willing to you think Mitt's fellow Republicans (both in Congress and elsewhere) would suddenly be to tolerate dissent from one of their own, eager as they seem to bring back the good ol' days of the Robber Baron era?

If these economists were predominantly prescient, then they'd be billionaires instead.

From here it seems most of them make very good money whether or not anything they predict turns out to be correct, or even makes a lick of sense on its face (insert embittered Wall Street comment here): I have no idea how so many of the "sure, go deeper into debt, housing prices will keep rising forever!" voices from the Bush era still have jobs at all, let alone are still regularly called upon by major news sources for their "expert analysis".

[Ed Oscuro]

But even when you don't know what the candidate is going to do for sure, you can still assume he's not often, if ever, going to the left of Obama's policies.

In light of Romney's political circumstances and rhetoric, I would agree. But in light of Romney's record, I still maintain that it's hard to say. Isn't the most left-wing legislation Romney passed the same most left-wing policy Obama passed—Romneycare/Obamacare?

That's literally the worst example you could have picked. He's said he wants to repeal it (but somehow keep some of the goodies from it, like coverage of preexisting conditions, which will of course make insurance unaffordable, for patients to buy or for companies to provide), or at least selectively defund vast portions of it. That's also an agenda item for Congressional Republicans. It's legislation that gets him spouting off about something close to "state's rights" now; he has said that what worked for one state doesn't work for the nation. It's legislation he passed in a majority Democratic state legislature, and at a time when he wasn't so keen on casting himself as the "severe Republican." He has taken his rhetoric so far that there really is no way for him to reinvent himself as a pragmatist at this point in time, and voting for him because you're betting on a pragmatic turn makes me wonder why you wouldn't vote for the dedicated pragmatist instead. Romney is not going to the left of Obama. That is the supreme in magical thinking.

So what choices do we have for predicting what will happen? He might have a pragmatic turn - the Presidency is said to change people. It's not clear whether he had a turn while Governor, or whether he's just gotten more consistent in his conservativism (made easier by not having to win as liberal a constituency as Massachusetts), but you would think that he would realize that can happen since he's already had a governorship. Yet he doesn't ever, that I know of, talk about being pragmatic or compromise (perish the thought!), and although I know he wouldn't set out preparing for a Plan B scenario of compromise, he is running directly against that idea. Banking on Romney being forced to a pragmatic turn if Democrats win big in the Congressional races only makes sense if you think his policies will somehow be more significantly conservative than Obama's, but not as much as what he's been promising (and, of course, I have a problem with the idea this would be a good thing). That'd be taking a huge bet with your vote. If he wins, it's likely he'd get some more Republican seats as well - they won't get a Senate supermajority (and probably not even a simple majority) but you're looking at either a "mandate" for a runaway single party (unlikely, but that would be the scenario Romney is running on), or...more of the same gridlock seen in the past four years, as Democrats dig in their heels against overreaching by Congressional Republicans to undo much governmental authority since the Great Society, if not the New Deal. (The real wildcard in all this is the Supreme Court.) Most of Romney's rhetoric puts him pretty strongly in the "severely conservative" camp anyway. He only said that some regulations are good during the last debate because he knew lots of people would be watching.

One thing that has been fairly consistent for Romney is his "multiple choice" (in the late Sen. Kennedy's words) stance on issues. Kennedy pounded on Romney's inability, even back in 1994, to commit himself to a plan for the people to judge. It's a very cynical way of doing things.

There's also a lot of fairly (or very) irresponsible things he's said in recent months. He went to England and dissed the Olympics (and got smacked down by the Mayor of London...I actually agreed with Romney's statement but it was kind of uselessly provocative, like too much of he says); he seems to be pushing closer to some kind of military intervention in Iran; he has done a fair number of other things like this. So, even if we assume that his policies are just as good as the Obama Administration's, he will have already pissed away a lot of goodwill. If you want a reverse example of this, look at the Bloomberg mayoralty in New York: He increased policing but due to his rather less antagonistic public relations compared to Giuliani (who always sided with the police), people feel that policing is less harsh. Even though, in fact, it isn't. So I don't see Romney providing a benefit to policies or rhetoric. Both can make or break a comparison between two political players, but you shouldn't have to choose one or the other, either.

