• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2012 Community Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
In Aaron Strife land maybe.
In Aaron Strife land, as the economy improves and Romney continues being a dumbass, Obama will get re-elected with a more comfortable margin than most pundits are predicting now (Mondale actually led Reagan in many polls leading up to the '84 election). If the jobs keep coming through Obama's second term and he can get some good legislation out of Congress (which may or may not be controlled by Republicans), he could leave behind a legacy similar to Reagan's where Democrats will evoke his name at every opportunity, and use his policies as an ideological blueprint for the next 20-30 years.

But you're right, this isn't Aaron Strife land, this is PoliGAF land, where Mitt Romney is a charismatic, moderate Republican Jesus who will crush Obama because

a) eurozone
b) world war iii
c) jobs will stop getting better for no reason
d) all of the above
e) CHRIS CHRISTIE?

For as irrationally optimistic (FEINGOLD 2010) as I can be, I don't think predicting Obama's second term to be a successful one is too outrageous. Especially compared to "hur dur obama's going to lose michigan pennsylvania WILL MINNESOTA BE A TOSS-UP STATE?" that you see here occasionally and in the media frequently.

Also Rasmussen has Obama up on Romney 49-42, with an approval of 50-48. I think we're getting to that point now where Obama is a slight favorite at worst.

PhoenixDark said:
You guys are acting like this was an Obama ad lol, come on now Aaron Strife be a reasonable man
Not an Obama ad, but sure reminiscent of one. I'm sure Plouffe/Axelrod are taking notes.
 
427073_234854496600358_194983953920746_519346_36982404_n.jpg


this is not a photoshop
 
Found this gold from Nov 18, 2008

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html

Mitt Romney Op-ED in NYT times called "Let Detroit go bankrupt'

IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.

Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course — the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check.

I love cars, American cars. I was born in Detroit, the son of an auto chief executive. In 1954, my dad, George Romney, was tapped to run American Motors when its president suddenly died. The company itself was on life support — banks were threatening to deal it a death blow. The stock collapsed. I watched Dad work to turn the company around — and years later at business school, they were still talking about it. From the lessons of that turnaround, and from my own experiences, I have several prescriptions for Detroit’s automakers.

First, their huge disadvantage in costs relative to foreign brands must be eliminated. That means new labor agreements to align pay and benefits to match those of workers at competitors like BMW, Honda, Nissan and Toyota. Furthermore, retiree benefits must be reduced so that the total burden per auto for domestic makers is not higher than that of foreign producers.

That extra burden is estimated to be more than $2,000 per car. Think what that means: Ford, for example, needs to cut $2,000 worth of features and quality out of its Taurus to compete with Toyota’s Avalon. Of course the Avalon feels like a better product — it has $2,000 more put into it. Considering this disadvantage, Detroit has done a remarkable job of designing and engineering its cars. But if this cost penalty persists, any bailout will only delay the inevitable.

Second, management as is must go. New faces should be recruited from unrelated industries — from companies widely respected for excellence in marketing, innovation, creativity and labor relations.

The new management must work with labor leaders to see that the enmity between labor and management comes to an end. This division is a holdover from the early years of the last century, when unions brought workers job security and better wages and benefits. But as Walter Reuther, the former head of the United Automobile Workers, said to my father, “Getting more and more pay for less and less work is a dead-end street.”

You don’t have to look far for industries with unions that went down that road. Companies in the 21st century cannot perpetuate the destructive labor relations of the 20th. This will mean a new direction for the U.A.W., profit sharing or stock grants to all employees and a change in Big Three management culture.

The need for collaboration will mean accepting sanity in salaries and perks. At American Motors, my dad cut his pay and that of his executive team, he bought stock in the company, and he went out to factories to talk to workers directly. Get rid of the planes, the executive dining rooms — all the symbols that breed resentment among the hundreds of thousands who will also be sacrificing to keep the companies afloat.

Investments must be made for the future. No more focus on quarterly earnings or the kind of short-term stock appreciation that means quick riches for executives with options. Manage with an eye on cash flow, balance sheets and long-term appreciation. Invest in truly competitive products and innovative technologies — especially fuel-saving designs — that may not arrive for years. Starving research and development is like eating the seed corn.

