City November 10, 2012 11:18 AM

In Politics and in Sports. There's Got To Be a Morning After

Tom Tarapacki 51

You don't have to be a Buffalo Bills fan to know about "Monday Morning Quarterbacks." That's one of the many sports idioms that have come into common usage in American society. Basically, it refers to a person who criticizes a team or player after a performance, having had the benefit of hindsight. The Mitt Romney campaign has certainly had a multitude of Monday Morning Quarterbacks, many of whom were among the campaign's biggest strategists and cheerleaders just before election day.

In sports, the Monday Morning Quarterbacks tend to have a much easier job because the situation is usually much clearer. If a football team lost a game on a last-minute interception, you can pretty much assume that if the team didn't throw that interception it would have won. Now, you can argue that maybe the coach shouldn't have called a pass play, or the quarterback threw a horrible pass, or the receiver shouldn't have made a better effort to catch the ball, but there will probably be a clear consensus that the interception was a decisive play.

That's one of the reasons we love our sports: there is usually (but not always) much less ambiguity than there is in the rest of our lives. Also, we really don't have as much at stake. Most of the time presidential politics has more real-life consequences than the outcome of a Buffalo Bills game (Note that I wrote "most of the time"; if you paint your face red, white and blue before every home game you may beg to differ).

In politics, Monday Morning Quarterbacking becomes much more tricky, in large part because it requires that we analyze the thought processes that led people to vote for one candidate or another. Campaign 2012 is a particularly good case study because of how dramatically opinions changed following the outcome of the presidential race. In general, most observers thought that the election would be very close, and that one candidate could win the popular vote and the other the electoral vote. Many supporters of Romney thought that they had the best candidate, the Republicans were doing everything right, and that the GOP ticket would achieve a substantial victory. Those supporters, like the rest of us, have become Monday Morning Quarterbacks now, and are trying to explain how Romney lost so decisively. However, the reasons for the loss are not as simple in the world of politics as they are in the world of sports.

Google "Why Romney Lost" and you'll find a litany of explanations: Romney didn't have a clear middle-class job strategy; He failed to personally connect with voters; Hurricane Sandy gave Obama an 11th hour boost; Paul Ryan was a bad choice for vice president; Romney's staff was poor; The Romney campaign failed to appeal to Hispanics; Romney alienated women voters; Romney's TV commercials weren't hard-hitting enough; People didn't like Romney's hair. Okay, I made up the last one, but you get the idea.

The problem is that much of that post-race analysis is coming from the same people who predicted that Romney would win --- and win big. Pundits like Karl Rove, George Will and Dick Morris were predicting a Romney landslide. Steve Forbes, a wealthy magazine publisher who twice sought the Republican nomination for president, spoke for many when he wrote on Tuesday: "Mitt Romney will win big tonight. His popular vote margin will be between 3 - 5%. He will win the Electoral College I believe by a vote of 321 to 217, and with luck, even more." I guess Romney was without luck ---- really without luck.

In sports being a Monday Morning Quarterback is much easier. In politics, the rationale behind "what went wrong" (or "what went right") is never quite as clear as it is in sports.

Just as I wouldn't expect Chan Gailey or Ryan Fitzpatrick to give me the most insight into why the Bills lost a game they should have won, I'm certainly not going to put much trust into the analysis of the presidential election outcome offered by people like Steve Forbes and George Will. To understand why Romney lost, we should listen more to rationale of the people who voted for Obama, not to the excuses put forward by the losing team.

We all may be Monday Morning Quarterbacks, but some of us are certainly better at it than others.

View image

Comments

51 Comments Leave a comment

I Laugh at Bills Fans

November 10, 2012 12:10 PM

Buffalo Rising has enough arguments over things like the Freight House, must there also be political battles?

[ Reply ]

Score: 1 ( 13 votes )

Rcc

November 10, 2012 4:28 PM

We all love Buffalo , but I think I may be the last conservative Christian in the whole state , so let's not talk politics. I would much rather talk downtown development .

[ Reply ]

Score: -2 ( 10 votes )

Cam33r4

November 10, 2012 6:02 PM

Romney was historically a "moderate conservative" but the GOP wanted him to run as super Conservative Romney, and the American people are realizing that strong conservatism just doesn't work. I'm not going to touch the economic policy with a ten foot pole because I definitely do not have the knowledge to address that, but in terms of social conservatism it's a different story. Social conservatism comes of as bigotry and resonates with the 1950s.

And don't worry Rcc, I've been called a faggot on more than one occasion walking around WNY with my boyfriend (not even doing any PDA or holding hands), so I assure you, you aren't the only one left!

[ Reply ]

Score: 9 ( 11 votes )

davvid

November 10, 2012 8:17 PM

I can see why a conservative might not what to hear about politics this week. Personally I can't get enough of it. After seeing the republicans deny every inconvenient aspect of reality for the last four years it is so satisfying to see them wrestle with the indisputable fact that Romney lost.

[ Reply ]

Score: 2 ( 16 votes )

whatever

November 10, 2012 9:39 PM

Fair enough. I felt similarly about reactions to the 2010 off-year elections.

