dagblog - Comments for "President Mitt Romney"

Hat Tip to Chez Pazienza,

Donal — Tue, 05 Jun 2012 15:12:35 +0000

Hat Tip to Chez Pazienza, Mitt Romney promises a whiter America:

Again what I was seeing as a

rmrd0000 — Tue, 05 Jun 2012 13:42:44 +0000

In reply to The old adage that Democrats

Again what I was seeing as a theme was it doesn't matter, both sides do it. Both sides are the same. Romney would have appointed Sotomayor (BS). Kagan is as bad as any Romney appointee would be. Romney will be as supportive of reproductive rights as Obama.

There was also a sense of defeat.Nothing will change.

People are depressed about how bad things are today. Fannie Lou Hamer brought a black delegation from deep South Mississippi to take seats at a Democratic National Convention in defiance of Mississippi party leadership. They had to return to Mississippi after Their public display. I just don't accept the life is so bad now meme.

People in Wisconsin, Florida, Ohio and Michigan can tell you about the different life they have under the GOP. I don't accept that Romney won't be that bad.

Paul Ryan is willing to defy the views of Catholic bishops and scholars to push his personal worldview of Catholic charity via an odious budget plan. This is the GOP point man on the budget. It is possible that Ryan will be the VP candidate. Tell me again that Romney won't be so bad.

I simply Have a difference of opinion with the benign Romney theme.

If virtually everything some people post is a variation of "I hate Obama so much that I'll work against him" or "the two parties are no different", I will voice my opinion in opposition.

The old adage that Democrats

Peter Schwartz — Tue, 05 Jun 2012 13:04:19 +0000

In reply to I will add, however, that I

The old adage that Democrats fall in love should probably be changed to: Democrats NEED to fall in love with their president, while Republicans only need to fall in line.

Perhaps it comes from their different views of government: Republicans only want their guy to perform a few simple function, mostly stop a lot of Democratic stuff.

Democrats want their guy to change the world, or at least our part of it.

They could use a tidge more of the Republican "falling in line" simply because unity leads to greater effectiveness and prevents getting waylaid by losses, disappointments and endless internal squabbling. It allows the group to play the short and long game at the same time. Pocketing any and all gains and continuing to seek more.

To pick up on RMRD, it helps the group keep its eyes on the real prize.

Great point and

Peter Schwartz — Tue, 05 Jun 2012 12:55:05 +0000

In reply to The constitutional

Great point and insufficiently noted.

You have the right attitude

Peter Schwartz — Tue, 05 Jun 2012 12:52:22 +0000

In reply to I was in a rating mood,

You have the right attitude and harkening back to the civil rights struggle is the right antecedent.

It brings to mind, a bit, Andrew Sullivan's piece on Obama's "long game."

People have fundamental

rmrd0000 — Tue, 05 Jun 2012 12:44:21 +0000

In reply to Should I "indulge in your

People have fundamental disagreements about the nature of government. Getting a consensus is not an easy thing. The history of Eugene V Debs and the International Workers of the World is an example of the nature of political conflict.

Why do you think a Debs style internal conflict is any better than what we have now?

promise to do these things

Peter Schwartz — Tue, 05 Jun 2012 12:42:40 +0000

In reply to And y'see, I think that kind

promise to do these things and you'll have our votes.

I agree with you, but would change the above slightly. The argument needs to be broader, especially if said protestors don't represent enough votes to make a difference.

They need to make the case that these "things" will help him win the votes of a LOT of people, not just them, and maybe not even especially them.

Groups are always interested first in their own agenda. But a national candidate, especially in these times, needs to be interested in a lot of groups at once, as many groups as he can without getting torn apart and losing all credibility.

So the case needs to be (IMO): Despite what you, the candidate, may think, these things will appeal to a lot people and here's why we say this.

Choices are to not vote, vote

rmrd0000 — Tue, 05 Jun 2012 12:24:47 +0000

In reply to Corollary: you can change

Choices are to not vote, vote for the Republicans, vote for a third party, create a third party or work to change the Democrats. Whatever your choice, it's your right.

Wisconsin voters could have chosen to survive Scott Walker just like the country survived GW Bush and boot him out at the next scheduled election. Enough voters had enough buyer's remorse to want to vote Scott out now.

I am proud to have sent money to encourage those troops!

If you feel that both parties are the same, then just stand by and watch. Win or lose, I applaud the effort. Those my troops.

The constitutional

Bruce Levine — Tue, 05 Jun 2012 12:19:34 +0000

In reply to President Mitt Romney

The constitutional underpinning of the New Deal, Great Society, and federal civil rights legislation rests on an interpretation of the Commerce Clause that is hanging by a thread. This broad construction faces a real challenge by the current Court with respect to the pending challenge to healthcare legislation. It all depends on what a conservative appointee named Kennedy decides. And the way for a moderate Republican to appease a rabid right is to give 'em a Clarence Thomas or two. Here's Chief Justice Scalia, on the meaning of the broad reading of the Commerce Clause that everything progressive in this country rests on:

“If the government can do this, what, what else can it not do?” asked Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia this week in arguments on the constitutionality of the requirement that nearly all Americans buy health care insurance or face a penalty.

That, my friends, is serious shit, and a slippery slope that I'd leave to blackboards in constitutional law classes.

Great blog des and I enjoy the comments too, and I wish I could be a better cheerleader--except in the end I ain't one.

I will add, however, that I

Bruce Levine — Tue, 05 Jun 2012 12:09:25 +0000

In reply to President Mitt Romney

I will add, however, that I absolutely and unequivocally reject the notion that in urging a vote for the boring and disappointing Democrat, that is not the same as urging people to play see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. That's just a false choice. There are real reasons to rest on the better of two choices, but anyone who thinks the election of a Dennis Kucinich is all progressives need to change society needs to rethink things, and big time.

There's a whole friggin' world out there, lots of things to protest, lots of things to get our hands dirty with, and lots of things to do, whether we vote Democratic or not. But we cannot change the composition of the United States Supreme Court, we cannot appoint the person who will head important federal agencies, and we cannot help that lots of everyday government is both important and like watching paint dry at the same time.