If the real Romney is in the middle of the "severe conservative" and the "liberal Republican," then I don't personally think that's a bad draw.

That's a terrible draw because the jobs numbers show we aren't out of economic troubles yet. Remember that the Republicans (at least a while ago) were hyping the "failed Obama policies," such as...the stimulus; they wanted no stimulus at all (or at least to bitch and whine about any program they could latch onto, giving no credit for other successful policies). You also have to have some money for infrastructure and education, too. That is why I mentioned economists, by the way - I'm not talking about morons like Jim Kramer, I'm talking about people like Paul Krugman and the others who are trying to support a reasonable economic policy. It must be astounding to think that anybody would think about the nation's finances on behalf of everybody, but those people exist - in academia and elsewhere. Shocking.

I agree with your point that if Republicans control a supermajority of Congress, then Romney will stick to the party line.

I thought you just said somewhat left of "severe conservative" wasn't a bad thing..?

As for the economy, most economists agree that the President doesn't have much power.

That's supposed to be enlightening? I thought you were talking about Congress, too. The exertion of influence goes both ways, but in any case I don't know why you'd want to pick the President who'd be more likely to bolster the case of Tea Partier freshmen in Congress.

Outside of that, I haven't seen much that economists agree upon.

Keynesian policy works. Everybody agrees on that, really. People who "disagree" will say things like "taxes are immoral" and "Keynes works, but my lassiez-faire works better." It's kind of like that whole "Communism has never been tried properly before!" spiel. There is a snag for both Keynes and lassiez-faire if you can't sustain growth, but the Republican plans explicitly assume growth, too. The Republicans attacked Obama for "you didn't build that" based on an unfortunate sound bite, not based on the real premise of the President's argument which was that everybody pitches in, via government, to many projects. Anyway, the stimulus working is important, because one way or another both parties require growth in the economy: Nobody's talking about zero-growth policies here. That would be fairly interesting but I don't think anybody wants to go there.

I see where the discussion went wrong now, when I assumed "Bain" meant "Bain Capital," and not Bain & Co. (where Romney didn't start his career - that was actually Boston Consulting Group, so you didn't really jog my memory there).

I mentioned he started at BCG... Let's just say I've had some understanding of these industries and the major players since well before this election started. I'm not a fan of private equity because it's not clear they add overall market value instead of just taking value away from other entities.

Yeah, I missed it again. Again, though, my point about relevancy still applies. It doesn't really tell us as much about the man today to look at what he did at the dawn of his career.

If these economists were predominantly prescient, then they'd be billionaires instead.

From here it seems most of them make very good money whether or not anything they predict turns out to be correct, or even makes a lick of sense on its face (insert embittered Wall Street comment here): I have no idea how so many of the "sure, go deeper into debt, housing prices will keep rising forever!" voices from the Bush era still have jobs at all, let alone are still regularly called upon by major news sources for their "expert analysis".

That's not very helpful, man. Like I said earlier, what plan would you have? Assume zero growth? Then what the fuck are you gonna do? Let's not lump in the bad players on Wall Street with academics, who tend to be (on all sides of the spectrum) fairly idealistic. Even the economists who I think are out to sea are idealistic, in essentially the right way (they tend to demagogue the hell outta things, though).

[Ganelon]

He has taken his rhetoric so far that there really is no way for him to reinvent himself as a pragmatist at this point in time, and voting for him because you're betting on a pragmatic turn makes me wonder why you wouldn't vote for the dedicated pragmatist instead.

I don't see how you can tell folks to "look at the record" and then ignore Romney's record just because you think his rhetoric has gone too far. If you're going to point at the rhetoric instead, then I think we're at an impasse here. I don't trust rhetoric at all. Romney has said his plan is a state decision but in what state does a government-mandated insurance plan make sense for a conservative?

