I know a number of people who do not approve of the Obama presidency, and I can tell you that stating it that way is as mild as it gets. IT has been interesting watching them shift from potential Republican nominee to the newest acceptable nominee candidate as the field shrinks and their prefer choice is eliminated.
There is no doubt that when the election rolls around many of these friends will walk into the voting booth and pull, punch, mark, or otherwise indicate that their selection is for the Republican candidate.
What I wonder is if any of these people, or anyone else out there who has been really animated against the current administration, can argue for me why we should vote for the Republicans, without mentioning Obama or democrats? Can they make a positive case for their side, instead of a case based upon, “The other guys are worse?”
p.s.
For what it is worth I consider Obama to be a merely mediocre president. He could have done better, he could have done more, but I don’t consider him to be the abject failure that some paint him to be, or the sainted hero people wanted him to be.
I would agree with you if it had been signed into law by a democratic president, but it was signed into law by a republican president. That in my opinion gives the republicans part ownership.
“This was a bipartisan cluster fuck.”
96% for + 78% against = bipartisan!
Who knew? Gee under that definition I wonder what is not bipartisan?
Sorry Bob, I don’t buy the blame sharing. So-called “campaign finance reform” is the Democrats ugly baby. They own it.
Okay, let’s take the science point by point:
1) EMP fears.
EMPs have been made much of in science fiction and there is risk, as noted. But when you examine the one actual EMP (mentioned in the Time article) , it does call the question of whether the theory overstates the danger. Do I WANT the electricity knocked out in over half the country? No. Of course, I don’t. Having said that, there is ample reason to think that it would not happen. At best, this is something that warrants investigation into the possible reality. It does not warrant the alarmist rhetoric. (Point 1 – Time magazine.)
2) Space mirrors.
I’m not sure it is fair to bring up an idea from 1984. We are a great deal more knowledgable in science now than we were then. (Point 1 – Gingrich – for Time not being fair and asking if this is a currently held view.)
3) Moon Mining.
If Newt is a proponant of this idea, then he is really out there in bad science land.
Mining in space has been a dream for a long time. It may be possible that this could be practical but it depends highly on what is being mined. When you examine Earth-based mining operations, it has always been a situation where there was enough of the comodity to still make a profit after transport to the desired location. I find the economics of this to be highly impractical at this point in time, particularly for the commodity mentioned. (Point 2 – Time magazine.)
So, since this covers the particular beliefs mentioned in the magazine, can you refute me? Time comes out ahead, two points to one, and only because I am generously allowing Former Senator Gingrich to slide on the 1984 belief. In what way is their remaining science faulty? (Brad, in general we are on the opposite sides of things, but this really is good for me to have to be questioned. Keep the conversation going.)
I though it had been just shy of sixty so I misremembered that. It was however a republican president who had campaigned against it that sign it. This was a bipartisan cluster fuck.
“As to MacCain-Fiengold, passed with republican Votes and signed into law by a republican president so I don’t hold out a lot of hope that the Republican can be a bulwark to this sort of intrusion.”
Don’t pin that one on the Republicans. It is the Democrats who have a zeal for regulating political speech, including the passage of McCain-Feingold.
To the Republicans shame, and much more particularly the shame of George W. Bush, they could have defeated McCain-Feingold, but didn’t. However it was overwhelming Democratic support which passed McCain-Feingold in the face of solid Republican opposition. McCain-Feingold is the result of the desires of the Democratic Party, not the Republicans. And it was the solid liberal block on the U.S. Supreme Court which supported that violation of political free speech rights.
McCain-Feingold passed the U.S. Senate in 2002 when the Democrats had a controlling majority. Only 2 Democratic Senators voted in opposition, and the bill passed with the bare minimum of 60 votes needed to evade a filibuster. Sadly eleven Republican Senators out of 49 voted with the Democrats to pass the bill.
Likewise it was overwhelming Democratic support which passed the bill in the House of Representatives in 2002. 198 out of the 212 members who caucus with the Democrats voted for McCain-Feingold. The 176 Republicans who voted against, out of 222 Republican members, just weren’t enough to stop the bill. Only 41 Republicans voted for the bill and only 12 Democrats voted against it.
Or to put it more simply: in the Senate 96% of Democrats voted for it and 78% of Republicans voted against ; in the House 93% of Democrats voted for it and 79% of the Republicans voted against.
Brad’s short terse comment is trying to make a valid point in differetn kinds of prizes. There are general prizes like the Noble, or Pulizter, but techonolgy has always had the objective oriented prize. Such as First Solo Flight across the Atlantic, once it is awarded it is not given not any more. Those sorts of prizes are very good at spuring devleopment of techonologies and are not anything to be sneered at.
This threat is about the Republicans, but I’ll take a quick detour to give a thumbnail sketch.
You have said in the past that the Rerpublicans want to regulate private behavior in the bedroom and ignore everything else and the Democrats want to ignore the bedroom and regualte everything else. This of course if a gross over simplifacation, but a usefull starting point.
The truth fo the matter is that in our individual lives the republicans I don’t find to be very libertarian. Same Sex issues, Abortion, contraceptive issues, sex education issues, adoption issues, right to die issues, Drug issues, torture issues (god it saddens me that I have to list that as an American Policital issue),, are all matters where the Democratic Party is already better on or in my opinion more likely to be moved in the proper direction than the Republicans. The republicans have on their side, Guns, Taxes, Regulations, Federalism. I look at the two sets and one seems more basic to human diganty than the other.
