Group items tagged

I found this op-ed piece interesting, because I think it gets at the underlying problem with the current Republican party: there is no room for middle ground, because nowadays that means weakness. Although a centrist to philosophy to all problems does not work, I thought Friedman painted a nice picture of why little gets done in Washington due to the stark contrasts between the two parties. Basically, radicalization of the Republican party is one of the biggest problems with the current political situation.

This one really echoes a lot of what I've been hearing about the republican party. It seems like the tea-partiers have gotten big enough that the Republicans are shifting to the right so as to avoid a tea party candidate cropping up and splitting the vote (I read that somewhere, don't remember where). This issue really just reinforces, for me at least, the problems with the two-party system. Instead of having three parties, two for sane people and one for the tea partiers, the republicans have found themselves in a situation where they're straddling the widening chasm between moderates and radicals, and it seems to me like they've chosen the radical side as their base.

I found this article interesting because it addresses the problems with both parties concerning national debt. I really enjoyed how the article poked fun at the election, saying " we celebrate the fact that it might include a serious debate about one of the four great issues of the day, though even that is not clear yet". After reading this article, I am beginning to think more of a conservative approach is needed to fix the issue in America concerning debt. Although in the past conservative presidents(George Bush Sr., Reagan) have used tax revenue and budget cuts to fix debt, I do not think it is out of reach for President Obama to fix debt issues in another 4 years if he takes a more "right-winged" approach. I do believe the job of fixing national debt is not the job for a radical member of the G.O.P or a very strong liberal, but for the best candidate who can make the most people happy while doing what is best for the country with a strong approach.

This piece talks about why the South continues to be extremely conservative politically. I've never been to the South and have always wondered what's going on with the political conservative climate, because it seems to me that conservative economic policy actually hurts a lot of regions in the South. These "Room for Debate" pieces on the NY Times are awesome, because they provide a lot of different perspectives. I'd love to hear all your guys take on this: San Franciscans and Atlanta peeps alike.

Great post Eli. I think this article makes many valid points because in the south, the conservative history is very apparent. Being from Georgia especially during election, President Obama is not widely respected and people often criticize his policies harshly. I hate to say it but I do believe that racist southern ideals are partially the reason for some of the unpopularity of Obama in the south. Relating to the conservative tendencies in southern states, I believe the reason the south has remained predominantly right sided is because tradition is such a big part of southern culture, and with southern tradition comes conservative values.

For me this brings up evidence to support people not being able to move past their moral compass even if it means progress in their socioeconomic outlook and progress in the nation. It makes sense to stay true to their self, but it is not justifiable to hurt yourself and your nation by preventing forward progress. In theory it makes sense to try and change their minds, but it is a lot easier said than done and would take a great amount of time and we have to be patient about it.

This is an article by a conservative columnist, Pat Buchanan, that my dad turned me on to. It addresses the fact that Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration allegedly knew about the attacks in Benghazi for a while and didn't take action. I do think that the administration mishandled it, and I think it's interesting to read the conservative perspective on the attacks. I think this is a direction that Romney's rhetoric is going to take in the coming weeks, especially during the foreign policy debate. I agree with what this writer says about many liberals wanting to absolve Obama and his administration from all blame for anything, especially at this stage in the election, and I think that reading articles from both sides of the argument will help form an objective understanding of the issue.

I completely agree that there was some sort of intelligence gap in the State Department. Whether or not Obama/Biden knew is open for debate, but I'm not sure that is really important. In reality, both candidates have pretty similar foreign policy stances. I highly doubt the Romney Administration would handle embassy security any differently. We saw it in the VP debate. Biden would challenge Ryan to talk about actual differences in foreign policy and Ryan couldn't really find any. I'm really bothered by this statement, "And lest we forget, we invaded Afghanistan to eradicate al-Qaida after 9/11. Yet today, we read of al-Qaida in the Maghreb, al-Qaida in Iraq, al-Qaida in Pakistan, al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula and al-Qaida in Syria. And Ansar Dine, an al-Qaida affiliate, has taken over northern Mali, a slice of land the size of France." This is a huge exaggeration of Al-Qaida's current power. They are doing really poorly, not well. I think that it is just a political tactic to relate America somehow being unsafe to the attack in Libya.

