My refusal to apologize hinges on my 3 reasons for voting for Obama: 1. I wanted Democrats to have to take responsibility terrorism and security issues instead of being able to get away with sniping from the sidelines, 2. The central issue of the day was economics, and McCain had professed and demonstrated that he was unprepared to handle it, and 3. I believed Obama had the potential to advance us in some new way on racial matters.
In 2012, from my point of view: 1. Mission accomplished, 2. McCain isn't the alternative to Obama, and 3. Potential miserably squandered as a flailing Democratic party and its media facilitators use race any old way they want in the short-sighted pursuit of partisan goals.
And what about Meade? Last night, as we watched the GOP convention — and he fully intends to vote for Romney — he told me he's sorry he voted for McCain. Paul Ryan was speaking. This and more could not have happened without Obama. (I'll let Meade explain more in the comments, and I encourage you to try to understand why he's thinking this now.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
266 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 266 of 266phx - why would you trust Obama when he's added $5 trillion to our national debt. He's talked down business, he's shut down the Keystone XL pipeline, he's said "you didn't build that" and so much more.
I don't respond to the very immature or the mentally ill. I have a short list of people whose comments I don't even read for those reasons, and I probably wouldn't even bother telling them that. I always leave the door open to conservatives who are willing to treat me with respect, even if they think my ideas are shit.
If I'm on your shit list, it is only because I wanted you to admit that you are a liberal. Despite only criticizing conservatives (and also despite your recent admission you have never voted for anyone in the GOP), you used to try to insist you were a centrist.
But you are right. Without the 4Q of Bush 2 and the four years of Obama there never would have been a Rick Santelli and the great American political awakening called the Tea Party."
but is that because the economy wouldn't have taken such a nosedive? It's good to have heroes and a resurging party looking out for fiscal responsibility, but ate he cost of obamacare and the Obama non recovery?
"The Tea Party has given the Republicans Romney as a nominee. Romney is less conservative than McCain. I don't see this as a major accomplishment. Romney (and Ryan) promise deficits that only slightly worse than Obama's."
I don't buy that. McCain was a well known RINO, not a conservative. He gave us the McCain-Feingold act which limited free speech. I believe Romney is more conservative than people know. Remember, he had to get elected and govern in a very liberal state. To be a statesman, first get elected.
but is that because the economy wouldn't have taken such a nosedive? It's good to have heroes and a resurging party looking out for fiscal responsibility, but ate he cost of obamacare and the Obama non recovery?
No. I think the auto industry bailout was the wake up. The blatant catering to union interests at the expense of the bond holders and other legitimate interests.
Meade said...
40+ months of over 91% employment
9% (almost 10%) out of work. Nearly 1 out 10 wiped out.
Decimation.
Marshal said...
Get over it people, Althouse owes nobody anything in the way of apology or admission of wrong-doing.
I don't think she owes anyone an apology. But what is the point of a blog if questions and discussion is considered out of bounds? She brought up the subject, what's wrong with debating her reasoning?
I just thought that she would have given him-Obama- a more rigorous vetting than - 'cause he's black.
I thoroughly understand her first argument as hind sight sounding as it is.
40+ months of over 91% employment
This is taking the soft bigotry of low expectations to new depths.
The extent of long-term unemployment is staggering. Even so, it's being partly obscured by the rise in long-term "disability".
This presidency has been a complete economic disaster by any coherent standard. It is utterly inconceivable that things would have been worse under McCain.
Dreams,
McCain voted against Medicare Part D.
Romney signed onto Romneycare.
Romney is not a conservative. I'm not saying McCain was that conservative, just that he was and is more conservative than Romney.
People are letting their dislike of Obama cloud their judgment about Romney. Romney will probably be a better President than Obama or W., but not by much. He loves central planning, as is record in Massachusetts shows.
phx, my point is neither you nor I nor anyone can be prepared for "the complete collapse of the world economy" because no one knows what that entails.
