ATS.MIX: Above Politics Show 02

I just listened to the second show, and it was quite interesting. Brought up several points that need discussion. But I'm a bit confused - where do we post questions on shows? In this thread, or someplace else?

reply to post by jsobecky

---

Firstly, thanks for listening jsobecky.

If we have raised a point on The Above Politics show that you feel needs dicussion or debate , please go to www.abovepolitics.com and create a new thread.

Let us know and I can mention your thread on the next Above Politics show.

reply to post by Martin Bain

---

Thanks, Martin. Actually there were 3 or 4 points that Justin made that I "disagree" with, such as running mates. Disagree is probably too strong a word, "eager to discuss" is more like it.

reply to post by Dave Rabbit

---

thanks for the reply Dave, should i send a U2U or post it in the questions section.

Dorian Gray

You are welcome to U2U Skeptic or Springer. I'm just the EP for the show and that is above my pay grade.

Dave

Discussion of SHOW TOPICS should be done within the SHOW itself, so HERE.

Dave

Dorian..... simply U2U Springer Or Skeptic. As I told someone a few posts up, I'm only the EP of the show.... everything else is their decision only.

Dave

You heard the Rabbit. This is the place to "throw down." Post your remarks here, and I'll be glad to discuss, argue, or defend as needed.

We need to avoid running wild with other threads until we know more about where this thing is going. More discussion means more support, and that means more Martin & Justin.

So, tell me jsobecky, what're you so strongly disagreeing with?

Anyone that wants to use the avatar has my permission.

Just remember...


-DMN

[edit on 2/10/2008 by damajikninja]

I have to say...for a guy from the UK you hold your own Martin!
Does everyone in the UK keep up with American politics as much as you, or are you just the wiz kid on the block?

I promised Martin that I wouldn't intentionally hurt him...too much.

reply to post by Justin_Case

---

"You heard the Rabbit". Sorry, that struck me as funny...

Ahem.


Well, there were a few things you brought up that I thought would make for good discussion. One was Huckabee as VP, the other had to do with talk radio, and there were one or two others that slip my mind.

I'll have to go back and listen to it again. I'll get back to you.

I look forward to reading your post. I'll see if we can't elaborate on some of those things in the future.

I guess this is a question to both Martin and Justin. I understand how you tend to lean towards the idea that a fresh face in Washington is a good thing. I am sort of up in the air on that one.
A man or woman who hasn't been through the fights, been through the struggles to get something they believe in past into law...will they have the strength to fight a Congress that is against them? And face it, that is a part of every President's term in office. How will they not be bullied into signing bad bill into law?
Now don't get me wrong, I am no fan of blind men with canes being led through the doors of the Capitol, but isn't a good amount of time in DC a good thing...really?
Just a thought...

"Change" in politics is not always what we think it is. A lot ofthe posters on ATS and AP want a lot of change, right now. The terrible truth of the thing is that political change usually happens slowly. Very slowly.

It's been said that if you want new, you have to vote for new. "New blood" is often defined as a person who has not yet been corrupted by the influences of power. On a civic level, we can and we should vote for inexperienced candidates at the local, state, and Federal levels. When we do this, we encourage change. It may not be speedy fast, but it will be change.

"Experience," as we talk about in the context of the AP show, can be a good things when the candidate demonstrates that they aren't just another carpet-bagging power hungry muck raker who would pretty please like another term in office.

Some times, a politician will take such a beating in the public arena that they change their ways. that seems to be the case for John McCain. He got his butt beat like a bongo drum for that Kennedy-McCain immigration "thang," and it forced him to change his position on several key issues.

His biggest challenge now is to convince the majority of voters that he really has learned his lesson. A lot of us would like tosee McCain go to Washington and trim some fat of the Federal bureaucracy. We'd be happy if he managed even a little. He could ben an agent of change if he manages to do even half of what he promises.

Let's be clear on one thing. If Obama wins the White House, he's gonna get a talking to by the people in the shadows. They are gonna tell him just exactly where the bear poops in the woods. His challenge, should he get that far, is to make good on his promises. He might actually bring us some change because he hasn't been bought...yet.

We, as voters, have it in our power to scare the fudge out of these office holders by threatening their jobs. The Republicans messed up, and they got sent packing in 2006. Because it doesn't look like the party (as a whole) has learned its lessons, we can expect more Republican defeats in November.

The Dems are well aware that they ar riding a wave of anti-Bush backlash. If they fail to give us the change we ask for, we might just vote that wascally Republicans back in to office. Or, if there's somebody else out there in 2012...we may give them a closer look.

If we insist that experience be the aboslute litmus test for public office, we will end up with an elite class of career politicians who do ONLY those things which are good for them and bad for us.

Hold on. Wait a minute. Isn't that what we have now?