Today Hilary Clinton tried to take responsibility for the lack of security in Libya. John and Cody are right about this being the beginning of the Republican attack on Obama's foreign policy. This morning I heard a Romney advisor talking about how little influence and control we have in the middle east in the face of rising terrorism. His examples and questions included many cited in Buchanan's editorial. Buchanan was an early advisor to Nixon and encouraged him to stand against abortion even though it was different than Nixon's original view. It seems like Buchanan is a lot like Carl Rove, finds a weakness and an opening and goes for it.

This article is a great explanation for the article that Miles posted last week, "Romney Adopts Softer Tone in Critique of Obama." Obamacare is the epitome of a centralist solution to healthcare, but the Republicans in the house are too caught up in politics to admit that it is actually a good compromise. It is interesting looking at Romney's own plan for Massachusetts in comparison to Obamacare, because they are essentially the same plan. Because Romney has taken up the issue of "repealing Obamacare," he has really dug himself a hole, because what is the conservative alternative? No healthcare plan? It seems to me that this kind of partisan politics is the reason that Romney is doing so poorly in the election.

This article is the best. It provides such a clear, concise explanation of Obamacare. And it really does, if you know this, invalidate Romney's entire platform. Obamacare is a centrist healthcare plan, and it's just like Romneycare. Romney is running on a platform of "anti-Obama," and all he's saying that he'll do is remove and replace Obama's policies -- but with what? Romney isn't saying. It really is astounding how much vitriol there is in America directed towards Obama, who is largely a centrist in his policies.

This article, like the Obamanomics, shows how too often politics takes precedent over policy. It's very disturbing that when something is as critical as health insurance for as many people as possible, is lost in a political battle. It sounds like even though the Democrats and Republicans agree on the most important aspects of Obamacare, it became mired in its present battle because the White House "rammed the bill through Congress." And the Republicans "lashed back with a vengeance." These political battles seem so petty when so much is at stake and everybody basically agrees on policy.

Here is a piece around abortion issues and the problem with the term "pro-life". The author states "Respect for life has to include respect for how that life is lived, enhanced and protected - not only at the moment of conception but afterward, in the course of that life.". We have talked about the terrible applications of terms pro-life and pro-choice, it should be pro-choice or no-choice. The problem with the conservatives and tea party is that on one hand they want as small as government as possible, but on the other hand they want to take away or our basic right to freedom of choice. 

While I agree with Cody that Friedman's cockiness can be difficult to read, I personally agree with what he is saying. I think there is a problem in the this country with respecting the scientific community. How can people still doubt climate change? The data is there. How can people really think it is a good thing to allow people to carry weapons? The murders are there. While I think this is a potentially divisive way of stating the issue, some of the far right opinions on abortion, gun rights, and climate change seem equally as absurd to me. There is a lot of good that can come out of conservatism, but the conservatism around rights, I don't think is very productive and people will eventually look back on it and scoff.

I am also interested in the role of language here, both within the actual issue and in this piece, and what you mentioned, Eli, about how people maintain their viewpoints that are continually in opposition to almost undeniable facts. With both issues it seems that unspoken rules and assumptions carry such weight. It mostly just confuses me.

This article stood out to me, because it is exactly why I see Romney's plans as a completely the opposite of what American needs: they aren't any different than George W. Bush's. Americans saw what happened under George W. Bush, and nobody wants to go back to that. This line in the piece really summed up why Romney is doing so poorly, "To win the kind of victory that conservatives seem to think they should be winning, the Republican Party needs two things: A domestic agenda that offers more to hard-pressed families than just generic conservative rhetoric about the genius of capitalism, and a foreign policy program that reflects the hard lessons learned in Iraq and Afghanistan." As a liberal, I would never vote for Mitt Romney, but I do understand that the economy is not where a lot of people wanted it to be after Obama's first term. The question is: can Romney do a better job? I see a lot of similarities between Romney's policies and George W. Bush's policies, so I think that the economy would do worse. If other Americans, like the author of this article, see the same similarities, I don't see how Romney can win in November.

I think it is interesting, and absurd, how the Republican Party has looked for things to blame on some of their failings on. That being said, I also think it is unfair that past President's records affect prospective candidates chances, on either side of the political spectrum. Just because Romney is in the same political party as Bush dos not mean he will do similar things(even though he probably will do some). I agree with Anna that Romney and Ryan need to separate from Bush to establish that they are not the same and will not have the same results. Regardless of their policies I believe that candidates should be evaluated on their merits, and while the past should be considered, and their merits alone. To me, that is what this article is really saying.