For example what do you mean by "the world economy"? I took more than a few courses in economics, both micro and macro, and one rather rigorous seminar course run jointly by the Maths dept. and the Econ dept. and I have never encountered a definition of such as entity as a "world economy". Secondly what do you mean by "complete collapse?" Do you mean people won't even be able to barter their labor in return for food? Do you mean "no money"? If you do I'd like to point out that currency and money are not the same thing.
Rusty said...
I just thought that she would have given him-Obama- a more rigorous vetting than - 'cause he's black.
I thoroughly understand her first argument as hind sight sounding as it is.
I don't have anything to say about her reasons for her vote. They seem wishful to me, but everyone reads things differently. I'd like her to explain her evaluation of the results since her comments paper over the costs and make some non-intuitive assumptions about McCain. The only way I can square it is for those who don't understand the cost of the stimulus or Obamacare, but if you're for those programs how can you also believe Obama's bad on economics?
@chicklit
We must be similar in age, 1980 was my first presidential election too.
We had mock elections in school. At 6, in 1968, I voted for Nixon because I thought he had a cool name. By 1972 I voted for him again because McGovern had said he'd give every man, woman, and child in the United States $1,000. I knew he wasn't going to give me $1,000.
I don't think we did a mock election in 1976 when I was a freshman in high school, but I probably voted for Ford then.
"I'm not saying McCain was that conservative, just that he was and is more conservative than Romney."
No, he is not more conservative than Romney because a true conservative would never team up with one of the most flaming liberals of the U.S. Senate to push a bill that limits free speech. I don't believe for a second that Romney would ever do that.
We can agree to disagree.
Wait. I think I'm seeing the light here. We should really double down on this multi-dimensional chess game and reelect Obama. It could get us a President Palin in '16!
2012: Go Full Retard. Trust Me.
Meade,
You're falling for a classic lie called 'winning by losing.' In politics, both parties suffer defeats when the body politic changes course. But the only ones who get to actually *decide* the course of our country are the ones at the helm of power. I stand by my assesment that McCain was a bullet dodged but Obama was a complete disaster. That we are on the brink of righting the ship, possibly, is merely looking for a pony in a room full of shit.
There's still the matter of being on the fiscal brink because Obama ran up the deficit, with interest!, and because the current tax rates are set to increase drastically [to Clintonian levels] during a time of low economic growth. We might even be set to double dip into recession, if we aren't already there.
And even if Romney gets elected and even if he gets to attempt to restore some fiscal sanity to the federal government, it doesn't mean it will work. But we know for sure that Obama's second term will be worse. Every second term is worse.
For natural optimists, this is a difficult lesson. There's a pragmatism that must permeate politics. I wanted Hovde to win the nomination. That Tommy Thompson will be the Senate candidate is probably better. In Delaware, Christine O'Donnell could win a primary but couldn't win the general. Perhaps the most conservative Delaware could ever get was Mike Castle. Maybe the most conservative Massachusetts can get is Scott Brown. Those two are not my perfect choices, but a damn sight better than their opponents.
Like Chickelit intimated, I meant decimated in the sense of 'to cause great destruction or harm.'
Upside: wifey got to look cool to her hipster sons.
For example what do you mean by "the world economy"?
Most people mean the sum of all countries' GDPs evaluated at the purchasing-power-parity values of their domestic currencies.
Secondly what do you mean by "complete collapse?" Do you mean people won't even be able to barter their labor in return for food?
Yeah, I'd say that an economy that had reverted to barter had "completely collapsed." Absolutely. Actually, a 20% decline in production would probably constitute "collapse" to most people. Certainly the >40% decline experienced in the US during the Great Depression qualifies.
Darcy sees through the blather. It is necessary to destroy the economy in order to save it.
Dreams,
I never said McCain was a true conservative. If you are looking for a true conservative in this presidential election, you are going to be disappointed.
But look at Romney's background. He's a manager type and not the type who believes in decentralized management. Romney would have signed McCain-Feingold in a heartbeat, just like W. did.