Enjoy your 50.6% victory for POTUS and 2-seat gain in Senate. You're correct, it's indisputable.

[ Reply ]

replied to davvid

Score: 1 ( 9 votes )

davvid

November 11, 2012 1:05 PM

But do you remember the 2010 losses triggering much talk among liberals about the need for the party to appeal to more conservative whites? Romney's loss combined with the changing demographics of the south and west is inspiring a lot of discussion among Republicans about how the GOP may need to change its tune on social policies that affect Black and Latino Americans. Romney's loss may also change the dog whistle racial rhetoric of the GOP. And an end to GOP exploitation of racism (The Southern Strategy) would be a huge victory for "the better angels of our nature". Hopefully it will force the GOP to return to its core civic and economic principles and leave conspiracists like Rss outside.

[ Reply ]

replied to whatever

Score: 5 ( 5 votes )

whatever

November 11, 2012 5:28 PM

davvid>"2010 losses triggering much talk among liberals about the need for the party to appeal to more conservative whites?"

I don't know about 'much', or if it was given much publicity, but actually yes there was some of that in 2010 both before and after that election. For instance
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/01/the-democrats-white-flight/69047/
and
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/democratic-governors-warn-white-house-on-immigration/

And even more of it a few years before. Many of the defeated Dem incumbents in 2010 had been recruited in 2006 with that motive in mind. Rahm Emanuel was very open about that as part of his Blue Dog strategy for white conservative candidates like Heath Schuler.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/22/us/politics/22baker.html
"Mr. Emanuel was the driving force behind the Democratic campaign to recapture the House, and he hunted down candidates even in unfriendly, conservative districts to find the 15 additional seats he needed. Idealism, as the film vividly shows, took a back seat to the bottom-line calculation of who could win.
“I didn’t care where a seat came from,” Mr. Emanuel says in the film. “It’s not like I had a preference for one geography over another, one ideology over another. I only cared about 15. That was the magic number. There was no sentiment in this. It was pure winning.”
That, of course, is what led Mr. Emanuel to Mr. Shuler’s door.
Although Mr. Shuler opposed abortion and favored gun rights, he was a Democrat and one who Mr. Emanuel figured could win his conservative district in North Carolina.
…"

Also recall that was a whole focus of Clinton's DLC in the 1990s.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23833.html
"The DLC reached the height of its influence during the early 1990s. Clinton, who once served as its chairman, made the council’s policies on free-trade agreements and welfare reform staples of his presidency.
But the group – which shunned the “liberal” label in favor of a “new” Democratic brand - never shed its reputation as an organization that spurred conflict with liberal interest groups. Rev. Jesse Jackson once called the DLC “Democrats for the Leisure Class.” And former presidential candidate Howard Dean referred to it as “the Republican wing of the Democratic Party.”
..."

btw, who did you mean by Rss in "conspiracists like Rss"?

[ Reply ]

replied to davvid

Score: -3 ( 3 votes )

whatever

November 11, 2012 5:35 PM

Never mind that last question - I see you probably meant Rcc and the "six ss numbers".
I hadn't read down that far yet.

[ Reply ]

replied to davvid

Score: -2 ( 2 votes )

Rcc

November 10, 2012 11:20 PM

It's not the republicans or Romney that were the losers it was the nation. If you think moving a step closer tosocialism is a victory then we are so far apart on our beliefs there is no common ground. As far as reality David what about lying about Libia or the unemployment rate or saying he was going to cut the deficit or being a citizen , having six ss numbers? Who can't face reality ? he also said he was going to bring people together , does class warfare sound like bringing people together ? Blame the 1% and the wealthy for the problems, make them the scape goat. Sounds like what Hitlerdid to the Jews.

[ Reply ]

replied to davvid

Score: -12 ( 18 votes )

jhorn

November 11, 2012 2:09 AM

"blaming the 1%" an equivalent to the holocaust? a continued search for that Kenyan birth certificate? And you want to chastise davvid for his failure to grasp reality?

[ Reply ]

replied to Rcc

Score: 9 ( 9 votes )

Cam33r4

November 11, 2012 7:30 AM

Can you please provide some evidence that shows any sort of socialist policy for Obama? I hear this argument a lot, but funnily enough, nobody ever has any examples. You can dislike Obama, that's your opinion, but at least have some real evidence rather than spewing everything you hear on Fox News.

[ Reply ]

replied to Rcc

Score: 3 ( 9 votes )

LouisTully

November 11, 2012 9:22 AM

The best was seeing someone saying they were going to move to Canada because Obama won and they're tired of all the handouts this country gives.

[ Reply ]

replied to Cam33r4

Score: 7 ( 9 votes )

"Realist"

November 11, 2012 9:54 AM

Oh boy. More butchering of the R-word by someone who appears to be the furthest thing from an authority on reality.

Rcc, Was the US "socialist" when TR busted trusts, Ike built the Interstate, or when Nixon took us off the Gold Standard? Those things seem much more left than anything that has happened over the past four years but the history books say nothing of the Iron Curtain extending to our shores. Perhaps they were written in a reality different from the alternate "reality" you speak of.

