Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (44569)	12/17/2007 2:47:57 PM
From: Sam	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 540802

Not much future for nonpartisan politics in all this I'm afraid. I agree with that. I read an article recently (I think in the NYT, or perhaps Newsweek) that was talking about the Republicans in the minority. They said that when they were in the majority, they used to gameplay what the Democrats would do to combat their initiatives. Invariably, one of them said, they had dreamt up far more devious plans than the Democrats. Now, as a minority party, they are putting that gameplaying to "good" use. They said they were surprised by how few strategies the Democrats came up with compared to their own brainstorming; I'm not. I'm not surprised at all by it.

To: JohnM who wrote (44569)	12/17/2007 2:48:42 PM
From: Dale Baker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 540802

Suppose Romney is the Republican nominee and he launches into the culture wars and the evils of secularism against Obama, the Democratic nominee. Obama remains composed and gives an eloquent statement about the importance of tolerance and the evils of divisive partisanship on issues where we should be bringing the country together instead of ripping it further apart. I doubt that question can be polled but I think the results could be startling. Attackers can be defused by simply refusing to stoop to their level, and condemning the attacks themselves. That's the alternative to gutter-level counterpunching. Look at Obama's recent success against Hillary as Exhibit A.

To: JohnM who wrote (44569)	12/17/2007 3:31:53 PM
From: slacker711	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 540802

Were Obama to get the Dem nomination, I would not be surprised to see the Reps ratchet up every bit as vituperative a campaign against him as they will do should Clinton get it. I think you are underestimating the antipathy of the Republicans towards Hillary. There is a dislike there that goes beyond what most feel towards other Democrats. The equivalent on the Democratic side would be something like Cheney running for President. While I am sure that the Democrats would attack Giuliani/Huckabee/Romney, I very much doubt that the campaign would be as ugly as it would be with Cheney. No doubt that negative politics are here to stay, but there are levels to the ugliness, and Hillary's nomination pretty guarantees we'll be in the sewer immediately. Slacker

To: JohnM who wrote (44569)	12/17/2007 4:14:14 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 540802

John, re: "My guess is that Krugman is right on this one, at least the portion that says the battles will be very bitter. Whether Obama appreciates that is hard for me to say. Were Obama to get the Dem nomination, I would not be surprised to see the Reps ratchet up every bit as vituperative a campaign against him as they will do should Clinton get it. I think the Gingrich DNA is now deeply embedded, the one that says if the Dems have a candidate who can clearly make a large difference, you have to demonize them. He said that both about Jim Wright as the new House Speaker and Clinton in 92. I don't think anything has seriously changed on that score since then." I think you're partially right but Sam infers a great point. The strength of Obama may lie in the fact that there aren't many attacks that the partisan attack machine can level against him which will resonate with most Americans. He's positioned himself decently as a moderate, he hasn't engaged in any serious Republican baiting and his rhetoric on the Iraq war has been consistent but more thoughtful and less strident than it could have been. More importantly he didn't get "first viewed" as a "hated person" during the height of the past us/them wars. And he is a true moderate in many of his views. My view is that the right wingers will fight him as hard as they can, both before and, if he's elected, after he's elected, but the American people won't divide itself largely into love him/hate him camps. A few right wing nuts won't care and they'll dish out the rhetoric as will Limbaugh and the others who make a living off selling hatred, disdain and ridicule but this time it may not stick. So maybe he's not naive, maybe he really can get enough popular support so that the partisan divide shrinks to the point where the bad actors submerge like Nile crocodiles waiting for a better opportunity to attack and the American public really can achieve a more objective view of the issues? Or maybe I'm naive. Ed PS, another thing to consider is that the major Republican politicians have recently shown a less ideological bent and a stronger pragmatic approach to politics. They may simply be following the lead of their fleeing base. When Republicans like Huckabee, Juliani and Romney are actually competing for the nomination and the most rabidly conservative candidates are not even in the picture, the message must be clear, even to them; the times they are a changin. (A special thanks to the Bush/Cheney Administration is probably merited here.}