Just as important to the future of American carmakers is the sales force. When sales are down, you don’t want to lose the only people who can get them to grow. So don’t fire the best dealers, and don’t crush them with new financial or performance demands they can’t meet.

It is not wrong to ask for government help, but the automakers should come up with a win-win proposition. I believe the federal government should invest substantially more in basic research — on new energy sources, fuel-economy technology, materials science and the like — that will ultimately benefit the automotive industry, along with many others. I believe Washington should raise energy research spending to $20 billion a year, from the $4 billion that is spent today. The research could be done at universities, at research labs and even through public-private collaboration. The federal government should also rectify the imbedded tax penalties that favor foreign carmakers.

But don’t ask Washington to give shareholders and bondholders a free pass — they bet on management and they lost.

The American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing. A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.

In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check.

Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, was a candidate for this year’s Republican presidential nomination.
 
"Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" (so the executives can bust the unions and bone the shareholders before pulling the cords on their golden parachutes)
 

ToxicAdam

Member


Romney seemed pretty on-point with all of his remedies though.

Alot of those ideas were included in the GM restructuring plan (firing management, restructuring union workers contracts to make cars more profitable, encouraging/redirecting investment into more fuel-efficient cars).

Seems like Romney was more concerned with just a cash handout to the CEO's without any strings attached. Hard to fault him for disapproving of that.
 
never know, they could still rally when GE finally starts:

It was the great wildcard going into the 2012 election cycle. Republican Party insiders openly worried the Tea Party might knock off the establishment presidential candidate, just as it knocked out establishment picks in the chaotic 2010 congressional races. Party heavyweights wondered whom the upstart movement would get behind and whether Mitt Romney could even get through the early states, given the once-raging Tea Party elements in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina.

But after months of wondering how the Tea Party would change the primary game, leaders inside the movement admit they never came in off the sidelines. For the Tea Party movement, the 2012 presidential primaries have been a bust.


“The Tea Party movement is dead. It’s gone,” says Chris Littleton, the cofounder of the Ohio Liberty Council, a statewide coalition of Tea Party groups in Ohio. “I think largely the Tea Party is irrelevant in the primaries. They aren’t passionate about any of the candidates, and if they are passionate, they’re for Ron Paul.”

Littleton is one of the many who have endorsed the Texas congressman; he blames the other GOP candidates for the lackluster energy they have generated in the grassroots that hosted a revolution two years ago.

“Not Romney” is the most popular candidate among his fellow activists, Littleton says, though no one can agree who “Not Romney” is. Without an agreement on that score, the real Romney has coasted to easy victories in New Hampshire, Florida, and Nevada, even winning a clean 50 percent of the Tea Party vote in Nevada on Saturday night while the other 50 percent split themselves among Paul, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum.

Mark Meckler, founder of the Tea Party Patriots, the nation’s largest Tea Party coalition, also says the Tea Party isn’t playing a role in picking the nominee. But that is by choice, not by accident, he says.

“The real Tea Party movement is not a political party, it’s a movement,” he says. “How can a movement endorse anybody? It really can’t.”

One possible reason for the lack of consensus: Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum have each committed what most in the movement consider original sins against constitutional freedom or fiscal sanity. Gingrich and Romney both supported the TARP bank bailout in 2008, as well as individual mandates in health insurance years earlier. Santorum, the most socially conservative of the three, voted for the “Bridge to Nowhere,” among other massive earmarks, during his time in the Senate.

“No candidate is perfect,” Meckler says. “Candidates will make mistakes. I don’t want to see the movement associated with those kinds of mistakes. I support ideas, not people.”

If the Tea Party could get behind one person and call it a day, leaders in the movement say someone like Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina, Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, or Sen. Rand Paul, son of you-know-who, could capture the imagination of activists and breathe some life into their languishing presidential hopes. Even Gov. Bobby Jindal’s name comes up as someone the Tea Parties could get behind at a brokered convention, a once-fanciful idea that comes up in more and more conversations with still-pining members of the GOP base.