As I said, I think Romney, if elected, would be in the middle of "severe conservative" and "liberal Republican," and that may not be bad. That's my personal view. Everyone here has already accepted that relying on Romney to take any position is a big bet. Unless there was an aspect of Romney's governorship that was much more conservative than Obama's policies, then it's already clear in this topic what the record says and what the rhetoric says. We'll just be going in circles if your position is that Romney's rhetoric says more than his record.

As for why I'm not as positive about Obama this time around, I suppose the bit that's made me most disillusioned is the recent piece about Obama's constantly putting dedicated family time ahead of building relations with members of Congress. I'm all for people being a good parent, but for the President of the United States, I expect focus and determination above everyone else—to the point where it would be unreasonable for someone else. It's not exactly fair to all Presidents but if Obama really wants to become a good father, then he can do so in any other occupation. I agree that it's debatable whether Romney's rhetorical policies for more limited government will work and how exactly he plans on implementing them—if at all—but at least Romney will be working day and night in that pursuit. That's what being a CEO of a major firm entails.

I thought you just said somewhat left of "severe conservative" wasn't a bad thing..?

I don't follow your point here. Yes, I think left of severe conservatism is a good thing, as much so as right of severe liberality. I hope Romney wouldn't stick to the party line but as you stated, I reckon he would have to if the Republicans were in full control. However, my implicit point is that I don't think a Republican supermajority is realistic, which you apparently agree with. Hence, the worst case scenario is very unlikely to come to pass.

That's supposed to be enlightening? I thought you were talking about Congress, too. The exertion of influence goes both ways, but in any case I don't know why you'd want to pick the President who'd be more likely to bolster the case of Tea Partier freshmen in Congress.

I don't follow your point here either. Should I discuss the Supreme Court too? Lobbyists? Influence from foreign countries? I thought we were discussing the Presidential race here and were focusing on what the candidates could do about the economy. Since you brought up the views of economists, I decided to point out the only thing related to Presidential policy that respected economists tend to agree upon: that they really don't have much direct influence on the economy. In that case, they may as well waste less money on measures of questionable effect. I suppose I did neglect to include basic Keynesian principles as well though.

[Drum]

Too much propaganda.

I just can't believe anyone who says one side does everything right and the other is completely wrong and anyone who thinks they're right is wrong. That type of mentality for either side always raises a flag for me. Just sounds too Rush Limbaugh.

Either way, from where I live... I have seen the economy going down the last 4 years and all I keep hearing is Obama saying, "I've created jobs, but it's not my fault the economy is bad. It's Bush fault." Even though the White House claims jobs are going up, I don't think they're counting the people who are losing jobs also, or those who have temp jobs. At least in Cali the jobless rate has been going up. But to be fair, a big reason is probably the libs in Cali who don't know how to manage a budget and refuse to reform government unions and the pension system.

You are one of the biggest right wing hacks on the board in a country that is pretty far right. Where the fuck do you get off trying to pretend you're a centrist. You won't shut up about unions and high taxes. You've never said anything that was remotely left of Limbaugh. You're a cartoon.

[mesh control]

I'm still not sure which one is the douchebag or the turdsandwich.

[Udderdude]

Did someone say Romnesia? http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... hg3tTfiUcY

[mesh control]

One thing is certain in this election: tiny brown children lose in 2012.


I can't wait for a drone strike video game.

[Udderdude]

The game where an accuracy of 5% is considered top tier.

[Ganelon]

I'm still not sure which one is the douchebag or the turdsandwich.

I think we're in a significantly better position than in 2004, when South Park came up with the comparison. Bush vs. Kerry was a no-win situation with appalling stances, especially on international policy, from both sides. I didn't even bother wasting a vote that year. Both candidates today are pragmatically focused with more centrist leaning records, and I'd pick either over the 2004 camp.

[BulletMagnet]

Like I said earlier, what plan would you have?

