The endless republican debates have had me thinking for sometime about the differences between what it takes to succeed in debate (or at least, what it takes to be perceived as having "won" by the media and online communities) and the entirely different skill set (IMO) it takes to govern successfully. Ideally, each should demand equal amounts of persuasion, although in the current sound bite culture, rhetoric triumphs over argument. Governing may require both, and certainly the president should take advantage of his bully pulpit. Uniquely, however, governance requires compromise, a trait debates do nothing to nurture. Obama has been an object lesson: lofty rhetoric, but as evidenced by his outsourcing of much of his agenda to democrats in congress, virtual indifference to the nuts and bolts of running a large, unwieldy federal enterprise. Much has been made of Obama "extending a hand" to his opposition, but it's hard to take this argument seriously when the president famously reminded republicans "I won" within a few weeks of his inauguration. I have many of the same concerns about Newt. I admire his resolute defense of American Exceptionalism and conservative principles, and the way he has confronted his interlocutors in the media. I worry however about his tendency to the grandiose, and suspect that while the means may be different, the "command government" result, and resulting political polarization, would be the same. He is a great debater however, and there are many on the right who'd love to see Newt debate Obama, but prefer to see Mitt win the presidency. Mitt is something of the opposite case, he seems to view compromise as an end in itself, and it's hard to get a sense of what his real principals are. That said, he alone both recognizes what the problem is (spending/deficits/overgrown entitlement system), the threat it entails to the american economy, and possesses the skills and experience to fix what's broken. he's not my first choice, maybe not my second (i'm not immune to the siren calls of rhetoric), but ultimately he may be the best hope we have.
two more thoughts in the same vein- George Will had an excellent piece in the WaPo today, talking about Obama's call for emulating the military in civilian life. read the whole thing, but this graph is on point: The armed services’ ethos, although noble, is not a template for civilian society, unless the aspiration is to extinguish politics. People marching in serried ranks, fused into a solid mass by the heat of martial ardor, proceeding in lock step, shoulder to shoulder, obedient to orders from a commanding officer — this is a recurring dream of progressives eager to dispense with tiresome persuasion and untidy dissension in a free, tumultuous society. Progressive presidents use martial language as a way of encouraging Americans to confuse civilian politics with military exertions, thereby circumventing an impediment to progressive aspirations — the Constitution and the patience it demands. 2nd, the ability to both frame the argument and then win it, followed by an ability to work with the opposition to find common ground, is one reason so many republicans have cast longing glances at Chris Christie. but, he's not running, and I'm not sure 2016 will be there for him either.
people will go up there and tell you whatever they think you want to hear. the way that these debates should be set up is with real-time feedback from the internet to pick out questions with more substance and also keep them accountable for the truthfulness of their answers/rebuttals.
george bush was a great debater i mean he could govern newt was pretty good at governing with his ethics and all hating vs. accepting you would be much better off choosing the alternative, i worry about you
obama can't govern he killed bin laden and got the biggest piece of legislation passed in the last sixty years he must have just stayed at a holiday inn express
i'll keep bumping because this is full of hilarity. you on the last choice's jock. you all of sudden caring about deficits when you rode dick's jock. deficits don't matter. but romney my last choice understands deficits. austerity has worked out for europeans btw. there's you guys' model.
He didn't kill OBL, Seal Team 6 did, and OCare is a massive klusterfooken, that will make care worse, more expensive, and, further worsen the deficit. I'm sure he'll runon them anyway.
hahaha "Reagen didn't lower taxes, the IRS did." or should I say "Obama didn't lower taxes, the IRS did."
"Nixon didn't cause Watergate, Everette Howard Hunt, Jr. did." "Carter didn't excaberate the Iranian hostage crisis, Delta Force did." "Bush wasn't responsible for the failure of national security on 9/11/2011, the CIA was!" this needs to become a meme. too funny.
I love it how conservative think that cutting spending in a bad economy is somehow a smart idea when recent history shows the exact opposite. It's like they have their head stuck in sand. And then there is Romney, who wants to cut taxes even more to further increase the deficit. If Romney wins, he's going to set us back further than Bush did.
I'm shocked to see basso can post entire paragraphs. I was expecting a sentence fragment when I clicked on the thread. basso, one of the reasons you don't think Obama can govern is because you really, really, really don't want to think Obama can govern. Another reason is because you're not paying attention to anything other than agenda driven folks who have an interest in pretending Obama can't govern. Yet another reason is because most of the national press is concerned with politics and not government. Did you see he wants to combine some redundant agencies? Did you notice he has changed FEMA for the better and improved the opinion of FEMA within the Federal and state governments? Auto industry rescue? Race to the Top? START Treaty? Advanced Manufacturing Partnership? Community college grants? Student loan reform? VA mental health care reform? Youth education and job reform? I could go on, but what's the point?
I too was surprised to see fully fleshed-out thoughts in paragraph form -- mostly well-written to boot! I almost thought I should give him the benefit of the doubt and answer thoughtfully... But then I look at basso's usual posts and sentence fragments, and I'm thinking he didn't write this. I'd expect no less from the king of copy'n'paste!
Lmao, this is the first thing I thought of when I opened the thread -- but I wasn't disappointed (of course) when he linked a random opinion article that vaguely supported his position (herp v. derp).
Dang Batman, thanks for highlighting my capitalization error. Stupid old eyes didn't catch it until it covered my screen.
There is an easy explanation for that. http://news.yahoo.com/low-iq-conservative-beliefs-linked-prejudice-180403506.html