Romney would have voted for Medicare Part D. He's a Rockefellar Republican.
It's important not to forget this about Romney because the minute he is President he is going to back-slide to his managerial Father Knows Best ways.
(2) reasons why Meade should be very unhappy Obama was elected. Sotomayor/Kagan.
ie the Supreme Court has become the biggest political entity in America, much to the founding fathers chagrin.
As always, the bottom line is the bottom line ...
Meanwhile we have the opportunity to elect Mitt Romney. It's like the stormy night just before morning in America all over again.
Too often, the stormy night becomes the stormy morning, followed by prolonged winds and rain. And then there's a flood and pretty soon you're thinking, "Wow. I was naive to wish for this storm because I assumed it would be a short one."
Our only real hope is to repeal the 19th Amendment. Otherwise we'll be rationalized into even more silliness, then abject poverty, and ultimately... economic collapse.
Then she'll turn right around and blame us for not being men. And she'll be right.
Darcy, you are on to something.
If Obama is reelected, the Democrats will continue to go along with the WoT stuff, and the tea party will only get stronger.
Plus, the country will really, really be ready for a super conservative Republican after four *more* years of Obama.
I'm already regretting my 2012 vote for Romney. And it hasn't happened yet.
I am thrilled for a Romney nomination. I think we have a chance to have a very accomplished, competent leader at the helm of this country.
He or Giuliani should have been the nominees in 2008, but the country was sick of Bush and McCain had been the Republican who stuck it to Bush most frequently.
But that doesn't mean Obama has been worth it. We have no way of knowing what might have happened if McCain had been elected, but his record of competency was not similar to Obama's.
@MayBee (and ChipS.)
Oh, I can't take credit for that kind of genius! ;)
"I'm already regretting my 2012 vote for Romney. And it hasn't happened yet."
Too funny! Hey, mittens just wants to be loved ... by everybody. And in trying really, really hard he pisses off everyone.
ok, just like the primary, he's running a 99% scorched earth negative campaign against Obama as again ...
the bottom line is the bottom line.
turdblossom doesn't care about how, only the end result.
Stay tuned!
"That we are on the brink of righting the ship, possibly, is merely looking for a pony in a room full of shit."
Well, back home in Indiana, on the farm, we just called it manure. Pony manure. Personally, I've never cared much for ponies. Too much work for too little return. They bite. They kick.
In my version of that story, my pessimist brother says: Oh no, we got a pony for Christmas. Now we have to take care of it. Me: Great! That means plenty of manure for the tomatoes!!
Meade,
Do you disagree with me that Obama's presidency has caused great destruction or harm?
What's so bad about Sotomayor/Kagan? The ideological balance of the court did not change.
I'm confident that Romney will nominate equally acceptable choices if faced with the opportunity.
I do, Ruth Anne. And I don't expect you to agree with me that, based on everything we now know, a McCain presidency would have cause even more destruction and harm. But it would.
So make me a deal: I'll let you ride and school my pony if you'll do all the barn chores. And pile up the pony manure for me right out back near the garden. Will you?
But you know, you didn't really need to make that wifey/sons remark. You're better than that.
What's so bad about Sotomayor/Kagan?
Well, this is certainly one way to divert attention from your dubious economic analysis.
Well, Meade,
You can argue by assertion a future that didn't happen. I will not agree with you.
Have fun with the pony; I shan't be doing any of those chores. I have to work a little longer to cover the 10% Obamacare Tax on durable medical equipment, which includes my daughter's prosthesis. On an item that costs about $14K, I get to pay an additional 10% tax. Oh, goody! When other kids outgrow their shoes, my daughter outgrows a piece of metal and plastic that costs roughly the price of a good used car.
You can be blithe and bonnie about the shit storm we're swirling in. Others of us have to live in Realville.
Kagan is an improvement over Stevens, who she replaced. She and Breyer voted to rule that the Medicaid expansion in Obamacare was unconstituional.
