2012 election | Golden Skate

2012 election

skateluvr

Record Breaker
Joined
Oct 23, 2011
First thread?????? Well, Ma has the first woman senator to send to the senate ever from MA. It took til 2012. In 1984 Geraldine Ferraro was the first female VP candidate. It did not happen again until darah Palin ran in 2008, Both unsucessful bids. There is a huge need to turn leadership from testosterone driven to estrogen with a touch of testosterone. We do not have enough women to change the tenor of hatred in DC and break up the old boy network. Scott Brown, not a bad guy is conceeding. I can't imagine anyone much craes in the US tonight here about FS or GP assignments.

I am surprised to find no political threads and very little how are the NJ and NY people voting. Please people, tell us what is new and historic in this state of yours. It seems it will be an all nighter with the Presidential election. All I know is Republicans must take Ohio to win, and every Repub Prez that has won the whitehouse, has taken Ohio. I guess that means Bush I and Bush 2 twice and Reagan and Nixon since the 70's Who am I missing?

I imagine many others around the world watch the returns with great interest. I beg God to return, as we in the US are in trouble. We are no longer the leaders in the world in anything, and we have lost our moral compass that lead the world in ethics, and the dream of a middle class where most do well, and few are rich and few are poor. We have lost what made us the dream country to live in, and others take our place. The winner will have 16 trillion in debt, a fractured in half electorate and a DC divided and vitriolic-more than any time in history. I was hoping for a resounding beating of the Koch funded tea bagger millionaires that took cotnrol in 2010 and blocked all compromise, all legislation to help the middle class. They seemed to hate this president so thoroughly and it was obvious his skin color was a part of it. Sad to say, but so true. I was surprised at comments four years ago. We have a not so rich lawyer up against a very rich lawyer with an elevator in his La Jolla garage. He has done well at debates and gotten many confused, fed up folks to give him a chance. He may win...electorally he is ahead with all the swing states seemingly swinging. He was my governor and he flip flops like crazy and he scares me as I do not know who he is (right now -today even_. Obama may not be exciting anymore but he has been consistent on the issues, when he takes a stand. B for honesty but C for leadership. He tried to conciliate and he seems to have not believed the caucus who said in 2008 to the cameras-"we'll do what it takes to get him out," And they have done it all. We will see. I am not staying up all night. Any exciting news from your state-like first time female senators? That gives me hope. When you educate a woman, you change a family. Hillary, I wish you were not retiring. She has been among the best stateswomen of all time. I was surprised then proud. Women unite!

Until we get back three words on our goods we have a poor, sad future.

"Made in America" from paper clips to clothes, to commodities.

I still see the youth do not get it. Mfg is not old hat...it 's for the masses, as high tech is for the few. May God Bless America and weigh in from your state if your are bored of the topics in the edge...not much going on there tonight. Women will change the world because we are about love, more than power. It is a shame so few will wander into the political fray which is so dark at present. If there is a God, we so need him now, regardless who has the crown for 4 years. Amen.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Thanks for the link to the speech. I had just radio, and I fell asleep before the speech. Congratulations to President Obama!

I hope that now everyone can work together for the common good.

I'm listening to the speech now. It's wonderful. One thing Obama says is so significant: right now, there are people in parts of the world who are risking their lives for the privilege of being able to argue about issues that matter to them. At the moment in this country, the two sides are so contentious, and sometimes we get a bit fed up by it. But in one way, all this yelling is the indication of something wonderful. We don't all have to think the same thing! Many people don't realize how astonishing a privilege that is. While I hope we also retain the capacity to listen to one another, just being able to speak out fearlessly is a wonderful thing to have and to witness. I know that we're not the only country where such a right exists, and I give thanks for all places where people enjoy that privilege. But today, I hope you will all pardon me if I give special thanks for its existence in America.
 
Last edited:

MoonlightSkater

On the Ice
Joined
May 17, 2011
I hope that now everyone can work together for the common good.

The problem is that the country is nearly cleanly divided on what would actually be for the common good. With the house still controlled by Republicans I expect a very contentious couple of years. I confess that I am glad there will be a lot of debate! Laws get shoved through too easily when they are not discussed sufficiently. The attitude that we should pass a bill and then read it later should not be accepted.

Edit to add: A mostly neutral column that illustrates some of the difficulty currently facing legislators: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/332753/two-americas-michael-barone#
 
Last edited:

Mrs. P

Uno, Dos, twizzle!
Record Breaker
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
The problem is that the country is nearly cleanly divided on what would actually be for the common good. With the house still controlled by Republicans I expect a very contentious couple of years. I confess that I am glad there will be a lot of debate! Laws get shoved through too easily when they are not discussed sufficiently. The attitude that we should pass a bill and then read it later should not be accepted.