One that shows just a little bit of skepticism towards long-debunked economic theories that have nonetheless been trumpeted and implemented in various degrees across multiple decades, despite having yet to so much as remotely approach coherency in either concepts or results. In otherwords, a raised eyebrow or two would be nice the next time someone moans "sure, things went to pot when Hoover and Bush did it (and would have in similar fashion under Reagan, had he not raised taxes back up partway), but it was really all the Socialists' fault!"

[Ed Oscuro]

He has taken his rhetoric so far that there really is no way for him to reinvent himself as a pragmatist at this point in time, and voting for him because you're betting on a pragmatic turn makes me wonder why you wouldn't vote for the dedicated pragmatist instead.

I don't see how you can tell folks to "look at the record" and then ignore Romney's record just because you think his rhetoric has gone too far. If you're going to point at the rhetoric instead, then I think we're at an impasse here. I don't trust rhetoric at all. Romney has said his plan is a state decision but in what state does a government-mandated insurance plan make sense for a conservative?

Maybe it's confusing that Romney himself wants to ignore his record from years back. I sympathize. However, in that case, you have to look at his rhetoric as constituting a significant part of his "record." Meanwhile, the things that constitute the carrots and sticks for a potential President Romney - I have outlined some of them before so I won't waste our time going over them again - have obviously shaped his rhetoric very strongly. I don't see why it should be assumed that his actions won't also be shaped just like that in the ideological climate and understanding Romney seems to have embraced.

Additionally, the way Romney talks about things is still in many ways the same as it was years ago - like I said, the "multiple choice" slam from the late Senator Kennedy certainly is still relevant. I don't see a real compelling reason why you should try to invent a specific new definition of the word "record" to exclude things like this, when it's very clear that not being able to put his cards on the table - good for a poker player, bad for the leader of the free world - is a part of his character more fundamental than what he did six years later as Governor.

As for why I'm not as positive about Obama this time around, I suppose the bit that's made me most disillusioned is the recent piece about Obama's constantly putting dedicated family time ahead of building relations with members of Congress.

That's new on me. Bush was certainly infamous for taking more vacation days than the norm. I don't know where Obama lies on this. What news source has been pushing this story, or did you do a little original research?

I think that Obama certainly got the message that playing the family man angle isn't going to win him any debates after the first one, for sure

That's supposed to be enlightening? I thought you were talking about Congress, too. The exertion of influence goes both ways, but in any case I don't know why you'd want to pick the President who'd be more likely to bolster the case of Tea Partier freshmen in Congress.

I don't follow your point here either. Should I discuss the Supreme Court too? Lobbyists?

If that helps you make your point - your call. It was my observation that you were talking about Congress and not the President at one point - and elsewhere that the President has limited powers according to economists (and, well, everybody knows that).

[Ganelon]

I don't see a real compelling reason why you should try to invent a specific new definition of the word "record" to exclude things like this, when it's very clear that not being able to put his cards on the table - good for a poker player, bad for the leader of the free world - is a part of his character more fundamental than what he did six years later as Governor.

Well, my definition of "record" is anything that falls into official duties. I separate that from a person's current talking position. I thought that was how you initially presented the word "record" too since you were criticizing folks for blindly following rhetoric.

That's new on me. Bush was certainly infamous for taking more vacation days than the norm. I don't know where Obama lies on this. What news source has been pushing this story, or did you do a little original research?

I first read the news on CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/02/politics/ ... index.html
Although Bush's ranch time may have been excessive, I generally don't begrudge too much "vacation" time since a President is on notice pretty much 24/7 wherever he is and has full work capabilities at home. But it speaks volumes when a President doesn't try to proactively build relationships at his own expense.

[BulletMagnet]

But it speaks volumes when a President doesn't try to proactively build relationships at his own expense.

Do you honestly think that the Republicans would be any more open to showing Obama anything but utter contempt if he spent more time buddying around with them? Considering how many very tangible policy concessions (many of which I, as a liberal, am very sore about) he's made in the interests of winning even modest support on their side and how little it's gotten him in terms of praise (or even basic respect), I find it incredibly hard to believe that what's really fueling the bubbling geyser of bile on the right side of the aisle, when you get right down to it, is the fact that mean ol' Obama won't hang out with them enough (and this is coming from the party that claims to place family values above nearly all else).