Stevens would have never done that. Sotomayor is useless, but so was Souter.
I don't know what's more silly, Meade's certainty that McCain would have been worse than Obama or that Romney is going to be a good President. There is no evidence for either of these claims. It's just faith-based bullshit.
McCain wouldn't have been worse than Obama, but many of us held our noses to vote for him.
Ruth Anne Adams said...
"Well, Meade,
You can argue by assertion a future that didn't happen. I will not agree with you."
Fair enough. I was trying to play with your metaphors: bullet dodging, pony/shit, righting ships. Didn't realize the extent of bitterness in your bitter pill.
I wish you and your family real blessings. In real life.
The real reason Althouse voted for Obama is stated in her post:
1. I wanted Democrats....
We are overthinking this to believe otherwise. Everything else after that is petty rationalization.
Improve race relations? What, you didn't hear the sermons by Rev Wright that Obama steeped in for twenty years? Not plausible.
Thanks, Meade.
May you drown in bliss.
Every voter knew who the guy was going in. No one voted for him out of ignorance. His voters acted on one of three reason:
1- they wanted the "supervision and sanctimony of central planners. . (layabouts and crony capitalists)
2- they wanted to test their skills against the "supervision and sanctimony of central planners." (moths to flame)
3- they wanted citizens to see just how broken the system really is, thinking citizens who see that will rise to fix it. (steroidal social engineers).
As I read Althouse on "why," I see reason three primarily and reason two somewhat. I myself mulled both as reason to vote that way and concluded that two was playing devil and three was playing god. I knew full well, as did everyone who voted in 2008, exactly who that guy is and exactly what he would do. I felt undevilish and ungodly and voted for a beautiful, talented and accomplished woman.
May you drown in bliss.
I'm happy to have a party while Meade's people drown in bliss.
Thanks, Ruth Anne.
And may your Realville Sisyphean rock roll ever right.
It's not just Sotomayor and Kagan, it's Geitner, Sebelius, Holder, Clinton, Czars, NLRB, EPA, and more.
Oh, and Slow Joe Biden - he's gaffe-tastic!
Roger,
"I dont believe Meade has stated his position yet. Perhaps we should wait until he does before slicing and dicing it?"
Your way's not very sportsmanlike!
Darcy said...
Wait. I think I'm seeing the light here. We should really double down on this multi-dimensional chess game and reelect Obama. It could get us a President Palin in '16!
2012: Go Full Retard. Trust Me.
Be careful what you wish (even sarcastically) for.
Are you EVER going to explain your rationale behind Point 3? I feel like it's The Village from "The Prisoner," except that Number Six is the antagonist.
Someone once said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. How could someone perceive Obama as a racial healer AFTER the Reverend Wright affair exploded? Nobody would claim that a 20-year veteran of Westboro Baptist Church would heal divisions between gays and cultural conservatives, after all.
Comments are for (among other reasons) understanding why the participants believe what they believe. We want information...information...information...
The speech Americans craved to hear because they believed it offered post-racialism.
So basically what you're saying, Ann, is that you voted for Obama because you were tired of liberals blaming Bush on terrorism and they needed to take responsibility?
And McCain wouldn't help the economy and racial relations would improve?
And the liberal Democrat party and media are the cause for Obama's failure?
1. Obama and the Liberals have lost the war on terrorism and fully intended to do so. We are much less safe now than 3 1/2 years ago. 2. Obama has ruined the economy, again as he fully intended to do. And racial division is higher than in recent memory. Again, intended. 3. Obama is a failure on his own....the media just helped him cover up his failure.
