Batgirl's political thoughts

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

I think I phrased it better yesterday when I said that Giuliani's move toward the middle makes Romney ~appear~ to represent the religious right. I don't know that that's really who Romney is, it certainly doesn't jive with his past. He's gone out of his way to redefine himself to meet the standards the religious right expect. But you may be right, he may be savvy enough to reinvent himself again in a general election. I still think he'll have a tough time defending his stances on the war.

On flip-flopping, I don't know why Romney's getting the reputation he is, there's a great site that's focussing on the issue changes of all the candidates: http://realitycheck08.org/
McCain is at least as much of a reinvention.

I think it's a rough time to be a GOP voter. With the mess Bush has created, the GOPs would have trouble winning the White House with even an ideal candidate. I think Giuliani may have the best shot, but even he's gonna have a rough time with some of the stuff in his past.

Romney reminds most of Clinton in 1992. Clinton said what the Dems wanted to hear during the primary and then drifted rhetorically toward center during General. He was also benefitted by Perot.

While GOP has hurt itself, the Dems must also stand for something. Do you get a sense from anybody that they have been able to establish brand distinctiveness? I do not. Hillary is divisive and Barack is young and inexperienced. Are we getting to the point where few people who might actually be able to do the job will apply?

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Hillary is divisive and Barack is young and inexperienced. Are we getting to the point where few people who might actually be able to do the job will apply?

Hillary and Barack have a nearly identical platform. They differ only in voting record and personality.

Yes, that is becoming the case. Those we would want as president are declining to participate in the circus.

Hillary likes to say, "this is not American Idol," i.e, not a popularity contest. Well, actually, I'm afraid with as little attention as the average American pays, it just may be.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

Hillary likes to say, "this is not American Idol," i.e, not a popularity contest. Well, actually, I'm afraid with as little attention as the average American pays, it just may be.

Methinks she doth protest too much.

[Insensitive PAP]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

Hillary and Barack have a nearly identical platform. They differ only in voting record and personality.

Yes, that is becoming the case. Those we would want as president are declining to participate in the circus.

Hillary likes to say, "this is not American Idol," i.e, not a popularity contest. Well, actually, I'm afraid with as little attention as the average American pays, it just may be.

closer to the center than Obama. One thing you have to give Barack credit for is that he's unabashedly liberal. He doesn't even pretend to be in the middle.

I'm not sure the American public has the balls to put a Democratic president in there with a Democratic congress. That would be a disaster and I'm sure it will be made an issue as the election progresses. So while I believe the Democrats have the upper hand, I don't think they are unbeatable. They do also have the minor issue that a lot of people despise Hillary.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

I think it's a rough time to be a GOP voter. With the mess Bush has created, the GOPs would have trouble winning the White House with even an ideal candidate. I think Giuliani may have the best shot, but even he's gonna have a rough time with some of the stuff in his past.

Don't underestimate Democrats' capacity to give away an election that is their's to lose. If your research tells you that the smart money is truly on HC or Obama at this point, Giuliani should be a slam dunk in the Republican primary, and I'd wager he can take down either HC or Obama in the long run. But what do I know about this. Thanks for your insights and research.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

Okay, so I'll post my thoughts on the GOPs.

I'm trying to figure out, pragmatically speaking, which of the three main contenders the party should go with as a nominee. (I consider the chances <10%, at best, that it would be anybody other than Giuliani, Romney, or McCain.)

As you know, I'm not working right now, so I've spent more time than is technically prudent reading about these guys, and I've found out all kinds of neat stuff. So, here we go...

I'm waiting for Gingrich and Thompson to get in. I like them better than any of the current candidates. Of the current crop, McCain is most appealing.

I am seriously going to base my vote next time around on two factors (1) who can best articulate why they believe what they do and (2) who seems least full of shit.

McCain's stock went up fopr me this last weekend when he was beign interviewed and they asked him why he had reversed himself on something. The reply was, I didn't. I gained some hindsight, some experience, and I changed my mind in light of that. You gotta know when you were wrong and modify your view.