Moreover, you know that if Democrats had acted anything like this during the Bush years they would have been roundly scolded from all directions and told to "wipe your sensitive baby tears and man up".

[Ed Oscuro]

There are some legitimate criticisms of how this Administration has actually managed its relationships with Congress, or awarded policy-making positions (especially on the National Security Staff), and it's been one of those toxic little Washington dramas that plays out almost completely out of the public's awareness. For most of the issues we're talking about here, though, it's up to Congress to get their shit together. The President only submits the budget to Congress every year because as far back as the 1920s they decided they couldn't deal with the horse trading and bickering (and there is a great deal of wisdom in this convention).

About not "proactively build[ing] relationships," Romney tried to level that charge against Obama tonight, and it was one of the moments that backfired spectacularly. Romney listed basically all the Arab Spring nations, noting that Obama went to them, but not to Israel, and Israel noticed. Ooh! Obama was able to knock that down quickly, retorting with specifics about his early focus on Israel, and giving some details of some of his early trips. Romney's attempt was merely to highlight the tensions between this Administration and some in Israel, but I think we must remember also that this Administration has been out there at the forefront making overtures and providing support to other nations. We were one of the very first nations to recognize the people in Tunisia, and he got the world to rally behind the opposition in Libya, where people spoke about the U.S. warplanes in "God's Air Force." It was no accident that Obama was the first out of the gate to talk about Israel and the special relationship, and he did so often. I don't really fault Romney for bringing up the point, because (as he pointed out) some in Obama's own party have faulted him for this, and they aren't all ardent Israel exceptionalists. However, it does not absolve him of his own problems with favoritism: What Romney said in that infamous video clip is not going to help him be a trusted broker for peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis. If Obama has given the Israeli leadership some tough love, it's probably because they need it.

About the issue of the public record: If you have been out of government for many years, you simply have no other record in policy other than what you've been saying and promoting, regardless of where you come down. His talk about having run businesses isn't a record on foreign policy. His discussions with other executives about fraudulent Chinese valves isn't showing a record on foreign policy, just an inclination. Yet, and here is where the problem crystallizes, Romney himself wants to take credit for having a record. Tonight he said "you can check my record, and what I've been saying." I think you must have a problem with his statement, too, and since he is the candidate, it should be more troublesome when that comes straight from him.

I keep forgetting to mention that when I first brought up a record, I was also and especially talking about Obama's non-imaginary record, including concrete policies and their effects (as opposed to Romney's caricature of them).

Here's an amazing news flash for you: It's always true that fresh candidates are at a disadvantage on foreign policy because it is the President who makes that policy. This is not merely a circumstance of this election, or of the television era. This leaves challengers with an opening, however: They can freely criticize what they like, but in return they need to give us specifics. Romney got the first part right, but he hasn't given us the second (and then Romney only meets the first part if you allow completely laughable and incoherent criticisms, such as his insistence tonight that sanctions on Iran are the right way to go, but at the same time criticizing Obama for allowing time for sanctions to work; furthermore Romney insists that he could somehow collapse Iran's resistance on the first day under possibly "louder" versions of the same policies). When he was a candidate, Obama had specific criticisms about the war and other Bush policies. Some of them he has distanced himself from, but he did not shy away from letting the people know where he stood. Some things, like closing the detention centers at Guantanamo Bay, simply appear to have been lost in the fast and shifting sands of political fortune, and that happens in an Administration, regrettably. I am not asking anybody to tilt at windmills or ignore such factors and always stick by their first statement.

I do think, and this would seem to go to your point, that Romney is trying to reinvent or realign himself with his political self of 15 years ago, after the very long and torturous campaign to win over his base - Candy Crowley of CNN mentioned afterwards that all kinds of conservatives were messaging her during the debate, having "twigged" to Romney's shift toward the center during the debate. So what we have is a candidate who left us, his own party, and the rest of the world in utter confusion about what he actually intended up to the eleventh hour, and that is irresponsible.