But we get no apologies because you had your reasons? I'll make sure my elderly parents and my children and grandchildren know that you aren't sorry. And the question I've wanted to ask...how does a bright, intelligent, successful woman get duped by a smooth talking presidential candidate while we normal folk held our noses and voted for McCain so things didn't end up as badly as they have? What did we normal folk see that a highly educated woman did not? It was all there for everyone to see, if you chose to see it. Why didn't you? And while many of you fail to remember that hindsite is 20/20 and think Obama winning in 2008 will turn out good for our country in the end because it weakens the leftists, tell that to those paying for that rationalization for decades to come. And Ann, If one is unable to apologize, one can gain a renewed respect by at least admitting they screwed up.
"And may your Realville Sisyphean rock roll ever right."
Sarcastic flesh tearing.
Unmanly.
How does voting for someone because of their race help racial division? it is the epitome of racism.
No, it is not the epitome of racism. The epitome of racism is taking a person's race and using it to make him subhuman.
Most white Americans want black Americans to succeed. And some perhaps want it a little too much for their own good.
Any action taken simply because of someone's race is the epitome of racism. All else is the byproduct of that racism. Ask Obama, the Racist in Chief.
Meade, I revised my profile...unknown is now Whippet.
I agree that most people want others to succeed regardless of their race. unfortunately those currently in majority power know how to insure their bought and paid for voting blocks never know it.
Ruth Anne,
You know, that metaphor at 7:39 am is only accurate if you include the fact that the IED had "ACME EXPLOSIVES" written in large red letters right on the side of it.
Tradguy,
"The African-American features in Barry Obama were ideal for triggering the White Guilt vote among men and women of gullible mind."
FIFY.
Please, can you imagine the blowout it would have been if Colin Powell had been a major-party nominee? A real centrist, and a man of geniune accomplishment, instead of fake on both counts?
phx,
"Before McCain picked Palin I was considering voting for him - the first Rep. I'd have voted for president."
Now we know not to take you seriously about economics--or anything else. Palin, who as Governor of Alaska had had several important economic successes, including one involving other nations? Get real; obviously economics isn't all that high on your list.
Meade,
"What's so bad about Sotomayor/Kagan? The ideological balance of the court did not change."
Um, yeah. That's the ideological balance that gave us Heller v. DC as a 5-4 squeaker, instead of the 9-0 no-brainer it should have been. That's very, very bad. Same for McDonald v. Chicago.
Many of the comments here are the reason someone as unqualified and radically left like Obama can even have a chance of being elected. You admit you knew who his radical buddies were, what his radical connections throughout his entire life were, but it was all for attention or success in politics and he would be different in office. Those are the most nonsensical justifications I've ever heard. That's like watching your children kill small animals and terrorize other children and then be in shock when they become the next Ted Bundy. They were just looking to get ahead in the world..... The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. Common sense is sorely lacking in this country.
And it's not just the 2nd Amendment that's in a precarious position, look how the 1st has fared:
* McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, mostly upheld McCain-Feingold, i.e. and anti-free-speech ruling.
*Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc, only 5-4 in favor of free speech
*Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, only 5-4 in favor of free speech
Yes, the glass is half full, but those who want to drill holes in the bottom of it are a one-vote swing away from victory.
Ann I could concede point 3 but the first two are delusional.
Point 3 was delusional once Trinity United Church of Christ was known to the general public - which happened well before that convention speech. Nobody who invests 20 years in a church steeped in race-based class warfare is a nice person, much less a racial uniter.
David R. Graham said...
"Sarcastic flesh tearing."
No flesh was torn and the only sarcasm was projected from your own mind.
In a very manly way.
There - now that was my sarcasm.
Thanks for the link, Meade. Barack gave a very nice homage to John Kerry.
Meade told Darcy: Be careful what you wish (even sarcastically) for.
Insider knowledge that Althouse really is going to double down on stupid?
Meade: What's so bad about Sotomayor/Kagan? The ideological balance of the court did not change.
Question asked, and answered.
Thank you. Good. To ordinary Americans (and, for example, Ronald Reagan), ideological imbalance on the Supreme Court is not a good thing.
The court SHOULD be imbalanced. There is no middle ground between lawful and lawless.
Post a Comment