Wow . . . I liked Romney. I didn't find him warm, but he did come across as competent and I thought he was just the kind of president we needed at this time. Biut let's face it, he was running against an incumbent which history would say the odds were against him (or any other rebuplican candidate). If you are a republican star in the making, you wait till the next election to have a much better chance of winning. As for the bet, I'm still game for naming a time at a bar . . . where of course I'll be buying drinks for whoever shows up.
IF you think Romney would have made any real changes in this area then you have some astonishingly large blinders on. The current political system in broken and the only real change will occur once campaign reforms are actually in place
I hope you realize that this goes both ways. My parents have voted republican every election since they were allowed to vote. You want to know the reason? Abortion. They vote for the republican every time who is Pro-life. Has any of those presidents ever been able to change the law in regards to Roe V. Wade? Hell no. But they still voted for them. That is the definition of a wasted vote. And as a liberal, Obama hasn't exactly knocked my socks off, I could recognize the danger of a Romney presidency. His stance on gay rights, women's rights, and abortion are just things I could not condone. I was actually scared about his possible presidency, and living in "inner South East Portland", I wasn't alone. Call that a wasted vote if you want. But, Willard would have set gay/women's rights back by about 40 years.....and especially given the probable supreme court additions coming up. I definitely feel like I spent my vote wisely. Now, as some have brought up, if there was someone who was about fiscal policies but didn't live in a time warp as far as social issues, it might make me think.
I just get tired of the US government being controlled by OPEC! Stop being pussy whipped ! Drop our gas prices !
I can understand the fear you were feeling. His stance on abortion, gay rights, and women's rights was definitely concerning to me as well, but the President only has so much power. That's why checks and balances exist. I doubt he could have gotten rid of Roe V Wade or set back gay rights. Then again, with a Republican controlled House or Senate, anything is possible.
Gay Marriage: should have absolutely nothing to do with the government. Personally I have always felt there should be a clear separation between marriage and civil union. One has to do with religion, the other has to do with taxes. Abortion: I personally do not like abortions, and would be pretty upset if my fiancee decided to get one, but again I do not think the government should get involved. Marijuana: For fucks sake this has been such a waste of money. It's not worse than booze, and our country has wasted billions on trying to fight it, and incarcerate people for using it/selling it. Such a waste of time and money. Just legalize the shit and save some cash. Meth and heroine are another story, but even then I think they should be legalized and regulated. We haven't stopped anyone from using these drugs. We are only promoting organized crime and wasting money on trying to incarcerate the people who use and sell it. Just stupid.
I think the Republicans have come to a fork in the road where they have to make a choice: be the party of small government, or embrace the Christian Right? I think conservatism will never die out, because it's partially a personality type in humanity (as is liberalism), but parties and party identities can die out. Right now, the Republicans are diluting their small government message with a lot of social conservatism that, more and more, consists of issues that are political losers. In the past, being for legislating away rights to gay marriage and abortion, for example, could win you more votes. Polls show that the majority of the American people are either now against such legislating away of right or will be soon. It's also contradictory to the message of small government...it can correctly be characterized as "Small government except for the things we don't like." I think a conservative party that ditches the deep social conservatism and sticks to fiscal conservatism will do strongly. When people say the country is "center-right," it's now important to qualify that: it's center-right on fiscal issues but more and more center-left on social issues. Democrats are probably more left of the population on fiscal issues, but Republicans are currently too far to the right of the population on social issues and trending away from the population. If they continue that path, they'll marginalize themselves. It'll still play in deep south states, but it won't win national elections. I don't know if the Republican party will realize this in time for 2016. The GOP primary season took a guy who governed as moderate Republican in Massachusetts and forced him to run to right of every lunatic (read: Rick Santorum, Rick Perry) in the primary in order to win. If the GOP keeps doing that, they'll keep losing national elections. At some point, either the Republican party will change to focus on fiscal issues while ditching the social conservatism baggage or else a new conservative party will arise who does. Personally, I find the current Republican party repugnant, but I don't find fiscal conservativism repugnant. While I'm obviously much to the left of the center, I think the Republicans have a similar problem, to a lesser extent, with a lot of people in the nation.
You hit the nail on the head. Good to see you post again Minstrel. Count me as one who doesn't think the GOP will get their shit together anytime soon.
funny. Read Minstrel's post. The Tea Party is solely about fiscal conservatism. In other words, they're the hope for the party. What is needed is for the party establishment to embrace it instead of fighting it. To put up the best fiscally conservative candidates and back them, instead of backing their own candidates who lose to amateurs.
The party establishment will become the party of "me-too". The Tea Party will merge with the Libertarians and we'll field third party people who won't stand a chance. The GOP will massively moderate and field candidates who look like Bill Clinton. We made a decision last night. We want socialism. We're choosing dependency over opportunity. And it will be a fun ride. People will get lots of "free" shit and not have to work. The part about the ride they don't tell you is the crash. We're Slim Pickens riding a nuclear warhead at the end of Dr. Strangelove.
We didn't choose socialism. We chose harsh regulations on things that make us prosper, big deficits, a mind boggling debt, 4 more years of malaise, and what's looking like a stock market bubble that will be blamed on bush.
Yeah, "Bush fucked things up so badly that none of the Keynesian strategies we tried over and over seemed to work."
And to a big degree this is about as condescending as it gets. You blame the election results on women because we voted on his looks and not the real issues. Here's the reality, I paid my way through college and graduated, I bought my own house, I have a 4 year old car with no car payment, I have my own mutual funds and retirement account. All of this without any financial assistance from a man... this is ALL ME. So, the reality for me is... I need a good job just as bad as every man in here. Do you think I'm going to look at Mitt and his "binders of women" and say, "Yeah, that guy can turn the economy around and he wants me to thrive"? He believes I can't even get into heaven unless I marry, become subordinate, and wear special undies. I do not want this asshole making decisions about my life because he thinks I'm inferior. I voted based on all the issues, including the economy, and how it affects me! It wasn't a damn beauty contest.