[Ganelon]

Do you honestly think that the Republicans would be any more open to showing Obama anything but utter contempt if he spent more time buddying around with them?

Yes, more time communicating is more time coming up with ideas both sides agree with. And more time communicating results in better communications practice along the way. If we take out 2 hours a day for family matters, that's about 1/3 of a year wasted over a 4-year term. Spending excessive time talking to people was apparently the Clintonian model for getting as much agreed upon as possible despite the ideological barricades.

The sooner you get out of your head the notion that one party is completely unwilling to cooperate, the more balanced your opinions will be. If you must think in terms of black and white, then consider that members of Congress have a selfish reason for getting things done: they have their own elections to think of. Gridlock combined with decline means they're at risk of being sent home packing too.

[Ed Oscuro]

The sooner you get out of your head the notion that one party is completely unwilling to cooperate, the more balanced your opinions will be.

I think we deserve better than reprimands to get ourselves in line with some pleasingly PC notion of artificially "balanced opinions." It's the facts that matter.

There is a fact of the matter, but I don't think we are going to settle it easily by pointing to some statistic about partisanship (I would love to see some studies...I haven't done any research on that, other than what I link below, and should), which should be hard to measure in meaningful ways. Over the last ten years (somewhat more or less) there has been increasing polarization, and gerrymandering is one of the culprits (contrary to your assertion, gerrymandered districts can provide an incentive to make sure things don't get done, in order to please a powerful voting bloc in one's district), although it's not the only one.

Enough of that. Here's a quote from Greg Sargent's blog at the Washington Post:

With few exceptions, [a GOP] narrative [that Obama started polarization] has gone unchallenged for most of the year, despite the fact that it bears little relationship to reality. Close political observers know that congressional Republicans began the Obama presidency with a deliberate strategy of categorial opposition. As Robert Draper details in his recent book, GOP leaders had no intention of cooperating with the president on any of his major initatives. From inauguration onwards, their plan was to “Show united and unyielding opposition to the president’s economic policies.”

The best alternative case is probably something like this, which gets (surprise) back to the issues surrounding the public (and gerrymandering is one of those issues) belief in politics. That, I would agree, is something that's not the Republicans' doing. They just happen to benefit from many misconceived notions the public often holds about economics and other issues - but that's another debate entirely.

[Acid King]

There is a fact of the matter, but I don't think we are going to settle it easily by pointing to some statistic about partisanship (I would love to see some studies...I haven't done any research on that, other than what I link below, and should), which should be hard to measure in meaningful ways. Over the last ten years (somewhat more or less) there has been increasing polarization, and gerrymandering is one of the culprits (contrary to your assertion, gerrymandered districts can provide an incentive to make sure things don't get done, in order to please a powerful voting bloc in one's district), although it's not the only one.

Partisanship and polarization are technically different issues. Partisanship is related to party identification and attachment and is not necessarily connected to policy preference. Polarization, as measured by the NOMINATE scores in the second link you posted, is based on the preferred policy of the legislators and how they vote. Check out this link to see the specifics of how it's measured.

For what it's worth, the guys who developed NOMINATE wrote a paper several years ago about gerrymandering and its effect on polarization. They didn't find much of an effect.

[Ed Oscuro]

Partisanship and polarization are technically different issues.

But they have an obvious relationship and some common causes, and that's all I need to make my point.

Out of curiosity, what definitions are you using? To be quick about it, I'd say that partisanship is an increased allegiance along party lines, and issue-founded attitudes are an accidental feature of the parties. Polarization usually refers to a divide in attitudes about issues, which exist independent of the parties' or any other narrative about them. However, I've discovered that "polarization" may be classified as partisan polarization, (the second definition), where "support for a political figure or position differentiates itself along political party lines" (this should be a great shock to noone). I will agree, if it's your intention, that it is the facts of an issue position that ultimately matters - although partisanship can reflect a human tendency to create alliances in which supposed polarizing issues are undermined.

