Youth Vote Growing Up?
Posted in Elections by Julie Ponzi
The thing about young people is that
they grow up . . . and sometimes events force them to do it rather quicker than nature inclines them. It is probably true that Obama could only hold on to the hip and cool persona that he created for himself for so long--no matter what he did. Once you become president, you are the establishment. You are accountable. Opposition for opposition's sake--that youthful rebellion we're all inclined to over-sentimentalize--is no longer your
de facto property. But Obama's biggest problem may be the company he keeps. Now Obama is part of the machine . . . along with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi . . . and about that machine, there seems to be plenty to rage against. Obama, Reed and Pelosi are all on the same team and people are not enthusiastic about their performance. Note the polls in the margin which now show that though Obama maintains (barely) a 50% plus approval rating, he's also got some pretty high negatives. His 43%
disapproval figure appears to be in keeping with the general movement of the country. Note the generic Congressional ballot in a virtual dead heat and 57.5% saying America is on the wrong track. Take that along with a 64.3%
disapproval rating for Congress and wonder whether these are the ingredients for a breakfast of champions or the recipe for a losing ticket . . .
11:47 AM / December 1, 2009
: include(/srv/users/prod-php-nltashbrook/apps/prod-php-nltashbrook/public/sd/nlt-blog/_includes/promo-main.php): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in
: include(): Failed opening '/srv/users/prod-php-nltashbrook/apps/prod-php-nltashbrook/public/sd/nlt-blog/_includes/promo-main.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/opt/sp/php7.2/lib/php') in
I think this is all true, but: Why should these individuals support conservative republicans? Although these people may now feel less passionate about Obama they may still see him as the lesser of two evils, which is the very point of the right left paradigm.
I agree with Brutus ... the Republican brand is horribly tarnished. It does not follow that: If *not* D then R.
The answer is, I believe, not in trumpeting "values," or waving the "limited government" flag. The answer, I believe, is for the Republicans to become a party known for being principally driven to country first before themselves.
The blowback we see -- or think we see -- is against a shallow hollowness ... a structural lack of integrity. Bring back the honest sense of being true to one's word, and being anchored in sound principles, and people will flock to that party.
Don makes a great point here.
Yes . . . it is an opportunity. That's all. Will the Republicans take it? I don't know. I am hoping that history is not a guide on the matter.
Yes, painful, isn't it? By that I mean, what is the alternative for those citizens/potential voters who are conservatively inclined? I don't see a good one.
One way or another, the Republicans have to come to be the medicine for what ails us. This is not just a matter of appearances, of tarnish, either, but they have been part of what makes people (especially young people I know) sick about politics in America. The major complaint of the young I know relates to the hypocrisy of Republicans; in touting small government, but making government bigger, in touting honest values and being corrupt, promising sound principles and delivering....not what is promised.
My fear is that they will try to be "centrists" in a time when the people want a sort of radical idealism. They are so much like the military in that they always fight the last war in the present. In reality, McCain was for climate change legislation. With what we now know will the next candidate be as well? I suspect that they will and this is the nail in the coffin for the idea that they stand for the people's rights and liberty.
Romney: "I think the risks of climate change are real. And that you're seeing real climate change. And I think human activity is contributing to it. I would develop within this country sources of energy which would allow us to be free of foreign oil. But sources that don't emit CO2. And that's nuclear power, clean-burning coal, all of our renewable resources and so forth. I also wanna see much greater efficiencies in our autos, in our homes, in our businesses. That'll get is energy independent."
"I don't wanna have America unilaterally think it's somehow gonna stop global warming. They don't call it America warming. They call it global warming. And that means China, which is the biggest CO2 emitter in the world, as well as other nations, like Indonesia and Brazil, are gonna have to be a part of the global effort. So Kyoto was wrong, because it left major polluting nations out."
manages to promote globalism while hardly being strong on this issue. all I can say is: good luck with that. A real choice has to made between someone who would lip service conservative moral values and someone who would stand up for the other 90% of what I assume conservatives believe in.