[ Reply ]

replied to Rcc

Score: 5 ( 5 votes )

whatever

November 11, 2012 6:08 PM

whathave>"Those things seem much more left than anything that has happened over the past four years"

Not really. There's a pretty clear big difference between govt ownership of roads/highways (which btw, wasn't introduced by Ike, not even close) and for example the recent infusions of govt $ and management control into GM and Chrysler.

Private ownership of most roads and highways isn't practical, at least to this point in history. Maybe way in the future it could be somehow, who knows. But private ownership of the car industry is.
Whether the federal govt should fund roads/highways or leave it to states and locals is a different kind of debate.

Focusing the blame (or praise for those who favor leftward shifting) on only Obama and Ds doesn't make sense considering a lot of what Bush and other Rs have done, but neither does the kind of argument that looks to me like govt-ownership-of-highways-justifies-anything-I-want-it-to-justify.

[ Reply ]

replied to "Realist"

Score: -3 ( 5 votes )

Tom

November 11, 2012 7:25 PM

the money that went into the auto industry was repaid with interest. It wasn't a handout, it was an investment, which the federal government made money off of.

[ Reply ]

replied to whatever

Score: 5 ( 5 votes )

"Realist"

November 11, 2012 8:13 PM

Do i have to respond to the red herrings when they are this off topic? I don't feel like going down that federally funded road.

[ Reply ]

replied to whatever

Score: 2 ( 2 votes )

whatever

November 11, 2012 10:55 PM

Nope, don't have to respond, not even about herrings like "Ike" who - umm, somebody first brought up above …maybe was same who brought up on-topic TR, gold standard... lol

[ Reply ]

replied to "Realist"

Score: -2 ( 2 votes )

"Realist"

November 12, 2012 8:26 AM

My rhetorical question to Rcc was to illustrate to him and others that the current president's "socialist" actions don't seem nearly as so when compared with the performance of notable non-socialist past US presidents. Just trying to get some air out of the hysteria balloon before more dumb Nazi Germany comparisons.

You then jump in with some sort of commentary on the role of government and roads as well an apparent counter to a claim I never made that Eisenhower invented public roadways.

What he did to was use the federal government and taxation to execute an unprecedented cross-country public work AKA the Interstate.

From Webster's: 2 in·ter·state
noun \ˈin-tər-ˌstāt\
Definition of INTERSTATE
: any of a system of expressways connecting most major United States cities —called also interstate highway

From Wiki: The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, popularly known as the National Interstate and Defense Highways Act (Public Law 84-627), was enacted on June 29, 1956, when Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the bill into law. With an original authorization of 25 billion dollars for the construction of 41,000 miles (66,000 km) of the Interstate Highway System supposedly over a 10-year period, it was the largest public works project in American history through that time.[1]

Just pointing out how the president who actually built the Interstate isn't regarded as a socialist but the one who wants to use stimulus spending to repair portions of it is, at least by a delusional few.

Not sure what any of that has to do with your counterpoint to the unmade argument of Ike inventing roads but nice try in changing the subject.

[ Reply ]

replied to whatever

Score: 2 ( 2 votes )

whatever

November 10, 2012 9:52 PM

Ironically for a locally focused blog, when BR articles do mention politics and election races it's almost always about nationwide/federal level.

Seldom if ever mentioned are local races like this year for city-based districts in both houses of the state leg.
For example a way it could've been brought up is some candidates favored the Peace Bridge plaza expansion ran against against opponents against it. (btw - those favoring it won, those opposing it lost badly - not saying that was the only reason, but just sayin...)
There was also the very close Kennedy-Grant race.
Also a contested primary for the Common Council seat that was once held by Mickey Kearns.
And not long ago the state assembly race when Kearns ran against and defeated a Higgins-backed candidate.

I could be mistaken, but don't recall any of the above being mentioned on here even though all happened in the city. The Collins-Hochul race happened also in the region, although not the city.

Don't mistake anything in this comment for a complaint or criticism. It isn't. Blogs should write about anything they want, not about things they don't.
Just noting irony of the strong preference here to debate polarized national-level politics but not local races on which most readers could have more impact by comparison.

[ Reply ]

Score: 2 ( 6 votes )

benfranklin

November 11, 2012 7:27 AM

It wasn't just the right-leaning pundits that were off in their prognostications, but the campaign itself. For a person with conservative views, it's hard to see how the country could ignore the previous four years, and continue on the same path. As Ron Paul has written recently, perhaps we're already too far gone.

More disheartening is the self-fulfilling prophesy of Obama's us-vs them class warfare. Most small business people want to hire, want their employees to do well. But the uncertainty of health care, rising taxes, and an economy that's not doing well, make for a decision making environment that is not pro-growth, but more along the lines of, what do I need to do to stay open. That leads to cutbacks.

I believe there was a pent up feeling among business and the '1%'. Unshackle us from health care reform, return us to an environment where costs are known, and job creators are not seen as the enemy. That's not going to happen now.