It's not my job to endorse any candidate. I do think its my job to show you that you've got more options than you may realize. There is more than one way to get change, and you need to know that.

reply to post by Martin Bain

---

I have some comments and questions regarding APS 02. I'm going to have to paraphrase some of what was mentioned, since I don't have the benefit of a transcript, so I hope you'll bear with me if I make an honest mistake.

First off, Justin, you made a case for a McCain-Huckabee ticket. I don't think that will happen, unless it gets to be a brokered convention. Neither of those individuals are what I would call strong conservatives. The fact that the conservatives stayed away from the polls in droves on Super Tuesday should tell us something. McCain will have to choose a more conservative running mate to lure the party base back to the polls.

Next, you seem to look at Obama's "newness" as a good thing. I disagree. A seasoned politician like McCain should be able to make mincemeat of that very fact and treat it like the disadvantage it really is.

Fresh ideas are fine, but not in Washington. Obabma will be left holding the bag for the first 3 years of his term, since he doesn't know the machinations of how to get things done.

The "fresh" angle would have been good, if it was Obama against Romney. Then both could play that angle. But age and experience win out over youth and inexperience every time.

Finally, I was flabbergasted when you suggested that conservative talk radio commentators were what was driving a wedge between voters. I strongly disagree with you, and I would like to hear you expand on that idea.

Hannity and Limbaugh are staunch conservatives, and have watched this country and the Republican party stray away from conservative ideals for the past 6 years. They are understandably dismayed. They see McCain and Huckabee for what they really are - soft. And they don't like the fact that those two men are our choice for POTUS.

People agree with them. And they don't need Limbaugh or Hannity to tell them that they are being sold a bill of goods. It's an underestimation of the public to think so.

All in all, I did enjoy your show, and I look forward to the next one.

Before we get in to this, I'd like to say thanks to jsobecky for taking the time to express your thoughts. Now, let's get it on.



The realpolitik of the situation is that NONE of the GOP candidates are or have been the post child for conservatism. Before they ran for President, ALL of these people were moderates. Republican party leaders insisted that the candidates put on ultra-conservative camouflage before they would be "blessed" to run under the GOP's banner.

The hard right is at the controls just now, so they decide where the Republican party goes, and what it does. You are quite right when you say that voters stayed away from the Republican primaries in large numbers.

Having said that, I would point out that the ultra right wing of the part y is on its way out. They were disgraced in '06 and they will be shamed again in '08. It's easy to point figners, throw a fit, and whine that you've been betrayed. It's real easy to do that NOW. How-ever, I have just one question. Where were these whiners when the GOP had near total power in Congress?

"Real conservatives" will suck up the pain, take their medicine, and learn from their mistakes. I am all for low taxes and small government. I'm not for throwing the baby out with the bath water, even if the little feller did poop in it. If we want to rehabilitate the Republican image, we need to admit its failings. Then, we need to can the fools who ruined a good thing.



Now, you're trying to have your cake and eat it. This election boils down to one thing. YOU have make your own choice between the options/candidates you have, instead of the choices you want.



When it comes to politics, "new" translates in to "hasn't been totally bought just yet." That's the idealistic up side to the thing. The down side is that unbought means untested, which means lacking in experience. I do agree that McCain could easily make Obama look like a novice, if he can say and do the right things.



I agree with your entiment, but I would point out that a Presidency is built on a team. You might be able to hoodwink any President, but you won't always be able to snooker his/her entire team. There are a lot of idealists who went to the polls with the intent of sending a message that un-bought is good.



Mitt Romney would have been able to make Obama seem like an untested newbie. He's older, and he does have more experience in key areas that Obama does not. Trouble is, teh voters aren't choosing Romney to face off against Obama.



Grab an extra barf bag. You're gonna need it.

Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. are water carriers for the Republican party. They don't limit themselves to opinion and analysis. They don't just disagree. They attack. I say the same thing about the most well-known left wing show hosts, too.

reply to post by Justin_Case

---

I agree with that, but some were less moderate than others. Romney was a more-qualified candidate than what's remaining on the ballot now. Tancredo was more conservative, although he was a single-issue candidate.

The fact is, there are very few strict conservatives in the field.



Huh? Give me some examples, please. Not McCain, who is associated more with the Democrats than with the Republicans (McCain - (Kennedy, Feingold, Edwards, Lieberman) ). Not Huckabee, when it comes to fiscal.




I think I need to ask for a definition of this point. What do you mean by "ultra right wing"? And please give me some examples, in the form of names. Because I think you are 180 degrees out of phase with the current makeup and mood of the conservative movement in the US.



There has been dissension over the current administration for several years now, esp. in the area of fiscal responsibility. So I don't know where you're coming from when you say "whiners". We've sucked it up, stood behind our man in spite of being called neo-con sheeple brainwashed warmongers, because we know what the alternative will bring. We were let down by an administration that we thought was conservative the same as you were.




