View Full Version : What are the policies?

John Smith
01-09-2012, 12:08 PM
One very common, and expected, thread throughout the Republican debates is "Obama's policies are bad for us", but none of them in any of the debates I've been watching has been asked to be more specific.

They are also not asked for any specifics in "how" they would do things or what their policies would be.

This is all the fault of our media, IMO, for managing to hold all these debates and preventing the viewers from learning anything.

I"ve asked this before, without, as far as I can recall, getting any answers: Obama has gotten very few policies past the senate, and it's really hard to know what things would be like without those policies, so what policies exactly has Obama put in place that are hurting us?

What policies would the republicans support that woud help us?

They oppose his fixing our infrastructure, but whatever other policies are desired, I don't see how we can fix the economy without fixing/modernizing the infrastructure. Health care is 1/6 of our economy. I don't see how we fix the economy by leaving 1/6 of it broken.

Many will complain about Obamacare, and some of their complaints may be justified, but who is it that prevented this being a better fix of our healthcare system? It was the Republicans.

All the Republican candidates promise they'll repeal this healthcare, but not a one of them is prepared to specifically say what he would replace it with.

Or that any change would have to go through congress.

I'd like to hear them asked how they think they'll get things through the congress if they don't hae 60 votes in the senate.

01-09-2012, 12:14 PM
you have the republican party run by those only interested in the current quarters bottom line, which is what you get when you run government like a business

S.V. Airlie
01-09-2012, 12:28 PM
Any different than when Obama was running in 08.I don't see many true specifics then nor now.I don't think any candidate who is not the presidental candidate chosen can really give specifics, only how they would like to see something happen. I think that much of what one wants to do is not nec.up to them..as in congress.I mean using an example Obama wanted Gitmo closed. Not much on specifics in 08 just a desire to close it

Jim Mahan
01-09-2012, 12:30 PM
"...how they think they'll get things through the congress if they don't hae 60 votes in the senate."

This seems to imply that the dems would get a senate majority and be as obstructionist under a republican president as the repubs have been with Obama.
FWIW I expect Obama to be re-elected and the republicans to get a majority in the senate, so the next four years will end up being the same as Obama's first term. I am really hoping that congress's extremely low approval rating would be in the minds of the voters tied to the republicans and result in a effective majority for the democrats in the senate. If that were the case we might actually see how things would be better under an empowered Obama administration.

01-09-2012, 08:18 PM
All the Republican candidates promise they'll repeal this healthcare, but not a one of them is prepared to specifically say what he would replace it with.

Ask them. But as far as I know, none of them participate in the Bilge. You'll have to search elsewhere.

Ian McColgin
01-09-2012, 08:45 PM
Well, one whole domain is foreign policy. Obama rocks on this front. Take war and therefore murder by drone out, which most of the world has in fact done, and we come off 100% different and 100% better. The US is more deftly affecting the world for good - this despite continuing the imperialistic wars inherited and the fact that we do nothing to control our larger corporations that export exploitive jobs and polluting industrial processes along with third rate cigarettes and nature destroying agriculture - than we have in a while. We're a few parsecs from pretty good, but at least we're a lot less bad.

Nicholas Scheuer
01-10-2012, 08:52 AM
Easy explanation; Repub Candidates know lots of people are "dissatisfied" with Government. They also know that their own party's policies of the past (Bush, Bush, Reagan, Harvard Biz School) are lalrgely responsible, so they keep comments general, counting on poor memory and/or ignorance to cover their tracks.

Huntsman is the only serious threat to Obama. Romney primary victories will drive Paul to a Third Party, so neither Repub nor Libertarian (or whatever he calls it) can possibly win. Forget Gingrich and Santorum, they're only peripheral noise.

01-10-2012, 11:11 PM
Has anyone seen Newts latest Ad against Romny? He is attacking him for Vulture Capitalism.

So if the UR-Republican thinks this sort of thing is Wrong how can the LEft come under fire for saying its wrong?

Ian McColgin
01-10-2012, 11:21 PM
It's ok. Rush has carved the Newt a new anal oriface for attacking Romney on this point. Says Newt sounds like someone from Occupy.

Can't make this stuff up.

01-10-2012, 11:29 PM
I just think its interesting that someone on the RIght has finally Admitted that just because something is legal (BARELY) doesn't make it MORAL or even right to do. I wonder what the Koch Brothers are going to do about this.

01-11-2012, 12:21 AM
One very common, and expected, thread throughout the Republican debates is "Obama's policies are bad for us", but none of them in any of the debates I've been watching has been asked to be more specific.