The country will continue to languish in an environment where more people need to be aided by the government. Given this is what happened in the previous four years, and we haven't heard anything about how a second term would be any different, it's difficult for us on the right not to conclude that this is the way the majority wants it, and this is what the president wants to see.

If the first four years was preceded by 'hope and change', and this is what we received, what can only imagine what we're in for now.

[ Reply ]

Score: -5 ( 11 votes )

"Realist"

November 11, 2012 9:25 AM

You guys lose me whenever the "job creator" talk comes out. You really ought not complain of "class warfare" and "us vs them" as long as you insist on using polarizing rhetoric of your own.

Regarding the rest of your comment, perhaps the issue is more about you and others with conservative views looking at things through a new paradigm rather than the majority of voters wanting to see the country languish. Federal regulation and spending have been the American way for over awhile now and were much more prevalent during times of greater prosperity. The right led freakout over comparably centrist reforms may be more a product of a minority of voters going extreme than, to paraphrase BO'R, a new majority that wants stuff.

That could explain why ordinarily non-controversial topics that came up over the past 4 years, like infrastructure spending and Medicare/aid, became such hot button issues for the right but didn't have the same impact on the rest of us.

Since most people don't view moderate reforms as "shackles" and otherwise don't participate in the Obama outrage hysteria, and those who do find themselves increasingly isolated among like minded thinkers and a conservative media bubble, it is understandable that the results from this past Tuesday would be surprising to the minority.

[ Reply ]

replied to benfranklin

Score: 7 ( 7 votes )

whatever

November 11, 2012 6:37 PM

whathave>"Since most people don't view moderate reforms as "shackles" and otherwise don't participate in the Obama outrage hysteria, and those who do find themselves increasingly isolated among like minded thinkers and a conservative media bubble, it is understandable that the results from this past Tuesday would be surprising to the minority."

Narrow majority/minority, this year, yes.

And not very long ago in 2010 "most" may have viewed it the way you say they don't, resulting in a 6.6% margin in popular votes votes for the House of Representatives R 51.4% to D 44.8%.
Now in 2012, by a narrower margin your side won total popular votes for presidency and House each by under 3%, true. There's no way to know for sure how much of those 3% were due to social vs. fiscal issues, or personal popularity of Obama and Romney's lack of it by comparison.

Regardless, the national divide is closely matched. It can be argued pretty well that Ben's point of view is similar to close to half and yours to the other half. As results go back and forth in different years each side at different moments can claim to be a majority and dismiss the others as an isolated minority, etc.

On the other hand, if we're talking about NY state - it's clear anything other than Ds are indeed becoming a smaller and smaller minority as a long term trend - no doubt in that.

[ Reply ]

replied to "Realist"

Score: -2 ( 2 votes )

"Realist"

November 11, 2012 8:29 PM

Narrow in spite of a sluggish economy, unprecedented corporate sponsorship in your favor, and no shortage of enthusiasm from the right wing base. Unseating an incumbent ought to be fairly easy under those conditions but obviously that didn't happen. What happens in 2016 with a better economy, less enthused elites, and disgruntled dittoheads?

If you guys are satisfied with a House majority, a narrow minority in the Senate, and dominating the red states, stay the course of extremism. Just start preparing your President Biden gripes now so you can hit the ground running four years from now.

[ Reply ]

replied to whatever

Score: 3 ( 3 votes )

whatever

November 11, 2012 10:31 PM

I doubt anyone's satisfied with only the House. I wouldn't be satisfied even if Romney won, even though I preferred him of the two. We'll never know, but I was skeptical he'd have really differed enough from Obama and Bush.

We'll also see in '16 whether Biden (or Cuomo or Hillary) will enthuse the same levels of your side's turnout that O did. And whether economy is better - hopefully will be, but nobody knows.

On the optimistic side for Rs, the big exit poll found that although majorities agreed with Obama and Ds on many questions, on this one the Rs have a very good edge - which looks to agree with Ben's previous thoughts….
"51 percent said government is doing too many things better left to businesses and individuals; just 43 percent said it should do more to solve problems."

Rs should focus on that in '16 while the debt has grown even more huge.

[ Reply ]

replied to "Realist"

Score: -2 ( 4 votes )

whatever

November 11, 2012 10:48 PM

"Narrow in spite of a sluggish economy,"

But for that, the exit poll says by far more still blame Bush than Obama, 53% to 38%, not even close - so if anything that should have helped, not hurt, the Obama/Dem margins.

True, a win is a win even by 2.6%, ...so gloating is welcome.

Still, dropped by more than half from 7.2% in 2008, so perhaps the _trend_ isn't as one sided as some of you hope. We'll see.

"unprecedented corporate sponsorship in your favor"

Actually that was close on both sides, says the NY Times
"...Mr. Obama did not beat the super PACs; he joined them. ...the president dispatched high-ranking campaign and administration officials around the country, where they beseeched small groups of millionaires and billionaires to contribute large checks.
Fund-raising picked up, and by Election Day, Priorities USA Action had spent $66.5 million on attack ads, much of it paid for by a small group of investors, trial lawyers and labor unions.
That spending — along with tens of millions of dollars in pro-Obama spending by other super PACs and outside groups — substantially evened the score against Republicans and their allies.
During the general election campaign, the net advantage in outside spending by conservative groups over pro-Obama outside groups shrank to $200 million, about 10 percent of all spending in this presidential race. ..."

