5 ms·

Excuse me, political leadership. Romney has, to my knowledge, not once stood on the losing side of an issue out of principle, and if the electorate flips, he d

by jbooth 14y ago

Excuse me, political leadership. Romney has, to my knowledge, not once stood on the losing side of an issue out of principle, and if the electorate flips, he does too. Obama has gone out on a limb for things that aren't popular multiple times. Not being able to change his past at Bain, not that he didn't try, isn't a sign of backbone, it's just how 'the past' works.

mseebach 14y ago
> Romney has, to my knowledge, not once stood on the losing side of an issue out of principle You clearly have an issue in mind when Obama did this? > Not being able to change his past at Bain, not that he didn't try, isn't a sign of backbone, it's just how 'the past' works. By running with this past (it's very much an option not to run), he implicitly ran on a non-flop-floppable platform of "I'm willing to do stuff that's unpopular and will hurt".
- jbooth 14y ago
  The healthcare bill is a pretty high profile example of Obama standing by something that's a short-term political loser. Stimulus, arguably, as well.
  - mseebach 14y ago
    Hm, you're right. I was actually under the impression ACA was fairly popular among the relevant groups, but it wasn't. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/six-charts-to-explain-health-care-polling/2012/06/28/gJQAlBrn8V_blog.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/six-charts-...
  - tokipin 14y ago
    There's a lot of stuff. In addition to those, these are other examples off the top of my head: * Coming out in support of gay marriage, which has always lost in state ballots. * Going after Osama bin Laden, on a 50/50 chance, inside a foreign nation who would have every right to shoot down our invading helicopters. * The auto bailout, which was not popular at the time. It's amazing how easily people forget stuff like this.
    - ryanwaggoner 14y ago
      Osama bin Laden is a great example, because it could have gone horribly wrong and made Obama look terrible. The other two are really lousy examples, for two reasons: 1. Gay marriage and the auto bailout are or have been unpopular, but not among Obama's core voting groups. Yes, standing behind those positions will piss off lots of people, but not people who were going to vote for him anyway. The ACA falls under this category as well, in that it wasn't terribly popular, but many on the left didn't like it because it didn't go far enough. No way were they going to vote for Romney because Obama hadn't gone far enough with the ACA. 2. Obama didn't come out in favor of gay marriage until Biden forced his hand, and there's no way he would have. But Biden forced his hand and it turned out well for him in the end. Obama is just as calculating and concerned about keeping his base happy as any other national politician.
      - jbooth 14y ago
        I'll agree that he dragged his feet for the right moment on gay marriage but the auto bailout could have SO easily gone the wrong way and Obama would be married to it. As in, he's catching the blame for decades of business decisions, in exchange for trying to help. But he did.
        ryanwaggoner 14y ago
        Are we sure the auto bailout hasn't gone the wrong way? The problem with bailouts are two-fold: 1. They protect jobs, but often at a much higher cost than is justified. Admittedly, I don't know the numbers here, but I recall something about the ban on foreign tires protecting US jobs at a cost of $900,000 per job saved. 2. They introduce moral hazard. See our repeated pattern of bank bailouts for examples. If the auto bailout did cause this problem, we won't know about it until much later. A defining feature of capitalism is competition, which means economic winners and losers. If we protect companies from the need to restructure, even for a noble purpose, we may cause more problems down the road. The auto industry wouldn't have ceased to exist if two companies had gone through bankruptcy. Other automakers and manufacturers would have bought those assets and run them more efficiently. And those other companies are exactly the type you want to be doing this, since they didn't need a bailout in the first place, right?

by jbooth 14y ago

mseebach 14y ago

> Romney has, to my knowledge, not once stood on the losing side of an issue out of principle You clearly have an issue in mind when Obama did this? > Not being able to change his past at Bain, not that he didn't try, isn't a sign of backbone, it's just how 'the past' works. By running with this past (it's very much an option not to run), he implicitly ran on a non-flop-floppable platform of "I'm willing to do stuff that's unpopular and will hurt".

jbooth 14y ago
The healthcare bill is a pretty high profile example of Obama standing by something that's a short-term political loser. Stimulus, arguably, as well.
- mseebach 14y ago
  Hm, you're right. I was actually under the impression ACA was fairly popular among the relevant groups, but it wasn't. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/six-charts-to-explain-health-care-polling/2012/06/28/gJQAlBrn8V_blog.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/six-charts-...
- tokipin 14y ago
  There's a lot of stuff. In addition to those, these are other examples off the top of my head: * Coming out in support of gay marriage, which has always lost in state ballots. * Going after Osama bin Laden, on a 50/50 chance, inside a foreign nation who would have every right to shoot down our invading helicopters. * The auto bailout, which was not popular at the time. It's amazing how easily people forget stuff like this.
  - ryanwaggoner 14y ago
    Osama bin Laden is a great example, because it could have gone horribly wrong and made Obama look terrible. The other two are really lousy examples, for two reasons: 1. Gay marriage and the auto bailout are or have been unpopular, but not among Obama's core voting groups. Yes, standing behind those positions will piss off lots of people, but not people who were going to vote for him anyway. The ACA falls under this category as well, in that it wasn't terribly popular, but many on the left didn't like it because it didn't go far enough. No way were they going to vote for Romney because Obama hadn't gone far enough with the ACA. 2. Obama didn't come out in favor of gay marriage until Biden forced his hand, and there's no way he would have. But Biden forced his hand and it turned out well for him in the end. Obama is just as calculating and concerned about keeping his base happy as any other national politician.
    - jbooth 14y ago
      I'll agree that he dragged his feet for the right moment on gay marriage but the auto bailout could have SO easily gone the wrong way and Obama would be married to it. As in, he's catching the blame for decades of business decisions, in exchange for trying to help. But he did.
      - ryanwaggoner 14y ago
        Are we sure the auto bailout hasn't gone the wrong way? The problem with bailouts are two-fold: 1. They protect jobs, but often at a much higher cost than is justified. Admittedly, I don't know the numbers here, but I recall something about the ban on foreign tires protecting US jobs at a cost of $900,000 per job saved. 2. They introduce moral hazard. See our repeated pattern of bank bailouts for examples. If the auto bailout did cause this problem, we won't know about it until much later. A defining feature of capitalism is competition, which means economic winners and losers. If we protect companies from the need to restructure, even for a noble purpose, we may cause more problems down the road. The auto industry wouldn't have ceased to exist if two companies had gone through bankruptcy. Other automakers and manufacturers would have bought those assets and run them more efficiently. And those other companies are exactly the type you want to be doing this, since they didn't need a bailout in the first place, right?