Cameron, I agree with your idea - that parties can shift, and individual candidates shouldn't be bound into the economic principles of their party - but until Romney provides substantive plans for the economy, all anyone is going to hear from his campaign is the same conservative "free market" rhetoric that they heard from the Bush campaign. What he needs to do is lay out a specific plan and note what he's learned from the economic failure under Bush and how that has shaped his plan.

This editorial written by Danielle Pletka, of the conservative American Enterprise Institute criticizes Romney's foreign policy speech on Monday October 8th for offering little in the way of either vision or specifics to separate himself from Obama. Plettka writes that Romney, "sensed an opening" in foreign policy after the Obama administration appeared to bungle the September 11 Libyan attack. She says that Romney needs to show voters that "he's not simply George Bush retread" itching to declare war on Iran and Syria. It is interesting that this conservative thinks that no Republicans have made a case that they will actually do anything differently than Obama. She suggests that Romney help voters connect American global power with prosperity, its dominance of the world's important waterways with flourishing trade and the exporting of democratic ideals with more open "nourished markets. She refers to the importance of the US's "benign" influence since WWII. Look up benign..it doesn't mean the war, death and violence we seen in Iraq and Afghanistan . What she means is that the U.S. has never interfered for 'malevolent" reasons. It's hard to imagine how the US would be perceived as benign in all of the military intervention.

This article shows pretty well a lot of what we've seen of Romney. It seems like his campaign is just based on criticizing Obama, and since there's an opening in the foreign policy area he's moved away from the economy. He's looking for criticisms to make without offering substantive policy proposals, and I think that's because Obama's policies are basically centrist policies. It's a weird situation that Obama, as a moderate, has this unique ability to inspire so much vitriol among the conservative right, and Romney's trying to capitalize.

I'm in the foreign policy group for the issues project at school, and I can tell you with certainty that the differences between Obama and Romney in terms of foreign policy are very small. It is more of a philosophical difference. In reality, the troops will leave Afghanistan in 2014, we will most likely not send troops to Syria or Iran, and we will continue to support Israel, regardless of who is president. Romney is really just trying to create a contrast between his foreign policy and Obama's, but there aren't any major differences, so he has latched onto this whole Libya thing.

This article talks about conservative Super PACs working to unify their message to keep away from uncomfortable blunders that bring the entire party down, to avoid letting "their message [become] diluted," and to maintain Romney's full-throttle attack when the Governor is not in a position to do so himself. The subtle moves that keep Super PACs legal is demonstrated really well in this article, like how the different groups can talk to each other and follow the "themes being emphasized by Mitt Romney's campaign," but cannot "coordinate with Mr. Romney's strategists," which certainly seems like it would be a challenge, since the Romney campaign keeps switching its focus. One of the most interesting aspects of this article is the reference to the Super PACs making sure that they all use the same numbers and statistics when attacking President Obama. It's crazy that there is so much confusion about what seems like the simplest part of pro-Romney advertising, especially when some groups actually think that connecting Obama with "Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. and the minister's 'black liberation' theology" is a good idea. The paragraph about how these Super PACs' more cohesive vision will affect Obama's campaign is also really interesting and demonstrates a lot of what seems unfair about large-scale campaign finance issues, since Romney's vision and campaign can literally move beyond him and keep up their work without him or his funds.

What you highlighted from this article emphasizes how shady the distinction is between coordinating a message with a candidate and presenting one independently. From what this article says, along with the presentation in class about campaign finance, the difference between these two methods of supporting a campaign seems pretty arbitrary. This is especially true if, like you said, the groups that can't coordinate with Romney can coordinate with one another. This strategy is the part that scares me the most: Super PAC's are trying to avoid "diluting" their message, but they seem to be diluting the messages of the candidates as a collective. The need to present a cohesive message, like you mentioned, seems to explain why a lot of the criticism in these ads is so vague, simply attacking Obama "as a failed leader" rather than highlighting specific policies or mistakes. In a campaign like Romney's, where the key focus is often a bit of a moving target, sticking to general criticism like this seems like a winning tactic. I agree that the engineering of advertisements is unfair, especially given the cause and effect relationship of ad dollars and poll results that the author suggests.

     This is a kind-of-funny article about the many conservatives who are criticizing Chris Christie as being responsible for Romney's loss. They call him some funny names, and it's interesting to see this especially considering his potential for a presidential run in 2016.