It strikes me as naiive to say that you can actually expect to separate partisanship from polarization or vice versa, because often people do not know whether they are inclined to be partisan for non-rational, unconscious reasons, or whether they are actually polarized. This is deceptively identified in that old saw about the Republicans, which applies equally well to any political party with clout (i.e. power bsaed outside a rational argument for their policies): They don't fall in love, they fall in line.

[Drum]

Do you honestly think that the Republicans would be any more open to showing Obama anything but utter contempt if he spent more time buddying around with them?

Yes, more time communicating is more time coming up with ideas both sides agree with. And more time communicating results in better communications practice along the way. If we take out 2 hours a day for family matters, that's about 1/3 of a year wasted over a 4-year term. Spending excessive time talking to people was apparently the Clintonian model for getting as much agreed upon as possible despite the ideological barricades.

The sooner you get out of your head the notion that one party is completely unwilling to cooperate, the more balanced your opinions will be. If you must think in terms of black and white, then consider that members of Congress have a selfish reason for getting things done: they have their own elections to think of. Gridlock combined with decline means they're at risk of being sent home packing too.

Would you consider your views 'balanced'? Being dishonest and evasive about your far-right-wing politics isn't neutrality, and you aren't fooling anyone.

[Acid King]

I'm not using any one particular definition, just speaking from my familiarity with research on the subjects. I know the NOMINATE scores used to measure polarization are based on policy issues and legislator votes, which is different than polarization of the electorate. Whereas partisanship, when looked at in terms of the voting behavior and attitudes of the electorate, or votes by legislators, in my experience refers to party identification and how often a legislator votes with his party. As far as polarization and partisanship of the electorate goes, I've seen some evidence that the fringes/bases of each party have diverged and become further apart, while the electorate as a whole remains largely moderate. More and more people self identify as independents, but from my experience many of them are partisans who largely vote for one party or the other, but identify as independents for whatever reason. The two may certainly be interrelated, and probably are, but they're distinct phenomena and disentangling the causality between the two is a sticky wicket. I've been out of the loop for awhile so I'm unsure if anyone has actually tried to untangle that clusterfuck.

[Udderdude]

As far as one side (Repubs obviously) being completely unwilling to play ball and intentionally trying to gridlock congress, here's a few links for you to look at.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/21/opinion/z ... index.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/ap ... ruct-obama

http://www.discourseanddiatribe.com/fil ... age002.gif

After reading about these, every time I heard Romney go on about how Obama hasn't done anything to fix the country in 4 years, it makes me sick.

[Ganelon]

I think we deserve better than reprimands to get ourselves in line with some pleasingly PC notion of artificially "balanced opinions." It's the facts that matter.

Read the quoted posts again and see where the facts lie. The problem is when partisanship blinds you, as we've seen a few times in this topic when you don't read carefully before going on the attack. Judging from past topics, that doesn't seem to be typical of your behavior.

You're the one supporting a claim (not facts) and came up with a fact to support it. You're right about the effects of gerrymandering in reducing need to cooperate. However, that doesn't explain how Clinton has a better reputation of reaching across party lines (let me know if you want quotes here) since gerrymandering has always been in effect. If you're laying everything on increased partisanship, then I think we'll have to agree to disagree then until some studies come out.

For BulletMagnet and anyone else claiming Republicans have the monopoly on preventing legislation from passing, perhaps you should recall George H.W. Bush's 1990 budget act. Facing a Democratic-controlled Congress in a tough time, Bush 41 sacrificed all his tax promises and personal reputation (and eventually his political future) just to get a deficit reduction plan in place. Democrats refused any sort of tax cutting and got every major point the party line wanted, to the point where Democrats voted overwhelmingly more for the Bush-backed plan than Republicans did. Obama has made significant budget compromises in his term, but he hasn't come close to accepting a plan that sacrificed his party's ideals and was championed by Republicans in order to make progress.

