[el penguino]

Rand Paul, for one, is leading the Republican candidates for KY Senate and leading Democratic opposition by double digits. He has been campaigning on a platform of balanced budgets and wants legislation passed to ensure deficit reduction.

Are you trying to say that Bush's unpopularity was largely due to attempts to reform Social Security and not things such as the Iraq War, Patriot Act, handling of Katrina, etc.? Before Bush took office polls strongly favored Social Security reform; they dwindled as Bush took office. Bush campaigned on Social Security reform in 2000. Al Gore stubbornly said that no changes should be made to a system that was gradually bankrupting us. Much of this had to do with the nature of the proposal itself rather than reform itself. On top of this, you need to consider that the looming debt crisis has become more apparent in light of the tanking economy and the trillions of dollars spent to correct it. The economic conditions aren't the same as they were four years ago.

How does closing bases in Japan or Germany leave the United States vulnerable to Al Qaeda attacks? The closings of such overseas bases could be also be met with such popularity by moving troops to where they can serve a more meaningful national security role in protecting our own borders. In light of Obama's decision to escalate Afghanistan and continue the status quo of the Bush foreign policy, there were several polls that indicated that most Americans would support a more humble presence overseas. I think you are again overstating the impact that far-right neoconservatives have in manipulating the broad electorate.

I support civilian trials, but I fail to see how that has anything to do with this.

And I should repeat that these proposals would meet some political opposition from either side of the aisle. I disagree with your statement that such maneuvers would incur political suicide.

[Flying_Mollusk]

el penguino, on February 10, 2010 - 09:25 AM, said:

Rand Paul, for one, is leading the Republican candidates for KY Senate and leading Democratic opposition by double digits. He has been campaigning on a platform of balanced budgets and wants legislation passed to ensure deficit reduction.

He is also someone who supports the war in Afghanistan, so I wouldnt frame as someone who would want to drastically reduce military spending.

Quote

Are you trying to say that Bush's unpopularity was largely due to attempts to reform Social Security and not things such as the Iraq War, Patriot Act, handling of Katrina, etc.? Before Bush took office polls strongly favored Social Security reform; they dwindled as Bush took office. Bush campaigned on Social Security reform in 2000. Al Gore stubbornly said that no changes should be made to a system that was gradually bankrupting us. Much of this had to do with the nature of the proposal itself rather than reform itself. On top of this, you need to consider that the looming debt crisis has become more apparent in light of the tanking economy and the trillions of dollars spent to correct it. The economic conditions aren't the same as they were four years ago.

Maybe Katrina, but not the Iraq War or the Patriot Act, and definitely the social security reform itself. The perception of the reform morphs as the debate heats up. I dont think there was anything drastically different as far as the nature of social security reform when in 2000 compared to 2004 or 2005.

Quote

How does closing bases in Japan or Germany leave the United States vulnerable to Al Qaeda attacks?

...I support civilian trials, but I fail to see how that has anything to do with this.

Closing bases in Japan or Germany doesn't leave the US vulnerable. Thats my point. It's how the right can distort the act into something it isnt for political purposes. That is what they are doing with the civilian trials, distorting.

Quote

The closings of such overseas bases could be also be met with such popularity by moving troops to where they can serve a more meaningful national security role in protecting our own borders. In light of Obama's decision to escalate Afghanistan and continue the status quo of the Bush foreign policy, there were several polls that indicated that most Americans would support a more humble presence overseas. I think you are again overstating the impact that far-right neoconservatives have in manipulating the broad electorate.
...
And I should repeat that these proposals would meet some political opposition from either side of the aisle. I disagree with your statement that such maneuvers would incur political suicide.

I think you drastically underestimate how public perception can shift once a major policy is attempted in practice. Initially, the theory or concept of the policy is abstract and distant. Opposition groups really haven't reacted to it. No attempts at distortion have been made. It's sort of like a candidate that nobody has run against yet. But once things start ratcheting up, public support of a policy is fully capable, and like to, drastically reduce and shift to public opposition.

Right now people support base closings. Wait till Obama actually tries it, republicans react, the media fails to adequately analyze it, and distortion campaigns begin. Then ask yourself if "most Americans would support a more humble presence overseas."