But Meckler and Littleton both rightly make the point that while the Tea Parties may not be dictating who the candidate is this year, they certainly have dictated the issues the candidates are talking about and what they are saying, particularly in the area of fiscal restraint, free-market capitalism, and the virtues of the Tea Party’s favorite historical document, the U.S. Constitution.

In the ultimate compliment in presidential politics, the GOP field seems to be in a daily contest to impress Tea Party voters. You’re cutting spending? I’ll cut it more. You’re stopping earmarks? I’ve never even voted for one!

At the state and local levels, Tea Parties remain highly engaged in ballot initiatives and Senate races and congressional contests. The Ohio movement won a victory in a “health-care freedom” bill in the 2011 elections. Other Tea Parties around the country say they’re focused on statewide efforts against public employee unions or health-care mandates.

But without a consensus around one candidate and no leader at the top of a unified Tea Party to call on the troops to get behind one candidate, the person the GOP is likely to nominate may be the one least able to make the Tea Party happy: Mitt Romney.


Littleton says Nominee Romney would be greeted by Tea Partiers with something between skepticism and disgust. A stronger disgust with President Obama would likely send Tea Partiers to the polls to vote for whoever the GOP nominee is, Littleton adds, but would not translate to the kind of shape-shifting energy the Tea Party delivered in 2010.

And what if Romney is elected but does not deliver on his promises, as so many Tea Partiers fear?

That’s simple to predict, says Littleton. “All hell will break loose.”
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...movement-fizzled-in-2012-s-gop-primaries.html
 

Measley

Junior Member
WOW. That's the biggest surprise of this particular poll. This is probably the first time I've ever seen a poll that has any democrat with such a tremendous lead (if any lead at all!) in national security.

Somewhere out there is a very depressed Bill Kristol sitting on the toilet with a gun in his mouth.

I know a lot of pundits say that Osama Bin Ladin and Ghaddafi getting killed under Obama's watch wont sway the election. I disagree though. I think it will sway the election in a significant way. A lot of folks just don't understand how much closure Bin Ladin's death bought to a lot of people. This is why the pullout from Iraq (and eventually Afghanistan) wasn't a huge deal. For many Americans, the war on terror was won when a navy seal put a bullet through Ladin's brain.

A very powerful line of Republican attack against Democrats was that the latter would keep America "less safe". You just can't make that argument anymore. Obama's foreign policy and military successes eclipse Bush's by a large margin.
 

GhaleonEB

Member
Romney seemed pretty on-point with all of his remedies though.

Alot of those ideas were included in the GM restructuring plan (firing management, restructuring union workers contracts to make cars more profitable, encouraging/redirecting investment into more fuel-efficient cars).

Seems like Romney was more concerned with just a cash handout to the CEO's without any strings attached. Hard to fault him for disapproving of that.

A key part of Romney's argument was that the government should not have invested so directly in the companies, which he argued in his op-ed. That's the line he's been walking, trying to claim both credit for Obama's approach while disapproving of a critical reason for its success.

Mitt Romney, debating Republican presidential rivals in Michigan last night, defended his opposition to a government bailout that saved tens of thousands of jobs at Chrysler Group LLC and General Motors Co. (GM)

Instead of a government intervention, the former Massachusetts governor and Michigan native said, the companies should have immediately entered into private sector bankruptcies. “My view with regards to the bailout was that, whether it was by President Bush or by President Obama, it was the wrong way to go,” he said, during the event at Oakland University in Rochester, Michigan.

That is one of the key arguments underlying Romey's op-ed: the government should not bail them out, but rather facilitate the bankruptcy and invest in general industry research. But it would not have worked had the government not stepped in, since they could not arrange private financing. He's trying to have it both ways, opposing the government's role while trying to take credit for its success.
 

Particle Physicist

between a quark and a baryon
A key part of Romney's argument was that the government should not have invested so directly in the companies, which he argued in his op-ed. That's the line he's been walking, trying to claim both credit for Obama's approach while disapproving of a critical reason for its success.



That is one of the key arguments underlying Romey's op-ed: the government should not bail them out, but rather facilitate the bankruptcy and invest in general industry research. But it would not have worked had the government not stepped in, since they could not arrange private financing. He's trying to have it both ways, opposing the government's role while trying to take credit for its success.