I'll predict it will remain pretty evenly matched next time too. Many corporate interests are pro-Dem for various reasons.

[ Reply ]

replied to "Realist"

Score: -2 ( 2 votes )

Tom

November 11, 2012 11:15 AM

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.courier-journal.com/blogs/money/uploaded_images/schnatter-798810.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.courier-journal.com/blogs/money/2008/06/10-most-valuable-homes-in-louisville.html&h=262&w=400&sz=30&tbnid=9GcFbOZ60VbHJM:&tbnh=76&tbnw=116&zoom=1&usg=__x6LYyxdEEoWAbM1J7jcDcOAWDsI=&docid=aIU3ph9QldnUqM&sa=X&ei=es6fUNuRGanQ2AWwhgE&ved=0CD8Q9QEwBA&dur=776

This is John Schnatter's house. He is the CEO of Papa Johns who says that Obamacare will cause the price of his pizza to go up 11-14 cents. He also says that he will have to cut the hours of his employees because of it. But he lives in 40,000 sq. ft. house. How much more money does this man need? He feels the need to publicly play with his employees lives. This is the reason people feel the rich need to be taxed more, and the fox news called "class warfare" rhetoric comes in.

[ Reply ]

replied to benfranklin

Score: 3 ( 7 votes )

benfranklin

November 11, 2012 6:30 PM

He makes about 2.75 million per year. Clearly he made his real money taking the company public.

I did some quick math. There are about 4 million people making over 200,000. Let's take all of that amount from each of them.

That's 800 billion dollars. In this past fiscal year, we'd still be 200 billion dollars deficit in the hole.

[ Reply ]

replied to Tom

Score: -2 ( 2 votes )

PaulBuffalo

November 11, 2012 12:47 PM

For a person with conservative views, it's hard to see how the country could ignore the previous four years....

Instead, I would say, it's hard to see how conservatives could ignore the previous four years of this lengthy presidential campaign. Fortunately, voters certainly didn't ignore the purging of moderate Republican candidates, the war-mongering rhetoric, the climate science denial (and science denial, in general), the message to the immigrant community of self-deportation, the turn-back-the-clock approach to women's rights and gay rights, and the obvious racism of many conservative candidates and their associates. From Michele Bachman to George Allen to Todd Aiken to Joe Walsh to Allen West to Ted Nugent to Joe Arpaio to Donald Trump, I would use a tweaked version of Groucho Marx's famous quote: I wouldn't want to be in a club that has them as members.

... and job creators are not seen as the enemy.

I don't know how the term job creators could've ever polled well. It's just an obvious and misleading rebranding of Reagan's trickle-down economics. Even Reagan's budget director, David Stockman, walked away from that theory long ago.

Elections aren't about the issues politicians want them to be; they are about the issues voters believe them to be. Republicans and conservatives ignored that.

There is no question that the economy is the top priority. Because of the consequences of sequestration, Republicans will -- after four years -- finally have to consider compromise and accept a deal. In the meantime, I'm sure a few jobs are being created: Mr. Paladino will probably have to hire folks to remove the silly bumper stickers plastered on his Thrifty rental cars.

[ Reply ]

replied to benfranklin

Score: 6 ( 10 votes )

Xiu and Xu Zhou-Perkins

November 11, 2012 11:54 AM

If "job creators" want to pout, downsize, and obstruct, then by all means have at it. There are countless young entrepreneurs that will make our cheese, landscape, sell plumbing products, etc. Get the hell out of the way and move to a place where the regulatory and tax climate is more palatable for you -- say, Zimbabwe or Honduras.

[ Reply ]

Score: 7 ( 9 votes )

elias

November 11, 2012 12:58 PM

it is so pointless to try to explain mitt romney's message to half of our population...we missed out on a tremendous opportunity in our nation's history, but for the other half, social equality was the main issue...it was for lgbt groups, women's groups, hispanic american groups, african american groups, etc...economy be damned...

so now the other half won, here is the challenge...how are you going to make america better now that you have achieved social equality? is it okay then to call out certain parts of your groups without being called a racist? (i'm a proud conservative hispanic, btw)...the issue of 47% has not disappeared...what will you do to reduce that number so that it is not so burdensome on our economy? that includes the white communities with its share of 'moochers' as you call them (republicans have them too, but remember, we're only rich old white men...)...will the african american and hispanic american communities in places like Buffalo do something to improve the quality of life, so that in the not so distant future, its not so scary to be in a black neighborhood, or an hispanic neighborhood...will there be black or hispanic owned businesses opening up in buffalo, which white people would love to be patrons of...without the fear of being labelled uncle toms or the hispanic equivalent...i can go on, but you get the picture...

i also offer you this...i am not a racist, a hater and certainly do not owe anyone an apology for what i believe. in my heart, it is the best value system to pass on to my children, i feel they will be better people in this world accepting these values...some of my closest friends are black, or gay, hispanic, white, fillipino, and for many of them, i will run through walls for, i love them that much, they know who they are, and they know how i feel...i invite any of you to discuss conservatism without the preconcieved notions that the other side believes about us. we do not care about your color, orientation, gender etc...we believe in a strong private sector, good work ethic, strong families, fiscal responsibility, and i know many on the other side believe in these values also, i don't understand why so many fear what conservatism is all about...