Kelo was truly a horrid decision, but here we are talking about how we value different rights. You have a set that matter more to you, property rights, taxes, Guns, etc and I have a set that matters more to me, personal freedom, privacy, basic life choices such as who to marry etc. Sadly we can’t get a judge or candidate who’ll approve two men getting married, paying a flat tax and getting a machine gun as a wedding gift.
As to MacCain-Fiengold, passed with republican Votes and signed into law by a republican president so I don’t hold out a lot of hope that the Republican can be a bulwark to this sort of intrusion.
Re: SCOTUS
Thought you would like to know, it’s not just gun rights at stake.
5-4 Kelo, property rights, takings, in the majority 4 liberal justices + Kennedy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London
5-4 McCain-Feingold, freedom of speech, in the majority 4 liberal justices + O’Connor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McConnell_v._Federal_Election_Commission
No doubt Newt is a space fan. My understanding is that he read “One Step Further Out’ by Jerry Pournelle and called that author, they became friends and Jerry Newt’s science adviser.
I understand your concern with SCOTUS, sadly I have serious doubts about the nominees that would be put forth by either side. Scalia, a favorite of the conservatives , twists himself into origami throwing limited government out the window when he wants to rule in a particular moral fashion. (See sodomy and drugs) So while the republican nominees would be better on Guns no doubt, I think that they would be less good for other civil rights. (See also Roe vs Wade which I do not want to see over turned.)
On taxes that are only partially moving in the right direction. Yes they support flatter and lower rates, but they are still in general in favor of all sorts of deductions, using the tax code to drive behavior, and they are very much in favor of separating income by type, so that investment income is taxed differently than wage income. (Most of their plans involve reducing investment income taxes or even eliminating it totally, so that the rich would have a much lower and not flatter tax burden.)
I’ve been looking all over the web for real information on Newt’s space speech that he gave in Florida. This is the best article I’ve found so far.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71991.html
The only criticism I have, is that Newt might have bought into the hype regarding VASIMR propulsion. I think that might be what Newt is talking about when he mentions developing advanced propulsion by 2020.
The Supreme Court. Currently the court is divided 4-1-4, with four conservative justices, Thomas, Scalia, Roberts and Alito, with moderate justice Kennedy versus Soto-Matyor, Kagen, Ginsberg and Breyer. If the next President gets a court appointment it will shift the balance. I believe the balance should shift in the direction of more limited government, a Republican priority. Certainly not every “conservative” decision is reason for celebration, but most “liberal” decisions invite more government control over our lives. I have a vested interest in cases involving the Second Amendment. I would hate to see a liberal leaning court conclude that no gun control measure infringes on the right when the court has decided the second Amendment is a individual right and the Fourteenth Amendment extends it to the states.
Tax reform. At least two Republican candidates have come forward with a flat tax proposal. Though they are not flat enough for me, you have advocated a flat tax. The only party that seems to endorse that idea is the Republican party
Now, tell me why a person who leans in a Libertarian direction should vote for Democrats?
In any case it really doesn’t matter. We’re in the people’s Republic of California.
I found this little clip from ABC. Not much is there, but I can tell from what he says that Newt is actually aware of the real issues facing NASA and has some ideas on how to make it better.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/newt-gingrich-talks-moon-base-space-exploration-15444628
Did you catch him referring to The Moon is a Harsh Mistress?
Newt is a long-time space-nerd. He’s not just pandering to Florida local interests, he really believes in space expansion.
Dare I say it? One of us! One of us! One of us!
Accurate? Holy Crap!
That so-called “science” article in Time was about as accurate as when once-upon-a-time the New York Times mocked Goddard’s pioneer work with rocketry!
Ever heard of the X-prize? Or Space Ship One?
Newt is making a big deal out of space to get Floridian votes. The idea of blending private enterprise with a military model does not reduce costs and beauracracy…and if grand prizes worked, wouldn’t the Nobel prizes be enough? foolish, short-sighted, without direction or goal – not much change from what we’ve got now. Nope. Not a reason to vote for the man (And I’m very pro-space so you almost had me.)
Regarding Floridian votes, I know our weak education system has made us vulnerable to being fed stupidity but I doubt a re-enegized space program would have much financial impact outside of Brevard County. At its height, the space program accounted for significantly less than 10 percent of all jobs in Florida (SIGNIFICANTLY less). A healthy boom there isn’t going to help us much. We need a systemic vision for increasing jobs and businesses in Florida and another look at our revenue development or we will fall more and more behind. The state of the State (of Florida) is hemorrhagingand we are close to having a corpse. No president can help us. we must help ourselves by voting in a competant Governor – Which we don’t ahve currently and probably never will have, thanks to the religious right.
Having just read the article, they ar enot against Newt being a space booster. They mock his sketchy knowledge of sciene and their mockery is accurate. The man has some nutty ideas – much nuttier than going to the moon was in its day. I side with Time. This is NOT the president to give us a decent spcae program.
If Newt ends up as president, he will probably be the most pro-space president since JFK. That is one reason to vote for.
http://lightyears.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/24/gingrich-promises-jfk-like-space-speech/
Of course Time Magazine, as the voice of the Democratic left in America, thinks that Newt’s space boosterism is a good reason to mock him.
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2102471,00.html
OT but damn funny…
Newtzilla!
ttp://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-goldberg-newtzilla-20120124,0,4743958.column?track=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+latimes%2Fnews%2Fopinion%2Fcommentary+%28L.A.+Times+-+Commentary%29