Prejudice

[geezer_also]

Thinking about the discussion the other day on how the tea party is: bad, evil, bigoted, ignorant, etc (choose your favorite adjective). Accepting, for the moment, the general consensus, that there is no ism without power (the idea that there can be no reverse discrimination, since there is no power on the other side). Accepting also that it is

Comments

[underlankers]

There is one major difference with the Tea Partiers and the Hope & Changers. People warned from the first that Obama was not the FDR-type that people mistook him for and some even listened to that and believe it. The Tea Party thinks it can do a lot more than it will ever be able to do and understands the Conrad Henlein definition of compromise.

[underlankers]

As to why so many people voted for the incumbent, in the primaries Hillary's campaign started the whole Birther and slimy-smears business, a no-win situation for the Clinton campaign and during the actual election the two were neck and neck up to when the "nation of whiners" learned that Bear Sterns imploded. At that point the majority of the US masses realized that McCain-Palin didn't have a clue about the crisis and assumed the new Great Communicator did.

Unfortunately Mr. Obama's a very nice man but a mediocre placeholder President when we needed someone with Lincoln's political skills and FDR's charisma.

[luvdovz]

He IS mediocre. I cannot explain in comprehensive terms why it appears to me so, but it does.

[underlankers]

The problem with the President is that he assumes he can lead by simple statements the Democrats in Congress. Congress and the Presidency have never worked like that and it's never worked any time it's been tried. Pelosi and Reid are people he'd need to either conciliate (the carrot) or browbeat (the stick) into working according to what he wants and the evidence to me indicates that Pelosi and Reid ran two separate parts of the Democratic Party while the President ran a third

[chipuni]

Unfortunately Mr. Obama's a very nice man but a mediocre placeholder President when we needed someone with Lincoln's political skills and FDR's charisma.

Extremely well-put.

Obama is a law-school professor with a deep passion for public service. We knew this when we voted him in... but we're still surprised when we discover that it's true.

[mahnmut]

Problem is, you didn't have too many viable alternatives.

[underlankers]

That's no excuse for being surprised when the mild-mannered law professor turns out to in fact *be* a mild-mannered law professor.

[mahnmut]

Frankly, I don't care much who's surprised and who isn't.

[underlankers]

I do, because when you're surprised after two years of advocating expansion of a war that your new President expands that war, you've inflicted on yourself buying a pig in a poke.

[allhatnocattle]

Lack of viable alternatives seems to be a error in the system, not an error with the voters.

And by system error, it's not just the procedural one that eliminated Clinton and all the others before November. It appears to be a cultural one that casts it's net as narrow as possible.

[underlankers]

Perhaps it is. So if the flaw is in the system, how do you suggest it be fixed?

[allhatnocattle]

The fix is easier politically then culturally.

Within the polical system try to level the playing field so it favours all parties equally. Capping the campaign spending would do a world of good to help that. And/or allow equal amounts of free advertizment for parties meeting criteria, while banning paid advertizing.

These types of election law gives all parties equal advantage, putting the emphasis on ideas, platforms and qualities rather then quantity of resources. Voters get broader slate of candidates, broader slate of platforms, and more exciting competition.

Culturally it's more difficult to break voter habits. They will naturally migrate towards candidates/parties they know, rather then risking the unknown. However, outrage (at scandal, etc) can drive some voters away from familiar parties.

[underlankers]

The two elephants in the room are that the US system was never designed with political parties in mind, where the Westminster one evolved *from* the precursors to political parties and the problem of the Electoral College.

[allhatnocattle]

Probably true, although political parties did enter American politics almost at the beginning (John Adams was with the Federtalist party). USA has had many years to adjust to this reality.

Deisned with or without parties in mind isn't really the issue. They say Obama's 2008 campaign raised 530million$ total. That's crazy. It made the pla

[underlankers]

I didn't say that they didn't exist right out of the starting gate. I just said they weren't taken into account with designing the system, which is very much a problem.

premature comment posted

[allhatnocattle]

That much money would do a world of good elsewhere. Obviously he earned all those donations but it made the election race focused on
#1 getting the cash
#2 spending the cash
I mean I know this is a capitalistic society but doesn't it strike you that priorities are out of whack? You're supposed to elect leaders. Qualities may include electing a great fundraiser, a great orator, a great man of passion. But with the focus on who's raising/spending the most money it makes the competition feilded really narrow.