Eight years ago, four years ago, and even last year, most Americans favored the proposals of democrats when it comes to healthcare reform. Democrats have always proposed the same core principles in what they want to do. In fact, universal health is a big aspect of that. So nothing has changed over the last year.

Except the concept went from theory to attempted practice. And now Americans favor republicans on healthcare reform. Now Americans think the same proposals they liked 8 years ago, 4 years ago, and last year will be bad. I wonder why? Nothing has changed. Except the distortion campaign went into effect.

Same with Bush's social security reform.

You cant trust public perception when the idea is in theory. Wait till reality.

[el penguino]

Rand isn't "supportive" of Afghanistan. He opposes the nation-building aspect and said we only should have gone in with a declaration. He doesn't have the rhetoric of his father but it's mostly the same position.

The Iraq War absolutely drove Bush's unpopularity during his second term, and arguably more than anything else. In 2004 the war was still popular enough for him to get re-elected (he also campaigned in 2004 as he did in 2000 on Social Security reform). In 2005, there were hopes that troops would have been withdrawn by summer but instead violence by insurgents skyrocketed and we had some of the bloodiest months of the war. This was the beginning of Bush's downfall and the cause of the momentum that would cost the Republicans the Congressional majority and the White House in 2008 (the bad economy was the final straw). To say that attempts at reforming Social Security were the biggest political blows for the Republicans during 2004-2008 is absurd.

Most of the polling data regarding Social Security indicates a vocal majority that is legitimately concerned that the money won't be there come time for retirement. This alone indicates that reform is welcomed. Some of the opposition was likely due to the conduct of the Democrats, which was strikingly close to what they accuse the Republicans of doing now with Obamacare. In post-election bitterness, they showed no willingness to cooperate and booed and hissed at the State of the Union. Under no circumstance would I recognize Bush's failed attempt as a sign that Social Security reform is off-limits politically.

This is in addition to the fact that reform is absolutely necessary; it will eventually come to the point where payroll taxes will need to exceed one third of an individual's income in order to cover the liabilities of existing law. By that point, the real political suicide measures will be implemented as we either increase taxes, decrease benefits, or both.

Those measures would be political suicide, calculated reform would not be. In fact, it is something that could find bipartisan support because privatized accounts would greatly benefit both labor unions and minorities because they yield greater return and promote legitimate savings that can be inherited.

I don't think Republicans are reorting to repulsive distortion tactics on the civilian trials. I endorse a strict non-interventionist foreign policy, but many of the concerns with civilian trials are legitimate. I only support civilian trials because I am a Constitutionalist and feel that military tribunals are not appropriate because we have not issued a declaration of war. If we had, I would have supported military tribunals using events such as Operation Pastorius as precedent.

These are the same arguments you tried to make last time regarding "fickleness." There will be opposition to almost any initiative, due to the nature of the two party system. You are making the mistake of confusing the political suicide with politics as usual.

Obama is currently meeting something like 60% opposition to health care reform. Sure, he might not get re-elected in 2012, but health care reform alone isn't sinking him. It's a combination of things (Afghanistan, economy, cap&trade, etc.) in addition to some cult of personality problems that are contributing to his increasing unpopularity. Bush followed the same paradigm, but his problems were considerably different in nature.

I tend to reserve the term "political suicide" for a policy that meets opposition from a vocal majority across all demographics (instituting the draft would be an example of this). Social Security and defense spending reforms are not in this ballpark yet, but will be in the future if we don't tackle them now. Right now the greatest threat to the future well-being of our country is debt and the current economic crisis is starting to awaken people to this fact.

I fault the Republicans for a degree of hypocrisy in their health care proposals (from Clinton to Obama), but that switch has more to do with strategy than it does change in public sentiment of proposals. Single-payer was more of a concern in the early to mid-1990s and the Republicans were trying to substitute anything that could be perceived as an alternative to stop it. I don't think this speaks about distortions; it speaks more about politicians compromising some of their values to block out legislation they oppose. The more government involvement in health care the Democrats propose (and have a legitimate ability to pass it), the more you will see the Republicans compromise with their own values in order to stonewall it. In addition to this, there is more reason for the general public to be skeptical of government action today than there was 15 years ago.