[ Reply ]

Score: -2 ( 10 votes )

Xiu and Xu Zhou-Perkins

November 11, 2012 1:15 PM

"i invite any of you to discuss conservatism without the preconcieved notions that the other side believes about us. we do not care about your color, orientation, gender etc..."

Really? You should sit in any of our local taverns at about 5 pm when conservatives have a few beers while watching Channel 4 News. I learn colorful new monikers for blacks, gays, liberals, Muslims just about every time.

Its a bit of a challenge to discuss Dodd-Frank with a guy who wants to "Put The White Back In The White House," and other clever quips you share with each other when the room is sufficiently white.

[ Reply ]

Score: 7 ( 7 votes )

elias

November 11, 2012 2:45 PM

Wow, you totally fell into the preconcieved notion trap...cmon now, not everyone hangs out at a tavern at 5 oclock...you gotta do better than that...intelligent conver
sation please...

[ Reply ]

replied to Xiu and Xu Zhou-Perkins

Score: -4 ( 4 votes )

Xiu and Xu Zhou-Perkins

November 11, 2012 9:22 PM

Its not a pre-conceived notion. You act like none of us know any conservatives, like you are some remote tribe in Papua New Guinea. We know you. You are our brothers, friends, uncles, golf partners. We know you all too well. Most of us have been you.

So stop your clumsy coded language when trying to put on a face for polite society, and yep, we can debate all sorts of policy. Or you can keep losing elections to Kenyan fellas.

[ Reply ]

replied to elias

Score: 6 ( 6 votes )

elias

November 12, 2012 8:33 AM

So then you are saying that we are in fact all racists, and that ends the conversation...would one of you liberals pleeeeeease have a discussion with me without charging racism, pleeease...or is it in fact pointless to have this conversation with a liberal...i am not speaking in any code, please have this conversation with me wthout mocking us... congratulations your guy won... please stop acting like bullies and explain to me why we have a different view of things when we share so much in common, seriously...that is as plain,and uncoded as I can make it.

[ Reply ]

replied to Xiu and Xu Zhou-Perkins

Score: -3 ( 3 votes )

benfranklin

November 12, 2012 10:04 AM

When you look at the results, county by county, it's striking how many people vote demographically, and may not take the time to become an informed voter. Don't be at all surprised to see the republicans run a moderate female latino, or some other non-white, non-male combination in 2016. (The primary process may make this difficult.)

Conservatives will support a minority candidate in far greater numbers than inner city residents will support a non-minority.

It's unfortunate, but the election has more similarities to a high school student council election than a real debate about the issues. Maybe it's time for the electoral college to do the job it was created to do, and protect the electorate from it's own ignorance.

[ Reply ]

replied to elias

Score: -5 ( 5 votes )

Tom

November 12, 2012 10:16 AM

Ha come on. By saying that the electorate needs to be protected against its own ignorance because the majority of inner city minorities voted for the Democrat, is just calling minorities ignorant. Not right. Especially with the fact there are probably more ignorant, uninformed white voters, just due to population. And as biniszkiewicz said below, the deregulation of the financial industry, which the Republicans want to keep deregulated, was the major cause of the recession. So wouldn't it be ignorant to keep that policy in place?

[ Reply ]

replied to benfranklin

Score: 5 ( 5 votes )

benfranklin

November 12, 2012 11:32 AM

...threw in the electoral college thing just to see if you're reading to the end of my post. In the mid 2000's the government pushed home ownership as a priority. When people couldn't repay these loans, the financial system took the hit. If you're liberal leaning, it looks like Wall Street is to blame, if you think government has gotten too large, it's easy to find blame there.

[ Reply ]

replied to Tom

Score: -2 ( 2 votes )

Tom

November 12, 2012 11:41 AM

haha ok. Yes I think we had this discussion before. But the government of the mid-2000s was run by conservative, republicans. Still, the government needs to regulate banks and make sure they aren't doing bad things. I think everyone should be able to agree on that, but for some reason the Republican party doesn't (or some in it). Also wasn't Bank of America recently fined for giving minorities loans (pre-recession) that they couldn't afford to pay back on purpose (predatory, discriminatory lending?).

[ Reply ]

replied to benfranklin

Score: 1 ( 1 votes )

PaulBuffalo

November 12, 2012 10:18 AM

Maybe it's time for the electoral college to do the job it was created to do, and protect the electorate from it's own ignorance.

Well, that's a revealing statement: democracy be damned. I guess Romney's 47% remarks weren't too far off the mark after all.

[ Reply ]

replied to benfranklin

Score: 5 ( 5 votes )

whatever

November 12, 2012 10:52 PM

ben>"non-white, non-male combination in 2016"

Could be any mix of Sen. Rubio or Governors Susana Martinez or Bobby Jindal - all of whom seem to have good potential.