It is funny to think that the Republican's need a whipping boy for the Romney loss when there's so much information about the Republican's inability to reach Latinos, women and other groups. My guess is that Chris Christie will be able to use his conduct during Sandy to his benefit. All he has to do is spin it to highlight his leadership and his ability to "reach across the aisle."

I like Chris Christie so much after his dealing with Hurricane Sandy. He clearly put his state first and did what he needed to do. I doubt this will have much weight in 2016. If Chris Christie runs for president, I doubt this will eve be on the table. He is one of the stronger candidates that the GOP has and it would be dumb of them to discredit him for helping his state in a time of need by working with the president.

This article is from the website of a conservative think tank, The Manhattan Institute. It's interesting to read a conservative criticize Romney for being out of touch with the American people when he focuses his economic argument on only the "four sore years" of the Obama administration. She highlights the number of times Romney referred to 4 years during the debate missing his opportunity to acknowledge that Americans know that the economy crashed well before 2009. She aptly states that Americans remember well the "white as a ghost" President Bush, "the panicked Congress", the "helpless" GOP standard bearer, McCain. She also points out that Americans are feeling like we already hit bottom and that it's not the time to focus only on the negative. Given that she seems more nuanced in her thinking, I was particularly interested to read her criticisms of Obama's reaction to the financial crisis, especially, according to her, his missed opportunity to encourage states to fix their pension and benefit problems, by bailing them out temporarily with the stimulus money.

I am glad you posted this, as it offers a different type of critique of Romney. I read an essay like this from another conservative think tank criticizing Romney's energy policies and they both have expanded my perspective, it seems that more disparaging reviews of candidates from within their parties are more productive. It's interesting to consider what Romney would be like as a more positive candidate and how he might end up like an Obama from 2008. The benefits of an optimistic, or at least more constructive, campaign are great. This article also highlights something which comes up a lot for me when thinking about the election, in which candidates really under-estimate their constituencies' intelligence. There is definitely a difference between selling the perspective you want to use to win and ignoring the reality of what people know.

After the election, it's pretty clear that "four sore years" didn't work. I wonder if there was really much else Romney could have focused on. I think Romney dug himself more holes than he holes he really dug for Obama. There were Republican governors running for reelection talking about how great the economy was while Romney was running for president talking about how bad it was. It really shows how you can spin a situation any way to suit you.

The is an article pre vice presidential debate about medicare. It talks about Paul Ryan's medicare a lot in comparison to the current system and Obamacare. I understand each side and there plans for this system. but I think that the problem is the unwillingness to make compromises between parties which is really holding the government back right now. Just wondering thoughts on medicare and the opposing plans.

Yeah, Romney's plan and Obama's plan are still in the phase of theory, because neither has been enacted. I've read economic analysis that supports both; it really comes down to the economist being a liberal or a conservative. I think we can do as much speculation as we want, but the key difference is that Obamacare worked in Massachusetts, while Romney's current plan has never really worked anywhere.

I agree with Eli. Although this article gives some specific information about why the market based approach to medicare could be more effective in lowering costs than the political. They're both theoretical. Obama's board of experts have had much of their power taken away by Congress, so it will be very difficult to see how effective it could really be if it were given the right kind of power. The vouchers lowering the cost of medicare drug benefits is encouraging, though hard to imagine how something like that would work with a much more complex medical system.

This column by David Brooks about the changing nature of the American electorate and the Republican's inability to understand it seems to nail many of the issues Republicans have with minority voters. The old days of white male Protestant individualism is a mindset that is slipping away as our country is made up of more cultures who believe both in the commitment to hard work and to the idea that government programs can insight work and enhance opportunity. It's funny to hear the Republicans now talk only about immigration reform as they try to reach Latino and Asian voters. David Brooks shows that there is much more listening and understanding the Republicans still have to do.

I don't want to sound naive, but I feel like the "small government" argument is beginning to be an outdated argument. Obviously, there will always be conservatives, but I think they are going to need to start fitting the desire of the electorate. For example, in California, a state that votes very fiscally conservative on its propositions, we passed a bill that raises taxes to pay for education. I don't have any stats on this, but I feel pretty comfortable saying that if most people in America were asked the question, "would you raise taxes on wealthy people to help pay for education?" I believe people would say yes.

