Active Users:290 Time:02/05/2024 10:10:35 AM
I think you'll find very few Europeans agreeing with that assessment. Legolas Send a noteboard - 26/08/2011 10:18:19 PM
I think compared to Europe our politics are down right calm. We haven't had a political riot in years and 99.9% of the time our politicians don't out right insult each other. Now compared to Canada I have no idea. To be honest I couldn't name single Canadian politician and that is current or former, comedians yes politicians no.

I mean, look at Belgium. We've been in a deadlock for, what, four years now, and have had a caretaker government for well over a year (yes, that means the elections were more than a year ago and we still haven't got a new government). It doesn't get much more dysfunctional than that, and extreme elements on both sides have said some rather ugly things about the other side. But despite all that, things seem decidedly calmer to me than in American (national) politics (needless to say the same then goes for less dysfunctional countries in Europe as well). There's less rage, less passionate feelings against the other side, and definitely less violent threats or imagery.

Of course a lot of that has to do with institutional factors that make Belgian politics automatically more boring and less spectacular than American ones - proportional representation resulting in coalition governments with many parties, no presidential elections, that sort of thing. But still.
Yes he was the anti-Bush but I do believe that among the base of the left they believed 100% they were getting a true progressive and not a moderate. If you listen he never said he was going to be a moderate he said he was going to build a new majority. The left believed, correctly, that Bush was so unpopular they could beat a republican with almost anyone so they were not looking for a moderate they were looking for the real deal and they sloshed some moderate paint on him for the general but they new it wasn't the real Obama. The republicans are starting believe the same thing now, that they can elect the first true conservative president. Many would say since Regan but by today's standard Regan was a moderate. Unlike the democrats they conseratives place more value on proven leadership and record, that isn't a knock it is an observation. If the dems had elected Hillary with the majorites she would have had there is not telling what she could have done.

As I argued above, they wanted a reconciliator, not a moderate in se - and somehow, in the heat of the moment, they forgot that a) Obama's not being a moderate did make it rather hard to be a reconciliator at least on the domestic scene, and b) his proven record of being a reconciliator was rather limited anyhow (as has since been illustrated by his underwhelming performance on the foreign policy scene).
Not if you listened to what they actually said, looked at their record and judged them by American standards. McCain was and had always been a moderate on most issues but a he was a hawk on forgien policy and there was a lot of focus on the war at the time. McCain had a proven and sustained record of working across the isle and Obama had none. Obama was making a lot noise about a kindler and gentler political process but at the same time has was attacking and ridiculing people in his fundraisers. The only reason there was any doubt that Obama was not who he said he was is because people wanted to believe despite all the evidence. You don't set in church with reverend Wright for twenty years if are a moderate at heart and the people who willing to be honest with themseleves knew that. One of the things pissing off the left right now is Obama blew all the right dog whislte to let them know he was a true progressive but they don't feel he followed through.

I think McCain's hawkishness did scare off a lot of people. I know I for one would've had a far harder time choosing if McCain's foreign policy during the campaign had been more like, say, Lugar's. Of course I'm a foreigner and so I rank foreign policy higher in my priorities than Americans would, but still. McCain's kowtowing to the conservative party line on other issues was not that worrisome as it was safe to assume he'd be back to his old maverick tricks as president - but the hawkishness is a very dangerous thing in a president. It's the one and only reason why I still kind of doubt electing McCain would've been better.
I would actually support a public health care system if someone proposed one that would work. It needs to divorce employment for insurance and it needs to subsidize the poor up to full coverage. It would be OK if the subsidized insurance wasn't as good as the stuff you pay for yourself but it still would need to adequate. It just shouldn't cover things like acupuncture and aroma therapy and you may need to be on an HMO. It would even be OK if it didn't cover inexpensive things like birth control since that is just shoving politics into helathcare. I didn't support a program that just expanded the current system and its out of control growth model.

Seconded. Though I do sympathize with Obama's goals, and since switching to a genuine public health care system just like that is obviously impossible, it kind of would have to be more gradually... but the proposal as it was just wasn't good enough.
Reply to message
A fine example of the fuzzy logic of the left - 25/08/2011 06:30:36 PM 958 Views
Personally I still favor demographic blind subsidies as the best route to meritocracy. - 25/08/2011 08:18:20 PM 548 Views
it works for gender as well - 25/08/2011 09:02:58 PM 558 Views
Sure; insert your demographic here. - 26/08/2011 12:51:48 AM 606 Views
Preferential in possible scholarships but not admissions process according to the article - 25/08/2011 10:26:25 PM 459 Views
What's your point? - 26/08/2011 12:54:41 AM 440 Views
There are colleges that don't allow homosexuals - or men, or women for that matter. - 25/08/2011 10:35:05 PM 550 Views
Alright then, socially unacceptable. - 26/08/2011 01:00:16 AM 582 Views
Ummm, did you read the article? - 25/08/2011 08:40:46 PM 604 Views
Ah, but you are not reading it either - 25/08/2011 08:53:39 PM 630 Views
But that's just a scholarship. - 25/08/2011 09:34:23 PM 588 Views
it is a scholarship program not a admissions program - 25/08/2011 09:12:47 PM 570 Views
I don't really have a problem with this - 25/08/2011 09:03:55 PM 646 Views
I am not arguing that they shouldn't be allowed to do it - 25/08/2011 09:29:54 PM 474 Views
Fair Enough - 25/08/2011 09:41:25 PM 515 Views
their stated motive was to increase diversity - 25/08/2011 10:09:17 PM 643 Views
One of your lines struck me. - 25/08/2011 10:12:32 PM 614 Views
that happened in the US, we elected Bush as a result - 25/08/2011 10:35:05 PM 463 Views
That's an interesting point... - 25/08/2011 10:37:37 PM 544 Views
Re: that happened in the US, we elected Bush as a result - 25/08/2011 10:55:29 PM 564 Views
I don't think most people believed Obama was a centrist so much as the anti-Bush - 26/08/2011 12:40:43 AM 489 Views
I think you'll find very few Europeans agreeing with that assessment. - 26/08/2011 10:18:19 PM 462 Views
It's also worth noting ... - 25/08/2011 11:00:35 PM 448 Views
Wow what a strawman - 25/08/2011 10:23:45 PM 635 Views
yes to bad none of that address the point I was making which would make your argument a strawman - 25/08/2011 10:40:01 PM 423 Views
No I do not believe they are needed, nor do I believe they should be desired - 25/08/2011 10:47:51 PM 613 Views
so you don't disagree with me or you do? - 25/08/2011 11:47:05 PM 561 Views
Ridiculous. Everyone knows conservatives are incapable of creativity. - 25/08/2011 11:12:10 PM 437 Views
are they going to make students prove they are GLBT? - 25/08/2011 11:36:58 PM 506 Views
I think it's less a failing of the "left"... - 26/08/2011 03:25:42 AM 561 Views
I agree there is a lot of fuzzy logic on the right as well - 26/08/2011 02:41:03 PM 502 Views
*nod* I don't deny that it's a problem - 26/08/2011 04:26:56 PM 616 Views
a question for you... - 26/08/2011 08:08:10 PM 656 Views

Reply to Message