No, I don't. This is not Russia, or 1980's Iraq. I don't have to eat what's on my plate if I don't like it; I'm not a kid anymore.


This is a good point for a break. The rest of your post is full of interesting points, so I want to give them full attention. I'll be back later.

reply to post by _Johnny_Utah_

---

I certainly do think that some fresh faces would do no harm. I am interested in what a women could bring to the US as its president, after all the UK has had a female prime minister.

Before I respond to jsobecky, I'd like to take a moment to step back and say a few things. What you're seeing/reading here is the kind of discussion that I think Above Politics is all about. Absolutely NONE of this is personal. This is an exchange of opinions. Nobody has to "win" this dialogue. We can agree to disagree. I'd set off your B.S. warning detector if I was anything less than "real," so here we go.

There are several factors at play in this conversation. Chief among these would be the fact that jsobecky and I are coming at this thing from two different angles. We each have different definitions of key concepts that make this argument turn in our respective favors.

What we want, and what we can have, are not always the same thing. It's rare to get exactly what you want in politics. Some times, we are lucky to have the candidate of our dreams. In other cases, we have to choose between the big bad and the litttle bad.

Several times in my life, I've bonked my head against the nearest wall, wondering why MY prefered candidate didn't run or didn't get elected. I've yelled at my TV set, "how does anyone vote for...that?" I know what I want in a candidate. I can tell you in fifty words or less. That doesn't mean I'm gonna get what I wished for.

Today's Republican party is made up of three wings. The social conservatives. The Fiscal conservatives, and the religious conservatives. The most ardent and uncompromising leaders of these factions have risen to control the party at the national level. Their influence has extended in to talk radio, where conservative hosts dominate.

The Republicans controlled decisive majorities in the House and Senate from 1994-2006. They've had the White House from January 20th of 2000 to the present. Ultra-conservative leaders in the RNC took some pride in the fact that they built their coalition "under a big tent" with moderate (centrist) and far-right conservatives.

During the period of 2000-2006, the RNC leadership had no real reason to gripe about the mdoerates in their midst. It was, after all, just too convenient to blame Congressional log jams on those wacky moderates. In November of 2006, the Republicans got their wake-up call when the balance of power changed in Congress. We all know what made the voters cranky, so let's keep this ball rolling.

It's true that some of the GOP Presidential candidates were more conservative than others. Jsobecky mentions Tom Tancredo. Even so, ALL of the people who eventually lasted long enough to see a primary were all moderates (by comparison) be-fore they changed camouflage. RNC leaders and nationally syndicated talkers didn't really make much hay over this until mid 2007. Let's run the bases.

John McCain: The hard right considers McCain to be too chummy with Democrats. He believes in global warming. He voted against drilling in ANWR. He isn't for a Consitutional ammendment to ban abortions. He isn't for a Constitutional ammendment to ban gay marriage.

Mike Huckabee: the hard right doesn't like his tax record, or the fact that he preaches trade protectionism, which would mean Federal involvement in the private sector.

Mitt Romney: The RNC leadership hasn't liked Romney record as a Massacheusetts governor, which includes a lot of previously Liberal positions. Campaign related falsehoods include being a lifelong member of the NRA, which he was not.

I can hear Dave snoring through the speakers on my PC, so I'm going to skip the rest of the field. The simple fact remains that all of these accomplished men have not been life-long advocates for all the things that the most staunch conservatives at the top now want them to say they are for. And yet, they've tried.

Voters could've chosen to send their campaign dollars to the more conservative candidates in 2007...like Tom Tancredo...but they didn't. The voters and caucus go-ers could've chosen anyone else but McCain or Huckabee, but they didn't. Like it or not, these are the candidates we have to work with. We could sulk and stay home in November, but we shouldn't.

When I hear annointed water carriers like Limbaugh and Hannity tear up the members of their own team, I have to beleive they are following orders from the RNC. I'm just as frustrated as anyone else, but I'm not going to sink my own boat just to show you how mad I am.

I don't think the voters are stupid. If a better candidate comes along, they WILL vote for that person, even if I think that guy or gal is a nut. Good citizenship is hard. Our civic duty is to make the most of what we've got. If the Republicans choose to eat their own, they will have ot do so knowing that with each mouthful they are setting the stage for their own defeat. I never did like self-fulfilling prophecies.

The Bush administration has let us down. It's not going to be easy, but we have to learn from those mistakes. Part of that learning curve has to be taken up with the hardest of all civic obligations. If conservatives really don't want Barack or Hillary to be their next Commander in Chief, they need to have the backbone to choose the little bad insteast of he big bad (as they see it). If McCain does win, they need to stay on him like stink on s skunk to make sure that he doesn't stray any further than necessary.

"If you don't vote, you have no reason to complain."