I think that the Republicans were able to go into the mind set of "if it ain't broke don't fix it" in the past few elections as this change started to happen. Now they clearly cannot have that mind set or they will not go far as a political party. If they can embrace this change and allow themselves to work to attract a broader demographic they will be able to make the 2016 election and interesting one. I do believe though that it is hard to let go of because it has been their "status quo" of sorts for awhile.

This article really speaks to why I don't think there is a logical argumenta against Obamacare. There is no more conservative solution other than simply having no government involvement with healthcare. It bothers me that Romney isn't more candid about what "Romneycare" would actually do. It seems from his rhetoric that he wants all Americans to be covered, but that's exactly what Obamacare does in a free-market driven way. The only argument I've really heard against Obamacare is a partisan argument, Republicans versus Democrats. Does America really want to let 50 million people go without insurance or are they just ignorant to the fact that Romneycare would leave that many people uninsured?

The middle part of this piece articulates what I like about Obamacare in a way I couldn't: it makes total sense because "health care is distinctive in ways that limit the power of the market." Like you're saying, Eli, the only way Obamacare could be more conservative is to leave government out of the system entirely, and based on the author's description, healthcare itself makes this a really bad idea. The other key point I got from it, which relates to what Jonah is saying about the status quo, is the fact that "competition already exists" in the healthcare system we have now: if the free market would insure more people, why hasn't it done so already? I would like to see a really well crafted argument against the system that has nothing to do with party rhetoric.

This is the first time I've read Kenneth Arrow's analysis of why medical care doesn't fit with the usual free market models. It makes sense that consumers can't comparison shop when so many things are unknown and beyond their control. I don't understand why this simple analysis wasn't used in the debate between Romney-Ryan care and Obamacare. It seems like most voters, even those who are anti-big government, would understand and agree with this argument.

I think that looking at the historical economical failures and successes of democratic and republican economic policies is a good way to come to a conclusion about which candidate would actually help the economy. The candidates themselves are just spewing rhetoric about tax cuts and the middle class, so this third party analysis of economic growth under Democrats vs. Republicans is really interesting. Check it out.

It is sometimes extremely hard for me to understand the argument for conservative economic philosophies, because while they might seem great paper, have NEVER worked. "Trickle down" economics tend to stagnate the economy, not help it. While I definitely read a lot of liberally biased news sources, I still find that unbiased analysis of economic policy points to liberal policies almost every time. Jonah, if a person is still undecided, I would say they are definitely not going to vote on social issues. If social issues were more important to them than the economy, they would absolutely have already decided who to cast their vote for. It is very clear where the candidates stand on social issues, but is much less clear to the average undecided voter who is "the best candidate to help the economy."

It's great to see the economic facts laid out in this way. I read an article earlier written by two economists who quantified the effect of tax increases on the wealthy and found that tax increases had little effect on job growth or the economy. Again, this article proves that "trickle down" economics isn't based on facts. I wonder why it is so compelling. Of course people would rather believe that independent investment would benefit the economy more than government investment. It's part of the American mythology. The only way to bust a myth is with facts like these.

I believe that the biggest part of this election is in the social and civil rights issues. This article outlines the effects of a Romney win or Obama win on the Supreme Court. One of the fews direct powers a president has is appointing new Supreme Court Justices when one retires.With with four of the nine members over the age of 70 there is a high likelihood of a few retiring in the next for years. If Romney wins he will most likely appoint a conservative to the Supreme Court and that would threaten the Roe v. Wade decision in turn effecting the rights of women. There has been lots of talk about economic issues and the impact of the new president on the economy, but I believe that this issue of appointing Supreme Court Justices is far more important and basic civil rights could potentially be threatened as a result of the election

I agree that it is important to make the connection between the election of a new president and their effect on the Supreme Court. Even though the members elected might not have a huge effect on economic issues that have dominated the election, the impact the Supreme Court will have on individuals' rights is great.

I agree that this is an important issue, but I just can't see Roe V. Wade every being overturned, yet maybe I'm totally wrong. It seems just so irrational. Luckily, we won't have to deal with this problem...