It's just my 2 cents, but I think this is the argument: They argue for the virtues of unrestrained capitalism, which is a myth. They argue that no one can make more money with government intervention. If a company fails, the winners pick its bones for cheap. Big banks that fail provide cheap profit for those that succeed, so bailouts are bad because they deny the winners their spoils. Same with car companies. Stimulus packages accelerate the process to the unnatural point that the stumbling economy can't take advantage of it.

Here's the problem - unrestrained capitalism is a winner-take-all game that eventually puts all the wealth into the hands a few and at that point the society ends. They know it. They want to be with the winners.

01-11-2012, 01:16 AM
Brent Bozell (http://newsbusters.org/users/brent-bozell) | January 10, 2012 | 23:03
1 (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-bozell/2012/01/10/bozell-column-unseat-these-atrocious-moderators#)
Change font size: A | A
http://newsbusters.org/sites/default/files/user_pics/picture-19.jpg (http://newsbusters.org/users/brent-bozell)
Sitting through the Republican debate on Saturday night with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos was just painful, from beginning to end. Some of it was just political Ambien. But when it was finally over, there was just one question. Who in the GOP in his/her right mind invites a historically shameless Democratic spin controller like Stephanopoulos to “moderate” a primary debate like this – ever?
The only thing that can be said in defense of that horrible decision was turning to NBC the next morning and seeing “moderator” David Gregory be even more slanted in his questioning. ABC slanted the ideological questions in their debate by a ratio of six questions from the left to each one from the right. The NBC ratio was eight to one.
Why must the Republicans keep handing over their debate stage in the primary season to the people who desperately want them all to bumble, stumble, and fall on their face on national TV?
In the ABC debate – an event held for Republican voters presumably to decide who is reliably conservative enough to win the nomination – ABC asked three questions from the conservative perspective, and twenty from the left (25 were ideologically neutral). Twelve of the 48 questions, or 25 percent of the night’s total, were devoted to promoting contraception and gay marriage, so trite and repetitive that finally the audience booed them down.
Is this what happened in the Democratic debates last time? Were candidates Obama and Clinton badgered about governments promoting contraceptives, even to children? What about abortion, and the candidates’ radical views? In fact, in the entire 20 Democratic debates in 2007 and 2008 monitored by the MRC’s Culture and Media Institute, there were only seven questions about abortion...in the entire campaign.
But the Republicans get Stephanopoulos the Partisan asking Mitt Romney, “Do you believe that states have the right to ban contraception? Or is that trumped by a constitutional right to privacy?” By the sixth follow-up question, the audience was booing.
Diane Sawyer pounded Romney with the typical homosexual activist sitting at home. “Would you weigh in on the Yahoo question about what you would say sitting down in your living room to a gay couple who say, ‘We simply want to have the right to,” as the -- as the person who wrote the e-mail said -- “we want gay people to form loving, committed, long-term relationships.’ In human terms, what would you say to them?”
Because, as America knows, opposing the homosexual lifestyle makes one not just insensitive, but inhumane.
Many Republicans loved Newt Gingrich when he slammed the ABC moderators for their obvious bias. No one, he pointed out, ever asks about the secular Obama progressives driving the Catholic Church out of the adoption process by demanding they place children with gay couples. “The bigotry question goes both ways. And there’s a lot more anti-Christian bigotry today than there is concerning the other side. And none of it gets covered by the news media.”
Over on NBC, Gregory and his co-conspirators asked 25 questions from the liberal perspective, and just three from the right. It was extra-skewed by Gregory including quotes liberal activists on Facebook. “And this from Martin Montalvo, because we do have a spending crisis but also a lot of people hurting. He writes this: 'With more Americans on government assistance than ever before, is it un-American for Americans to feel relieved when the government helps them?'"
How perverse is this question? More than 45 million Americans are on food stamps, a record high. It’s “un-American” to question this ever-increasing load of government dependency?
Boston media hack Andy Hiller demanded both Romney and Santorum needed to become “a voice for increasing gay rights.” He even made it personal with Santorum. “What if you had a son who came to you and said he was gay?” The applause line would be “What if you had a son who came to you and admitted he was a conservative?”
But worst of all, these “moderators” couldn’t utter a single question that was negative about Barack Obama. Not one.
Instead, Hiller pestered Rick Perry to agree with a Washington Post article written by John McCain right after the Tucson shootings, that Obama “is a patriot sincerely intent on using his time in office to advance our country's cause. I reject accusations that his policies and beliefs make him unworthy to lead America or opposed to its founding ideals.”
These are not moderators. They are Obama partisans. Again: Why is the GOP putting up with this?

01-11-2012, 05:00 AM
Oh bobbys, that's pitiful

01-11-2012, 10:57 AM
Ian McColgin; nature destroying agriculture

This phrase caught my attention. How would you feed 9 billion people? Free range chickens?