Edit to add: A mostly neutral column that illustrates some of the difficulty currently facing legislators: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/332753/two-americas-michael-barone#

Thanks for posting that; I thought it was a thoughtful piece. I just shared it with my FB friends (trying to keep my political posts informative and relatively non-partisan). It is a bit disheartening to me; I have friends and family who are on both sides of the fence and I have grown weary of the memes, slapstick and mockery that is replacing thoughtful dialogue and debate.

But yes Moonlight, I'm still glad there is going to be some debate, no one view should be rejected or dismissed.
 

colleen o'neill

Medalist
Joined
Nov 3, 2006
Congratulations from north of the border (I was glued to my TV, too )..especially to all those women, and particularly Elizabeth Warren !

Woo-hoo !
 

dorispulaski

Wicked Yankee Girl
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Country
United-States
Even my Republican son voted for Elizabeth. (I also have a Democratic son) Republican son's vote this year was to vote against all incumbents--which included Scott Brown.

As to the country being evenly divided, an acquaintance remarked that this is an artifact of our 2 party system. If either party gets too much of a lead in any voting year, the other party shifts to accommodate, and we end up evenly split again.

On thinking about it, I suspect there's something to that.
 
Last edited:

Mrs. P

Uno, Dos, twizzle!
Record Breaker
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Even my Republican son voted for Elizabeth. (I also have a Democratic son) Republican son's vote this year was to vote against all incumbents--which included Scott Brown.

As to the country being evenly divided, an acquaintance remarked that this is an artifact of our 2 party system. If either party gets too much of a lead in any voting year, the other party shifts to accommodate, and we end up evenly split again.

On thinking about it, I suspect there's something to that.

Well the 2-party system isn't new, of course, nor is this divide, but it is a bit disconcerting how much more divided we are as a country and how polarizing those sides are. When one thinks about it Eisenhower probably would have not made it out of the Republican primary today, he would be accused of being a big spender and depending too much on government to solve problems. Ronald Reagan might as be a liberal in some people's eyes. At any given time 50 (or 49, rather) percent of the country is always unhappy about the state of our country. I'm part of the 1 percent (not that 1 percent) that sees validity in both sides, so I have a really hard time with the division. It makes it really hard to have a proper conversation.

My husband tends to vote against incumbents as well. He feels people should not make a career out of politics.
 
Last edited:

MoonlightSkater

On the Ice
Joined
May 17, 2011
Well the 2-party system isn't new, of course, nor is this divide, but it is a bit disconcerting how much more divided we are as a country and how polarizing those sides are. When one thinks about it Eisenhower probably would have not made it out of the Republican primary today, he would be accused of being a big spender and depending too much on government to solve problems. Ronald Reagan might as be a liberal in some people's eyes. At any given time 50 (or 49, rather) percent of the country is always unhappy about the state of our country. I'm part of the 1 percent (not that 1 percent) that sees validity in both sides, so I have a really hard time with the division. It makes it really hard to have a proper conversation.

My husband tends to vote against incumbents as well. He feels people should not make a career out of politics.

I'm a socially and economically conservative environmentalist libertarian who is in the middle on foreign policy...... I usually see good points and bad points to every candidate. That said, I tended to go the economically conservative route this time around.

I do tend to think that a Reagan-style conservative might have had a chance because even though he was very conservative politically (after switching in the mid-60s to Republican), he was very, very likeable, and I'm sure that helped him. Romney's biggest failing may have been to come across as not being so likeable, and Obama's greatest campaign success may have been the character assasination of his opponent. Some of the debates struck me as very much like a high school popularity contest instead of an actual debate. Lots of rhetoric with very little actual substance.
 

Mrs. P

Uno, Dos, twizzle!
Record Breaker
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
I'm a socially and economically conservative environmentalist libertarian who is in the middle on foreign policy...... I usually see good points and bad points to every candidate. That said, I tended to go the economically conservative route this time around.

I do tend to think that a Reagan-style conservative might have had a chance because even though he was very conservative politically (after switching in the mid-60s to Republican), he was very, very likeable, and I'm sure that helped him. Romney's biggest failing may have been to come across as not being so likeable, and Obama's greatest campaign success may have been the character assasination of his opponent. Some of the debates struck me as very much like a high school popularity contest instead of an actual debate. Lots of rhetoric with very little actual substance.

ITA.

I did not vote for Romney (or Obama, for that matter, went third party), but I do feel that the reduction of him to these memes (47 percent, binders full of women, etc, greedy rich man who evades taxes) did hurt him. On the other hand Obama gained this meme as a fresh,edge and hipster president (being on Reddit or witty Tumbler posts) that really helped him get key votes, namely the youth vote.

In the end, I found that both candidates and their policies did not really stand out. They are both more centralist the either side acknowledges, which makes the division even more irritating.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
I'm a socially and economically conservative environmentalist libertarian who is in the middle on foreign policy...... I usually see good points and bad points to every candidate. That said, I tended to go the economically conservative route this time around.

I do tend to think that a Reagan-style conservative might have had a chance because even though he was very conservative politically (after switching in the mid-60s to Republican), he was very, very likeable, and I'm sure that helped him. Romney's biggest failing may have been to come across as not being so likeable, and Obama's greatest campaign success may have been the character assasination of his opponent. Some of the debates struck me as very much like a high school popularity contest instead of an actual debate. Lots of rhetoric with very little actual substance.

I'm sorry to say that's not new either. I have a strong memory of George H.W. Bush saying in the debate that Michael Dukakis "won't say the Pledge of Allegiance." What kind of silly taunt is that? And Bush was perhaps the most qualified presidential candidate, in terms of range of public service job experience, of the last 60 years and more--he certainly didn't need to resort to that. So this is kind of the way debates have moved in recent history. I'm sorry to see it coming from both sides. My favorite debater of recent times has been Bill Clinton, who manages to keep the debate on substance whenever he talks. (I'm not talking about whether you agree with him politically, which I happen to do. He's just great at using information to make a point.) I voted for Obama, but I think he's not a sterling debater at all. And Romney probably is, coming as he does from the business world. I wonder whether the advent of televised debates was what lowered the standard. Candidates feel they have to come up with zingers that stay in viewers' minds.
 

Tonichelle

Idita-Rock-n-Roll
Record Breaker
Joined
Jun 27, 2003
I think it comes down more to the fact that these guys all have writers that do all the work for them... so they just "ad lib" as much to choose which line to put where. But debates have ALWAYS been ugly for president. We just have more access to it.
 

Mrs. P

Uno, Dos, twizzle!
Record Breaker
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
I'm sorry to say that's not new either. I have a strong memory of George H.W. Bush saying in the debate that Michael Dukakis "won't say the Pledge of Allegiance." What kind of silly taunt is that? And Bush was perhaps the most qualified presidential candidate, in terms of range of public service job experience, of the last 60 years and more--he certainly didn't need to resort to that. So this is kind of the way debates have moved in recent history. I'm sorry to see it coming from both sides. My favorite debater of recent times has been Bill Clinton, who manages to keep the debate on substance whenever he talks. (I'm not talking about whether you agree with him politically, which I happen to do. He's just great at using information to make a point.) I voted for Obama, but I think he's not a sterling debater at all. And Romney probably is, coming as he does from the business world. I wonder whether the advent of televised debates was what lowered the standard. Candidates feel they have to come up with zingers that stay in viewers' minds.

LOL, you have a point, Olympia -- jabs in debates have always been around.

I guess what stands out to me is that clearly these two don't respect each at AT ALL. I would even argue that they absolutely despite each other. And unfortunately, that has extended to their supporters. I am actually so happy to get civil dialogue on Golden Skate cause my Facebook feed has been t-o-x-i-c! Thanks GS friends!

For the record, I do agree with you about Bill Clinton. He was always well-spoken and I think looking back, I think Republicans have some respect for the guy (with a grumble, of course). I love this piece from The Atlantic about what Bill Clinton was given for his speech for the DNC and what he actually wrote: http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/09/what-bill-clinton-said-vs-what-he-wrote/56562/

As a writer, I appreciate anyone who knows how to write well, regardless of his or her politics.
 
Last edited:

Tonichelle

Idita-Rock-n-Roll
Record Breaker
Joined
Jun 27, 2003
depends on where you are in the US... a lot of Alaskan reps and dems alike aren't keen on Clinton (mainly because he let Gore taint his judgement where we're concerned).

I think there's a respect for each other when it comes to Obama and romney, but more for their skills than each other as a human being.
 

Mrs. P

Uno, Dos, twizzle!
Record Breaker
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
depends on where you are in the US... a lot of Alaskan reps and dems alike aren't keen on Clinton (mainly because he let Gore taint his judgement where we're concerned).

I think there's a respect for each other when it comes to Obama and romney, but more for their skills than each other as a human being.

I don't know, Tonichelle. I watched that second debate and it was vicious. It felt more like two people hating each other hurling insults at each other than an actual debate.
 

Tonichelle

Idita-Rock-n-Roll
Record Breaker
Joined
Jun 27, 2003
I think both understood how to get under teh other's collar... as I said I don't think they liked each other, but I think they respected each brought skills to the table.

I didn't watch the debates because the vitrol each side spews does nothing to tell the truth of policies... it's more like recess antics by children.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Yes, it is like children's recess taunts. It might be that debating is a craft, and most pols actually don't know how to do it. (I had a friend who was on her college debating team. Real debaters are devotees of the science.) These guys' approximation of debating is kind of like Caroline Zhang's approximation of a triple lutz. (And you know I love Caroline, but she isn't known for her jump technique.) The real thing is very different from the slash-and-burn we so often see. You have to be very fast off the mark to be good at it, as Clinton is and before him John Kennedy. You also have to be unafraid of the unexpected moment. There was a charming moment during an earlier primary cycle, when John McCain (this was not in the 2008 season, when he was the candidate--it may have been in 2000) was asked whether he'd keep Alan Greenspan as the head of the Federal Reserve. He said, not only would he keep Greenspan, but if anything happened to Greenspan, he'd prop him up like the corpse in Weekend at Bernie's so it looked as if Greenspan were still heading the Fed. It was funny, human, and indicative of what McCain actually believed about economic policy.

Actually, one of the best debates in recent years was the vice-presidential debate between Dick Cheney and Joseph Lieberman. Both of them were respectful and cogent. Most people who watched felt they learned a lot. I supported one and not the other, but I felt I was listening to a reasonable discussion of why each was running for office.

As for Romney and character assassination, I didn't cast my vote because I thought Romney was a terrible character, so if any attempted smirching was done, it didn't work with me. I voted for Obama because about what Romney said about himself and his policies. I don't believe that an unrestrained free market is a good thing, and, paradoxically, it doesn't benefit capitalism. One of the great worries I have about modern society is the huge differential between the salary of an ordinary worker and the salary of the head of a corporation. I think the ratio is something like 1:125, and that kind of inequality is inherently destabilizing. I don't resent the rich, but that particular kind of imbalance of resources and power is not healthy in the long run.
 
Last edited:

Mrs. P

Uno, Dos, twizzle!
Record Breaker
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Yes, it is like children's recess taunts. It might be that debating is a craft, and most pols actually don't know how to do it. (I had a friend who was on her college debating team. Real debaters are devotees of the science.) These guys' approximation of debating is kind of like Caroline Zhang's approximation of a triple lutz. (And you know I love Caroline, but she isn't known for her jump technique.) The real thing is very different from the slash-and-burn we so often see. You have to be very fast off the mark to be good at it, as Clinton is and before him John Kennedy. You also have to be unafraid of the unexpected moment. There was a charming moment during an earlier primary cycle, when John McCain (this was not in the 2008 season, when he was the candidate--it may have been in 2000) was asked whether he'd keep Alan Greenspan as the head of the Federal Reserve. He said, not only would he keep Greenspan, but if anything happened to Greenspan, he'd prop him up like the corpse in Weekend at Bernie's so it looked as if Greenspan were still heading the Fed. It was funny, human, and indicative of what McCain actually believed about economic policy.

Actually, one of the best debates in recent years was the vice-presidential debate between Dick Cheney and Joseph Lieberman. Both of them were respectful and cogent. Most people who watched felt they learned a lot. I supported one and not the other, but I felt I was listening to a reasonable discussion of why each was running for office.

Yeah, those forensics kids are hard core -- my university had one of the best forensics programs in the country. My husband also did speech + debate in high school and even in our discussions -- we don't always see eye-to-eye -- he is very good at articulating his points.

I always liked Joseph Liberman, regardless of what side he was on. And looking back Cheney wasn't as bad as I thought he was in real time. I'll have to dig up that debate sometime.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
I do tend to think that a Reagan-style conservative might have had a chance because even though he was very conservative politically (after switching in the mid-60s to Republican), he was very, very likeable, and I'm sure that helped him.

OK, but you're not saying that Ronald Reagan was a fiscal conservative, right? Mister "borrow, borrow, borrow, spend, spend, spend?" The person who introduced America, both at the governmental level and the personal level, to the concept of "whoever is the most in debt when he dies wins"? ;)

In eight years Reagan almost tripled the national debt as a percent of gross domestic product. (Obama is a piker in this regard.) Unfortunately for America, the bill did eventually come due, 20 years later.
 
Last edited:
Top