I was really interested by the section of the Conrad reading that dealt with campaign funding. This article details Karl Rove, one of the biggest names in political finance who has masterminded the Republican switch from "hard" (personal donations) to "soft" ("social welfare") funding. Many think of him as the man who kept Bush Jr. afloat for two terms, and now Romney has him in charge of funneling donations from massively wealthy, anonymous Republicans into a "social welfare organization" (to be spent on anti-Obama ads). Groups likes these on either side are part of what Rove refers to as the "unlimited-outside-money boom." While Republicans are not the only guilty party, I find it really disturbing that groups like American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS can be legally separate from the Romney campaign itself. This loophole encourages aggressive ads and a totally out-of-control budget - more than a billion dollars - during the campaigning. The advertising machine developed by the Romney campaign has twice the budget of Obama's: if he can't keep up, how could any less mainstream candidate even hope to? This article makes a really strong case for limiting spending. Rove makes a point about keeping the parties themselves stronger, but it was not enough to sell the idea to me. The grimmest part is the story of one-upping Rove gives: he created Crossroads as a response to Obama's doubling of the Republican budget in the last race, pointing out that this cycle could continue.

I found this really interesting, especially being in the campaign finance small group for the presentation. The article does a good job describing the confusing nuances of 501s and 527s (superpacs and social welfare groups), but what I found the most interesting was the discussion of Obama's vilification of the Citizens United decision. The decision definitely hurt the Democratic party and gave the Republicans an advantage in the world of campaign finance, and this article seems to accuse Obama of deliberately misrepresenting the decision to make it seem worse than it was.

The part that stuck out to me in this article was when Rove tried to act as if unions and corporations should have the same rights. Unions represent large groups of people working for companies (i.e. the United Auto Workers). The people in these unions are generally blue-collar, working class people. Corporations on the other hand are all about making money. To me, it seems much more fair for unions to be able to run politically driven ads than corporations, but I'm not sure how that would work legally.

This article addresses a point that hit home with me from the Democratic National Convention: Obama brought up climate, but did not champion it in the same style and with the same conviction that he used to. Even while I was struck by his lack of gusto on the subject, the article is surprised that he brought it up at all. This issue has seen barely any coverage at all, with Romney in particular suggesting that even caring about climate change is shallow and ungrounded. He has continued to basically ridicule Obama's (self-proclaimed) devotion to the issue, which is not typical even for mainstream republicans. Obama himself has been almost entirely silent on the issue for the entire campaign (he brought up the term once in 2012). This article makes a really good partner for the first one Eli posted, which dealt with the variety of issues that the radicalization of parties has effectively silenced the debate over. As with the issue of immigration, we see the Republican Party leaning extremely right and making any productive discussion of the issue difficult. If Romney himself treats climate change as a joke and mocks environmentalism as a cause, how can the sides even begin to discuss specific issues of policy? I am honestly really doubtful of Obama's stance as an environmentalist: after the failure of one of his recent cap-and-trade policies, the term "climate change" was entirely avoided in his speech. I remember Dan saying in class that if Obama didn't claim to champion these issues during his presidency, you wouldn't be able to tell by his policy. From this article's description of his rhetoric for the last year, I would say that now he is neither talking the talk nor walking the walk, leaving his affiliation to this cause simply to the fact that he is a Democratic candidate and climate change is a "Democratic issue". To me, there is concrete proof that neither candidate has been taking climate change seriously this election. If both candidates are treating this

I recently heard an interview with Michael Lewis who wrote an article for Vanity Fair that involved spending a lot of day to day time with Obama. One of the things he talked about was Obama's view of his ability to use his position as president as a "bully pulpit." Obama told Lewis that his experience had been that he, in particular, was such a lightning rod for negative response, that when he took a position conservative journalists and politicians automatically responded so negatively that it was more useful for him to operate more subtly. I would imagine that he was using his speech at the convention to let voters know that he still wants to do something about climate change, and takes it seriously. Hopefully, he will be in a position to do this when he is not thinking about re-election.

I think the way Obama has treated climate change as an economic issue is very compelling. One of the main issues that people have with renewable energy is that isn't currently economically sustainable. I think Obama can work on the issue of climate change with the economy in mind and that is what he is doing. The issue that Obama faces on bringing the climate change issue into the economic realm is the Solyndra investment that the government made under his administration. Obama needs to walk the fine line between championing climate change and doing what's best for the economy.

I think this video is interesting because it demonstrates not only Romney's hope that he can move past the negative press that the video Mother Jones released brought to his campaign, but also how he will try to pose the statements in a way that will benefit his campaign. Trying to avoid talking about the comments would make him seem weak and I can understand why Romney would want to face them head on so as to prevent even more anger (I don't think he has actually been that successful in doing this). Romney discusses his comments as opinions he has always held and while he originally states that he was referring mostly to the campaign and voters, at the end of the video he mentions that he carries this opinion "day in and day out" and it is "the course of America" that he is concerned with. Discussing the negative comments only in the light of the race would seem like a smarter idea, so I wonder why Romney would even end with this comment? Another perplexing part of this video is how Romney starts off by saying he knows there are some voters he simply will not get, about half of the nation, but then goes on to say that he will do whatever he can to get as many votes as possible. Obviously I understand the desire to collect as many votes as he can, but he is more aware than anyone that there are some Americans who simply will not vote for him, especially after the comments he made about the country's dependents. Though this is a pretty clear dichotomy, it is interesting to see how Romney so blatantly speaks of it and how the faulty logic comes right out of the governor struggling to get his opinion across during the interview. This reactionary type of response is also seen when interviewer tries to steer Romney towards a specific issue and Romney bounces back to classic conservative rhetoric.

Yeah, I think the 47% comment really sealed the deal on Obama winning the election. The Republican's attempt to humanize Mitt Romney at the convention was destroyed by the release of this video. The comments are clearly offensive, and like John said, there is no way that Romney can look good when talking about these comments. It completely fulfills the stereotype that lots of Americans have about Mitt Romney being out of touch and disingenuous when he talks about helping the middle class.

Yeah he's definitely scrambling to recover from that comment. I don't have much to say, but check out this ad from the Obama campaign: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=B9xCCaseop4. Pretty harsh. Romney's had a bad couple weeks.

This article is very interesting because of the timing of Romney's softer tone in the critique of Obama so soon after many voters heard about the 43% comment Romney made. I think if Romney wants any chance of winning, he really needs to watch what he says and make sure he isn't made out to seem like more of a bad guy in the media. Although Romney compliments Obamacare he still points out what he does not like about it, showing his strong stance on what he thinks is positive and what needs change. It is unique that Romney is pointing out positive aspects of Obama care, because the GOP have often used Obamacare as one of the reasons why he should not be president again.

Yeah, this is an interesting call for Romney. I'm happy about it, but it certainly does seem calculated, especially his response of that he wants to keep "the part about pre-existing conditions." The phrase pre-existing condition is such an agitative buzzword, and it seems that this is a move intended to remove that specific buzzword from Obama's arsenal of rhetoric intended to pump up the base.

I agree with what you said John about how this could be part of a Romney tactic of moving towards the center and I am curious what aspects of Obama's policies and ideas Romney would consider taking on. It's interesting to think about this in the context of your comment Eli, because it seems like a lot of the concepts that Romney latches onto simply don't work with the reality of a policy or with the Republican platform. Saying that he supports coverage for individuals with pre-existing conditions could make Romney more appealing on a human level, but if it is so detached from his general stance, it ends up being useless. I think a more well-thought out focus on centrists could be really beneficial.

This article addresses the potential of Obama's second term. Andrew Sullivan is a great writer (you all should look at his blog) and in this piece he predicts that in the event of an Obama win, several things would happen. First, he says, the Republican party would (might) experience a kind of whiplash from its extreme radicalization and loss, becoming more moderate. This - the cooperation of the Republicans in the Senate - could allow Obama to become a bi-partisan hero, dealing with the deficit and immigration reform. Why he chose Reagan to compare to I don't really know, but it's an interesting read.

I like the idea in this article that you brought up Cody, about Obama becoming a widely supported bipartisan President if he wins again, but it is pretty debased throughout by the constant references to today's great polarization between left and right. While the great partisanship between states and people and politicians is mentioned about other ideas, it seems pretty dreamy to think Obama could sidestep this in terms of his own legacy. Though Obama may not be able to change how the right perceives him, I think the difference between Sullivan's prediction about Republicans becoming more centrist compared to earlier ideas we have discussed where Republicans just become further absorbed in their sparsely-supported and deeply conservative views is really interesting and I am fascinated to see how that plays out. I can see how another win for Obama would lead Republicans to reconsider their platform and targeted voting blocs, but also the idea of withdrawing into their misguided viewpoints in a protectionist-type way also makes sense.

Well, it looks like what Sullivan predicted is right. The Republicans did experience a "whiplash" for all of their super right wing policies. I heard an interesting statistic that if the Republicans hadn't been able to do so much redistricting for their house seats, demographically, they would have lost the majority in the house.