Would you consider your views 'balanced'? Being dishonest and evasive about your far-right-wing politics isn't neutrality, and you aren't fooling anyone.

Sounds like a joke post...

[BulletMagnet]

The sooner you get out of your head the notion that one party is completely unwilling to cooperate, the more balanced your opinions will be.

Once again, I remind you that this "notion" isn't something I just pulled out of my backside: the Republican leadership has openly stated, on the record, that their entire reason for being is to oppose Obama. Full stop. Repeatedly. Across the board. With nothing, I might add, but support from their unelected cheerleaders.

This is NOT an opinion on my part. This is their OFFICIAL POSITION. Methinks this is a "notion" that you, not I, have yet to come to terms with.

Obama has made significant budget compromises in his term, but he hasn't come close to accepting a plan that sacrificed his party's ideals and was championed by Republicans in order to make progress.

Speaker Boehner disagrees with you.

[mesh control]

Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein is suing the presidential debate commission.

[Ganelon]

This is NOT an opinion on my part. This is their OFFICIAL POSITION. Methinks this is a "notion" that you, not I, have yet to come to terms with.

I think you're putting too much emphasis on rhetoric over record. I just cited an example of a situation where the opposing party couldn't refuse. If Obama was going for pure tax cuts, who among the GOP would refuse him? The idea that a party would refuse everything is unrealistic. And if they're not refusing everything, then they may be curmudgeonly but they're not the "no deal" wall that you're portraying them as. Even the example you mentioned below points to a party willing to compromise on a certain few matters.

Speaker Boehner disagrees with you.

I'd say that was a rhetorical comment to secure his position as Speaker. The GOP did win many concessions in the debt ceiling act, more so than many Democrats wanted, but the issue of tax changes was skirted entirely. There were no extensions of the Bush tax cuts in the debt ceiling bill as Republicans wanted, and no tax raises as Democrats wanted either. As I said, Obama has made significant compromises. But at least Democrats were equally split over the debt ceiling plan. Republicans were heavily opposed to the 1990 budget plan that Bush 41 accepted in the name of progress.

I'm not saying acquiescing in full is necessary or that it's not a good idea to raise taxes now thanks to huge spending on the part of both parties, the more pointless of which probably belong to Bush's wars. And it could speak to Obama's resourcefulness in knowing where the tipping point was for making progress. But this bill clearly shows that some compromise is possible. And when compromise exists, more time spent communicating with everyone involved can only help.

[BulletMagnet]

If Obama was going for pure tax cuts, who among the GOP would refuse him? The idea that a party would refuse everything is unrealistic. And if they're not refusing everything, then they may be curmudgeonly but they're not the "no deal" wall that you're portraying them as.

Okay then: Republicans have openly stated that they aim to resist everything Obama does just to spite him, unless he completely rolls over, dies, and rubber-stamps all the stuff they want without resistance, becoming the "guy to sign this stuff" that Norquist dreams of. Now THAT'S how compromise oughta work; why doesn't Big Meanie Obama get it?.

But this bill clearly shows that some compromise is possible. And when compromise exists, more time spent communicating with everyone involved can only help.

Details aside, a recession-era deficit reduction plan comprised entirely of cuts with zero new revenue (with the backdrop, if I may mention it, of one of the largest wealth gaps in the nation's history) is one hell of a "compromise". Much as they (and the media to boot) seem to have willfully forgotten where the "center" is in matters of politics and public opinion (proposing that people on terrorist watch lists shouldn't be able to buy dozens of guns in one fell swoop from a private dealer with no background check is SOCIALISM), far too many conservatives (at least at the top of the food chain) seem unable to so much as look a gift horse (or donkey) in the mouth unless things fall 100 percent on their side; does the right really have even the slightest reason to bellyache about the Bush tax cuts not being extended, when they were intended by its author to be temporary from the start (which, of course, casts serious doubts on Bush's patriotism. Why didn't he make the cuts permanent from the beginning, so that jobs wouldn't be killed en masse when they expired? Hell, why didn't he cut them further, which would have made things even better? Did he not love America enough)?