A ticket combo like that doesn't sound too far fetched, although maybe at this early point less likely than a mix of Rubio, Jindal, and Paul Ryan. If Ryan doesn't run, maybe Wisconsin's Gov. Walker if his policies continue to succeed.

Christie & Perry seem to have doomed themselves in different ways.
Portman & Daniels might suffer from boring-old-insider-white-male images.

[ Reply ]

replied to benfranklin

Score: 0 ( 4 votes )

Black Rock Lifer

November 11, 2012 6:36 PM

Romney lost because the Republicans have allowed the far right to seize control of their party. It is no longer just the fringe, the soul of the party is now squarely in the crazy camp. That scared most reasonable people including women, minorities, gays, and any other targets of those trying to use government to enforce their own religious and moral beliefs. I think the failed economic policy of trickle down has also hurt the conservative cause, instead of looking at the evidence and moving on Republican's instead doubled down on the false claim. Most Americans recognize after 30 years trickle down simply further concentrated wealth at the top.

On the political divide, it is interesting that there is no far left counterpart to the far right, only a moderate center on the Democratic side. Today's Democrats including Obama act much like Republican moderates of the past. Many on the right no longer offer a credible arguement, they reject science, question math, and refuse to compromise regardless of the facts.

Finally, it is difficult to have a constructive debate with those that make wild claims yet offer no evidence or proof. Obama wasn't born here, he's a Muslim, he hates white people, hates America, and on and on. The argument is no longer about policy or direction but simply hate speech by those low information voters that get their opinions from FOX News or Rush Limbaugh. I am tired of hearing how both sides are to blame, only one side has refused to compromise, only one side has moved far away from the center where most Americans dwell, the Republican party needs to moderate it's agenda or they will continue to decline.

[ Reply ]

Score: 7 ( 9 votes )

Tom

November 11, 2012 7:17 PM

Yes. Oh and definitely I agree, taxing the rich isn't going to solve all of our fiscal problems. Also I don't think we should have the excessive taxes that the more socialist governments of Europe do. I just think the fact that many of them pay 0 in income taxes is outrageous. And then many of them pay the 15% in capital gains, which I believe should be a progressive tax, just as in regular (non-investment) income is. I think Clinton level tax rates, which would add $80 billion in revenue, should be re-instated,and the fact that House Republicans won't do that is frustrating. Just as frustrating that a man with a 40,000 sq ft house wants to cut his employees hours because he thinks his healthcare costs might go up..

[ Reply ]

Score: 3 ( 3 votes )

Tom

November 11, 2012 7:23 PM

meant in reply to Ben Franklin

[ Reply ]

replied to Tom

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

benfranklin

November 11, 2012 8:48 PM

As a publicly traded company, he's responsible to share holders. As an american citizen, he is still free to do what he likes with his money (the house), right?

He did start out delivering pizzas. Rather than criticize him, wouldn't it better to praise his hard work, and hope that in the future we'd have more like him, not less?

On a bigger scale... if we are all created equal, and have the same opportunities, why the outrage that some pay zero taxes? It was my understanding that somewhere around 40 to 50 percent pay no taxes (they don't have significant earnings). It's not an issue for me that they pay no taxes. I hope their circumstances improve, and that someday they will have a job.

But why on the high end (I don't actually know of anyone with significant income that pays no taxes, but you claim there are, and I have no reason not to trust you on it), a guy that starts out delivering pizzas... why such animosity?

[ Reply ]

replied to Tom

Score: -2 ( 4 votes )

Tom

November 11, 2012 9:19 PM

fair points. Animosity because he is trying to be politically divisive about "Obamacare" when clearly it is not going to hurt his finances any, although he is going to hurt his employees' (potentially). That is my major problem with him. If he wasn't politically divisive I would praise him and say yes he earned because of his hard work.

I agree. I think that percentage 47% includes military families, the elderly receiving social security, and the wealthy that pay no income tax. So the real percentage of those who work and don't make enough money to pay income tax, or don't work is somewhere lower than that.

On this point, many of the very rich hide their money in tax shelters. Whether that be offshore accounts or whatever. Stuff that normal people cannot do, just to evade paying taxes, legally. Its not right, and unfair. But as Mr. Romney said it is fair that a teacher making $50,000 pays a higher tax rate than he does at $20 million dollar income. Which I just philosophically disagree with. I'm not angry at Mr. Romney or Mr. Schnatter about this fact, I just think its wrong.

[ Reply ]

replied to benfranklin

Score: 1 ( 5 votes )

biniszkiewicz

November 11, 2012 9:49 PM

It's been a happy week to be a Dem. Kind of makes up for 2000-08.

As to why Mitt and the right don't appeal to me, it's not primarily social policies (though those are biggies) or wars and military spending (ditto), but more important to me, it's about economics.