Yup, planar1280 bolded the line where he flat out says this:

IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.

'Romney was wrong about GM, and he is wrong about the economy.'
 

Miletius

Member
Just another reason why Michigan is safe territory for Democrats this year.

A coalition of black ministers in Detroit called Monday for U.S. Senate candidate Pete Hoekstra to apologize for his Super Bowl ad featuring a young Asian woman speaking broken English to describe the impact of the Democratic incumbent's economic policies.

The request came a day after an Asian-American group called the ad "very disturbing."

The Michigan Republican began taking heat after his ad targeting Democratic incumbent Debbie Stabenow as "Debbie Spenditnow" ran statewide Sunday during the Super Bowl. Some detractors said the ad was racially insensitive, while national GOP consultant Mike Murphy tweeted that it was "really, really dumb." Foreign Policy magazine managing editor Blake Hounshell called the ad "despicable....."

Read more at the link. I don't really see how anybody running for office could think that this kind of ad is a good idea. If it isn't viewed as explicitly racist by Hoekstra, it will certainly be viewed that way by a segment of the public.
 

ToxicAdam

Member
'Romney was wrong about GM, and he is wrong about the economy.'


The caveat was if things (as of 2008) remained as is. That's what his op-ed was about, that the way they did business had to change.

So, I don't think Mitt was wrong to say that the companies were doomed (if they were just handed money and left to their own devices).

Ghal said:
A key part of Romney's argument was that the government should not have invested so directly in the companies, which he argued in his op-ed

No doubt, he was taking some kind of free-market, 'principled' stand on the issue, but I was just commenting that all of his remedies were pretty good.

He's trying to have it both ways,

I'm seeing a pattern develop here with Mitt ...
 

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage

ToxicAdam

Member
Minnesota has always baffled me. It has been home to some of the most liberal, progressive politicians in America, yet has also produced people like Michelle Bachmann.

Now, it looks like Santorum is polling well ...

PPP said:
Rick Santorum holds a small edge over Mitt Romney, 29% to 27%, with Newt Gingrich at 22% and Ron Paul at 19%.
 
Minnesota has always baffled me. It has been home to some of the most liberal, progressive politicians in America, yet has also produced people like Michelle Bachmann.

Now, it looks like Santorum is polling well ...

On one hand it's a traditional manufacturing state that goes blue, on the other hand the loudest areas are hardcore extremists, such as Bachman's Evangelical district...
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/one-towns-war-on-gay-teens-20120202#ixzz1lIN3xWgp
 
Seriously Guys I am becoming afraid of Romney now...over 33,000 GOP members caucased all over Nevada with Romney winning an Astounding 16000+ . Can he really build on the momentum?!
 
Minnesota has always baffled me. It has been home to some of the most liberal, progressive politicians in America, yet has also produced people like Michelle Bachmann.

Now, it looks like Santorum is polling well ...
Don't forget, they also had Jesse Ventura as governor and have Al Franken as US senator. Weirdos.
 
The music, the accent, the sun set...lol

He's a well known pos here in Michigan, and now the rest of the country gets to know too. I doubt he was going to be Stabenow anyway
 

AlteredBeast

Fork 'em, Sparky!
I would love for there to be a Politifact for talk radio hosts.

If I had unlimited time, money, and resources, that is all I would do.

I absolutely detest Mark Levin, Laura Ingraham, and this new chick I heard on the last couple weekends, Monica Crowley, is possibly the worst. The amount of misinformation, outright lies, and fear that they spread is so utterly detestable. It would be nice to inform their audiences, through some clever hacking courtesy of Anonymous or some other hacking group to gain email distribution lists, about how much absolute garbage they preach.

I get angry listening to most of them, while still enjoying a couple others, because of how inane and hostile they are, especially as a real conservative. They are making all conservatives look like dirt bags.
 

AlteredBeast

Fork 'em, Sparky!
That's Dr. Monica Crowley to you (she's a PhD)

Wow. better be an honorary PhD from some borderline fake university run by evangelicals, because otherwise, I will finally give in to the fact that the higher education in America is as bad as primary and secondary.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom