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.
A fine example of the fuzzy logic of the left
25/08/2011 06:30:36 PM
- 1012 Views
Personally I still favor demographic blind subsidies as the best route to meritocracy.
25/08/2011 08:18:20 PM
- 597 Views
Preferential in possible scholarships but not admissions process according to the article
25/08/2011 10:26:25 PM
- 509 Views
There are colleges that don't allow homosexuals - or men, or women for that matter.
25/08/2011 10:35:05 PM
- 595 Views
Ummm, did you read the article?
25/08/2011 08:40:46 PM
- 658 Views
Ah, but you are not reading it either
25/08/2011 08:53:39 PM
- 675 Views
But that's just a scholarship.
25/08/2011 09:34:23 PM
- 634 Views
so you would OK if the only offered it to straight students? *NM*
25/08/2011 09:50:44 PM
- 230 Views
You do realize that there are indeed universities refusing admission to gay students?
25/08/2011 10:02:41 PM
- 505 Views
I would have no problem with a LGBT only school as long as it didn't take state money
25/08/2011 10:27:48 PM
- 561 Views
This is a private university, not a state university *NM*
25/08/2011 10:29:15 PM
- 263 Views
sorry that ended with NM. Were you trying to make a point if so I missed it *NM*
25/08/2011 10:40:48 PM
- 276 Views
I expect some donor created a scholarship with that stipulation.
25/08/2011 10:40:09 PM
- 590 Views
I know my reply to his message may have made in seem that I was objecting to the scholarship
25/08/2011 11:10:33 PM
- 613 Views
If you're talking about "affirmative action", then yes, I oppose that.
26/08/2011 09:19:33 AM
- 547 Views
I don't really have a problem with this
25/08/2011 09:03:55 PM
- 698 Views
I am not arguing that they shouldn't be allowed to do it
25/08/2011 09:29:54 PM
- 521 Views
Fair Enough
25/08/2011 09:41:25 PM
- 565 Views
The United Church of Christ is a rather liberal denomination - celebrating gay marriages, notably.
25/08/2011 10:06:26 PM
- 530 Views
their stated motive was to increase diversity
25/08/2011 10:09:17 PM
- 688 Views
well. It could be they just needed a reason, but for some reason couldn't be forthright?
26/08/2011 03:28:52 AM
- 525 Views
One of your lines struck me.
25/08/2011 10:12:32 PM
- 664 Views
that happened in the US, we elected Bush as a result
25/08/2011 10:35:05 PM
- 506 Views
That's an interesting point...
25/08/2011 10:37:37 PM
- 593 Views
yes but but despite how much he was hated by the left the right saw him different
25/08/2011 11:32:19 PM
- 706 Views
Re: yes but but despite how much he was hated by the left the right saw him different
26/08/2011 09:57:13 PM
- 608 Views
Re: that happened in the US, we elected Bush as a result
25/08/2011 10:55:29 PM
- 613 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
- 536 Views
I think you'll find very few Europeans agreeing with that assessment.
26/08/2011 10:18:19 PM
- 511 Views
Wow what a strawman
25/08/2011 10:23:45 PM
- 682 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
- 468 Views
No I do not believe they are needed, nor do I believe they should be desired
25/08/2011 10:47:51 PM
- 661 Views
Ridiculous. Everyone knows conservatives are incapable of creativity.
25/08/2011 11:12:10 PM
- 484 Views
I would definetly check "yes"
26/08/2011 12:11:29 AM
- 673 Views
but if they wanted to increase diversity they would offer yo a scholarship for being Muslim
26/08/2011 12:46:46 AM
- 529 Views
id be a gay muslim, so Id be 3 minorities, a woman, a muslim and a lesbian, now if only I was black!
26/08/2011 02:16:50 AM
- 604 Views
I think it's less a failing of the "left"...
26/08/2011 03:25:42 AM
- 613 Views
a question for you...
26/08/2011 08:08:10 PM
- 722 Views
I guess my question for you is how I made it sound like LGBT=liberal
26/08/2011 09:47:16 PM
- 508 Views
My guess is because you referenced "the lefts" fuzzy logic in a thread about a LGBT scholarship.
26/08/2011 11:07:32 PM
- 668 Views