politicartoons | (no subject)

Is it normal for people to be happy with candidates who tell them what they want to hear, then renege?

Given the choices of politicians of history, do you expect them to do otherwise? What is promised and what is possible due to realpolitik are two different things.

But aside from that, let's ask a more pertinent question. Do you or do you not agree that the closure of Gitmo would result in a backlash against the politician(s) that did so, as the vast majority of the American populace believes the Gitmo detainees to be terrorists and Al Qaeda soldiers? If Gitmo had been closed by Obama in 2009, would you vote for him in 2012, disregarding all other policy stances and considering only his actions on Gitmo?

My answer is that no, you would not vote for Obama in 2012. Why? Because by closing Gitmo in 2009, Obama proved himself to be an ally of Al Qaeda and a supporter of terrorism.

What politician would be so stupid as to do that, regardless of what was promised? It's the equivalent of taking an ax to your boss at work and then expecting to be not arrested and promoted to his place.

"Do you or do you not agree that the closure of Gitmo would result in a backlash against the politician(s) that did so"

A small one by idiots with big mouths, perhaps. A clever politician could have handled it. And Obama is nothing if not a clever politician.

"the vast majority of the American populace believes the Gitmo detainees to be terrorists"

Source?

"disregarding all other policy stances and considering only his actions on Gitmo"

Source on how many Americans are single-issue voters on this issue?

"If Gitmo had been closed by Obama in 2009, would you vote for him in 2012"

I would have been significantly more likely to, yes. I voted for him in 2008, partly because of his promise to close Gitmo. I didn't vote for him in 2012, partly because of his failure to do so.

A small one by idiots with big mouths, perhaps. A clever politician could have handled it. And Obama is nothing if not a clever politician.

I disagree. It is my opinion the backlash would be large, possibly 75-80% of the population, mostly excluding the small upper class. Patriotism and American exceptionalism, combined with distrust of foreign influence, are rife amongst middle- and lower-class Americans.

Source?

*bored* Aggregated polling on Gitmo closure as done by independent groups, combined with general information on the low-information political knowledge patterns of the majority of US citizens. You know, I'm not going to do the homework for generally recognized data for you. You do have access to Google, you know.

Source on how many Americans are single-issue voters on this issue?

None provided. I am asking him, directly, how he would vote on that single issue alone. That does not require a source, as I don't claim everyone is a single-issue. I'm not proclaiming a fact; I'm asking a hypothetical.

I would have been significantly more likely to, yes. I voted for him in 2008, partly because of his promise to close Gitmo. I didn't vote for him in 2012, partly because of his failure to do so.

Goody for you. I should note that I only care what

404's answer is, if he deigns to provide one.

But aside from that, let's ask a more pertinent question. Do you or do you not agree that the closure of Gitmo would result in a backlash against the politician(s) that did so, as the vast majority of the American populace believes the Gitmo detainees to be terrorists and Al Qaeda soldiers? If Gitmo had been closed by Obama in 2009, would you vote for him in 2012, disregarding all other policy stances and considering only his actions on Gitmo?

Would there have been a backlash, at least short term? Possibly, probably. It also depends on how Gitmo was closed, where the detainees were sent, and what the process was for doing so. Americans seem to have a short memory, especially about things that don't affect them, so I doubt if Obama had closed it in 2009, it would be an issue in 2012. Would I vote for him in 2012 over Gitmo? doubtful, but I didn't vote for Bush in 2004, Obama in 2008 or in 2012, so I probably am not in the majority to give you an answer you are looking for. I was hoping that Obama, given his rhetoric, would be a different president than his predecessor, but other than for talk, he seems to have doubled down on all the things that were bedeviling Bush, especially the domestic spying.

Would there have been a backlash, at least short term? Possibly, probably. It also depends on how Gitmo was closed, where the detainees were sent, and what the process was for doing so.

Fair questions.

Americans seem to have a short memory, especially about things that don't affect them, so I doubt if Obama had closed it in 2009, it would be an issue in 2012.

I would say this is where we fundamentally disagree.

I was hoping that Obama, given his rhetoric, would be a different president than his predecessor, but other than for talk, he seems to have doubled down on all the things that were bedeviling Bush, especially the domestic spying.

Viva la difference; i never expected him to be anything but a corporate shill. And a corporate shill he has been - just like Bush2 was, despite his talk of "faith-based initiatives". There was a very good article by a member of that faith-based office who expressed how he became disillusioned with Bush2 on that score. Interesting in terms of seeing the man behind the "compassionate conservatism" type of thing. I'll have to see if I can find it again.

Frankly, if I wanted a (D) candidate who WOULD be a different kind of President, I'd choose Corey Booker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cory_Booker). Still can't find much about the guy that's questionable.

(For a (R) candidate that is similar, my jury is still out right now.)