I think Bush has made a mistake by always being so hyper-defensive. I underastand that he believes (and he is right) that the press will swarm like piranas at the admission of being wrong. I just think that the right leader can defuse these things by being matter of fact about them. I like a guy who can say "hey I did what I thought was best and it turns out I blew it."

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I like a guy who can say "hey I did what I thought was best and it turns out I blew it."

It's much harder to admit that on the one thing you staked your presidency on.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by Insensitive PAP

closer to the center than Obama. One thing you have to give Barack credit for is that he's unabashedly liberal. He doesn't even pretend to be in the middle.

I'm not sure the American public has the balls to put a Democratic president in there with a Democratic congress. That would be a disaster and I'm sure it will be made an issue as the election progresses. So while I believe the Democrats have the upper hand, I don't think they are unbeatable. They do also have the minor issue that a lot of people despise Hillary.

right. Barack is super consistent - consistently liberal. He's got the second most liberal voting record. The thing going for him right now is that so many people listen to his "politics of hope" stuff that they haven't noticed how liberal he is. Eventually it will come out. He also recently lost some support from his base with a MySpace scandalish thing, but that's a long story.

I agree. 50% of Americans hate Hillary. it's hard to get around that.

You and Seattle could be right abut the Dems not being unbeatable. For one thing, the Dems may have put themselves in charge of Congress with just enough time to screw things up for themselves for the 08 elections. The satisfaction numbers with Congress are plummeting, last I checked.

[BigFatMeanie]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

I think I phrased it better yesterday when I said that Giuliani's move toward the middle makes Romney ~appear~ to represent the religious right. I don't know that that's really who Romney is, it certainly doesn't jive with his past. He's gone out of his way to redefine himself to meet the standards the religious right expect. But you may be right, he may be savvy enough to reinvent himself again in a general election. I still think he'll have a tough time defending his stances on the war.

On flip-flopping, I don't know why Romney's getting the reputation he is, there's a great site that's focussing on the issue changes of all the candidates: http://realitycheck08.org/
McCain is at least as much of a reinvention.

I think it's a rough time to be a GOP voter. With the mess Bush has created, the GOPs would have trouble winning the White House with even an ideal candidate. I think Giuliani may have the best shot, but even he's gonna have a rough time with some of the stuff in his past.

I didn't spend a ton of time on the site you linked but in the time I did spend, I couldn't find one issue that Romney has changed his position on other than abortion. I personally think the whole "flip-flopper" label is something that the media has tagged him with and is desperate to perpetuate. Your comment from yesterday about his frequent position changes shows that you have bought the media's myth to some degree.

I would love to see some evidence that Romney has changed his mind on more than the one issue that is already well known. Note that I don't necessarily consider myself a Romney supporter. I just think the idea that someone is a flip-flopper because they changed their mind on a single issue is hogwash. If it can be shown that Romney has changed his mind on multiple issues and on multiple occasions then I will readily concede that he is indeed a flip-flopper. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt until then.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Insensitive PAP

It's interesting to me that one of Romney's gaffes is the "Battlefield Earth" comment. I say this because a couple years ago, I was talking to a friend who is an avid science fiction reader. I asked him what his favorite book was, and he said Battlefield Earth, by far.

FWIW, this is a guy worth has earned a net worth of over $100 million in about an 8 year period, from scratch, and I expect he'll clear $1 billion before he's done. He's one of the few people in my life that I'd actually qualify as a "genius".

Which gets me to the reason I find the "Battlefield Earth" gaffe as interesting. Without having had my conversation with my friend a couple years ago, Mitt's response would have been weird to me and caused me to think less of him, but because I had that conversation, it actually made me think more of Mitt.

The situation was a good lesson that reminded me how important it is to seek the meaning of what people are saying, rather than parse words to fit others into how what I think they should be saying based on my preconceived notions.

Honestly the consensus on Battlefield Earth is that it's pulp trash. Poorly written windbaggery. Google Romney and Battlefield Earth and you can read some lines culled form the novel that are hilarious they're so bad. Your friend is probably a Scientologist. I've not read Battlefield Earth myself, but I have read a few reviews, all poking fun of it.

My take on this is that Mitt may be a budding billionaire and a genius, but he aint much of a reader.