I was an econ major who did study and learn a few things at a fairly conservative school (Canisius). I started out a conservative Reagan supporter until I studied and gained a better understanding of economics. Based on my education, I am certain that the right's economic policies would be detrimental to America's economic strength. Obama is much better for the economy that Mitt would be. I am not alone in this considered opinion. Just ask Warren Buffet.

The far right blowhards such as Rush, dismissing Obama supporters as simply lusting after a free phone, do Dems a big favor and undermine themselves. Anytime anyone disrespects you by unfairly denigrating your motivations, the natural reaction is indignation. By obstinately refusing to recognize the true motivations of Obama voters, those right wing pundits fail to avail themselves of any opportunity to win over those voters; indeed they simply alienate those voters. Which is fine with me. Hope they continue thus.

[ Reply ]

Score: 4 ( 6 votes )

LouisTully

November 11, 2012 11:35 PM

I don't think Canisius is all that conservative. At least not when I was there, 2001-2005. The rest of your comment is pretty good.

[ Reply ]

replied to biniszkiewicz

Score: 0 ( 2 votes )

townline

November 12, 2012 12:28 AM

I was there 2001-2005. Found it to be incredibly conservative, especially for a liberal arts college. Did you miss all of those bigoted Tony Marone columns in the Griffin?

[ Reply ]

replied to LouisTully

Score: 3 ( 3 votes )

biniszkiewicz

November 12, 2012 1:28 AM

'78-'82

[ Reply ]

replied to LouisTully

Score: 0 ( 0 votes )

LouisTully

November 12, 2012 1:10 AM

I lol'd. I can't recall perfectly to that time; but knowing Tony through college and knowing him recently I would hardly label him a bigot. Particularly compared to Dan Centinello. Even with Dan's collection of pink attire. But to the topic we're discussing, given the professors and curriculum I had I would definitely argue against Canisius being conservative. I recall one of my professors being arrested as part of Critical Mass.

[ Reply ]

Score: -1 ( 1 votes )

simike586

November 16, 2012 7:30 PM

>> >>,ugg boots sale; Oil Changes: How to Change Oil In Your Own Driveway
By: Tim Laganke, Jr.

Changing your vehicle?s oil regularly is the single most important thing you can do for your car. Regular oil changes will extend the life of your vehicle and enhance its performance. Because contaminants are regularly deposited into your car?s oil resulting in sludge that decreases your engine?s performance (and that will over time cause engine failure) frequent oil changes are a mandatory maintenance procedure. Most people know that they should get an oil change approximately every three months or 3,ugg boots outlet,000 miles, but less know that an oil change is something that can be done in their own driveway. Doing so can save about a hundred dollars per year, and is a great way to be active with and knowledgeable about your own transportation.Oil Change EquipmentBefore getting started with your oil change, make sure you have the following materials on hand,{cheap ugg boots}. Many of these items are sold inexpensively and are great to have handy in any garage. 1.3/8-drive socket set 2.Combination metric wrench set, including both closed and open ended wrenches. 3.Oil filter wrench 4.Oil receptacle such as a pail or old kitchen pot 5.Two plastic milk containers with screw on caps. 6.Oil funnel 7,ugg boots outlet.Plastic Ziploc bag ? 1 quart. 8,{cheap ugg boots}.Several newspapers / old rags 9.Two pair latex gloves (optional) 10.A few bricks, concrete blocks or boulders. 11.New oil filter (see owner's manual for specifications) 12.New oil to refill the engine. (The back page of your vehicle?s manual should indicate grade and number of quarts.) Quick Change Oil recommends the use of synthetic oil for oil changes, such as Castrol GTX.Before you begin, be sure to have a planned method for disposing of your dirty oil. It is illegal to dispose of used motor oil improperly,cheap ugg boots. Most oil change locations will accept dirty oil for disposal free of charge.Oil Change Step 01: Warming UpIdentify a flat space to work in your drive way or garage for you to perform the oil change once you?ve driven your vehicle for a short distance. Driving around just enough to heat up the engine will liquefy the oil for an easier emptying. Oil Change Step 02: StationingTurn off your engine, put the car in Neutral and set the emergency brake firmly in place. Place several bricks in front of each of the four tires to prevent them from moving.Oil Change Step 03: Locating the drain plugIf there is not enough room to slide under your vehicle comfortably, you?ll need to jack it up using a hydraulic pump and settle it on jack stands. (Never mount your car on a jack only ? you must use jack stands.) While beneath your vehicle, identify the drain plug by searching for the lowest piece to the ground. This piece will most commonly be the nut of the oil drain plug. To avoid confusion with the transmission fluid drain plug, feel the metal around it ? the oil plug will usually be much hotter than the transmission plug. In some cases the drain plug is actually labeled. Call a friend or a local oil change company for direction if you?re still unsure.

Tim LaGanke, Jr. is president of QuickChange Oil, a 10 minute oil change center, with locations across Cleveland, Ohio. QuickChange is currently seeking applicants interested in the business. Please contact LaGanke at gank@quickchangeoil.com for more information.
Article Source:
Article link:
You can rate this article:
Similar Articles

Featured links
- Compare the best web hosting plans with unlimited bandwidth, unlimited amount of web space and supported domains.
Related articles: