Republicans just dominated Democrats in the midterm elections, and by all popular accounts Obama may become one of the lamest lame ducks in history — the GOP simply hates the guy and it seems unlikely he's going to get anything meaningful done before he leaves office. So we're now entering the presidential "say whatever you want" phase, marked today by the president's strong new stance on rigorous net neutrality regulation. Republican leadership was quick to respond:
This is an insanely cynical tactic that should worry all citizens regardless of political stripe, and it's coming from the guys at the top; Ted Cruz (R-TX) is a powerful member of the GOP in the Senate and a potential presidential candidate for 2016. Republicans just took over Congress and hold the keys to policymaking for at least the next two years. If the best they can continue to come up with is repeating "Obama is bad!" the internet is in serious trouble.
Net neutrality is obviously nothing like Obamacare, but Cruz and his colleagues have already demonstrated they either don't understand what internet freedom means or they're willing to spread mendacious propaganda about it to help their friends at Verizon, Comcast, and other monopolistic ISPs.
Washington is mired in partisanship. Since 2008, the electorate has been subjected to an endless rhetorical tug-of-war between the GOP and Obama, who has become a remarkable manifestation of Republican fears projected on the national stage. Unfortunately, that means even rational policies that ought to be uncontroversial can become tainted by mere association with the president. If Cruz's comments today are a sneak peek at Republican opposition to net neutrality for the next two years, we'll be in for a rough ride.
From the archives: Susan Crawford on how mayors can solve the broadband problem
Comments
As a lifelong republican….screw this guy.
By mulasien on 11.10.14 11:38am
If you’re still a lifelong republican after the past 8 years, I don’t know what to say to you. This guy is your standard, now.
By Maestroquark on 11.10.14 11:52am
This needs a +1 and not just a "Recommend".
By crichton007 on 11.10.14 12:09pm
If you’re a lifelong supporter of either party after the last 14 years then there’s nothing to say at all. People voting and behaving along party lines is probably the worst thing to happen to the American democracy.
By gijames1225 on 11.10.14 12:12pm
One could argue the lack of people participating in the political process in general. On one hand, if everyone were "forced" to vote, we would have a lot people who have no clue what the issues are and that could be just as bad if not worse then what little Americans that do vote actually vote for.
By thedynasty87 on 11.10.14 12:24pm
I’m sorry but the "everyone should vote" argument is really shortsighted. I’m not trying to make excuses for those who don’t vote, but in the end we are given 2 choices. A few more in a primary but each candidate is usually a carbon copy of another. I am convinced that people don’t vote because they believe the candidates represent them. Hell, when I vote I always feel like I’m picking the lesser of 2 evils. That is no choice in my book.
By Element23 on 11.10.14 2:06pm
I would KILL for a system with a bunch more parties… Wouldn’t forcing compromise between 3 or more parties be a really neat way to get rid of gridlock?
Instead of playing this two player "if it’s good for them it’s bad for me, let’s just do things that are shitty for everybody but sound good for both of us" game that congress currently is.
I’m not saying it would cut out arguing, I’m just saying that as more parties tried to screw AN other party instead of THE other party, more would get done.
By Irishjugg on 11.10.14 2:10pm
They call that the Knesset… It’s mired in problems too.
By a_rose_not_picked on 11.10.14 5:15pm
Just replying to see if we can get this passive aggressive insult thread down one more level.
By Sid Burgess on 11.11.14 2:16pm
Preach it! This is one of the foundational problems we face. Week after week, here and on other boards, the party-before-citizenry crowd howls at the moon.
It’s profound ignorance.
By donthasslethehoff on 11.10.14 12:28pm
The Democrats are basically Reagan-era Republicans. If you look at what they actually do, it pretty much reads like Reagan-era Republican neoliberalism.
The actual Republican party are either a) sleazier Democrats hanging on for dear life (Boehner, McConnell and much of the old guard), b) youngsters who haven’t realized they’ve been taken advantage of (Ron Paul and his followers; basically to the Republicans what Nader and his followers are to Democrats), or c) demagogues like Cruz who are stoking protofascist rage with no idea of who ugly it will get when the realize they can’t quite control the horse they’re riding.
By ps4rh on 11.10.14 1:29pm
100% yes. When people ask me if I am either R or D and I want to say $%&@ them both. They are both corrupt and serve the corporations, the citizens be damned.
By Element23 on 11.10.14 2:02pm
And if you vote independent you just throw your vote away.
By sparky388 on 11.10.14 3:37pm
This is the attitude that needs to go away.
By Danrarbc on 11.10.14 3:43pm
WHY, it’s the truth and you know it.
By sparky388 on 11.10.14 4:07pm
If you’re voting Democrat in Texas or Republican in Massachusetts you’re also throwing your vote away.
By jbrandonf on 11.22.14 12:12pm
I have voted for independent candidates my entire life. None have ever been elected or even come close.
By a_rose_not_picked on 11.10.14 5:16pm
True, if being part of the winning team is the only reason you vote.
By beenyweenies on 11.10.14 7:22pm
Not necessarily. Its more common for Republicans these days, but one of the greatest fears a decent amount of Republicans are dealing with is having just enough people voting Libertarian in close elections to the point where the end result looks something like this:
D- Candidate – 48%
R- Candidate – 46%
Libertarian Candidate – 4%
Honestly though I’m certainly not a hardcore Libertarian, it would be much easier, probably even preferable to support a Republican party that could best be described as Libertarian-Lite. The current Republican party, hard to find a word outside of crazy to describe them. Perhaps the Leading Minds of the 14th Century would be more accurate at this point.
I do strongly encourage people to vote Libertarian if for no other reason then to get the party away for its current MO in regards to almost everything.
By dirtbag59 on 11.11.14 12:52am
Yes, but you have to vote for one party or the other. Unless a 3rd party miraculously gains traction but even it would have similar problems.
By RF9 on 11.10.14 5:30pm
Magic not required. Bring in the alternative vote.
By Kangar on 11.11.14 12:48am
If you’re a lifelong party first-er, you don’t deserve to vote. I don’t care which of the bought parties you support.
By donthasslethehoff on 11.10.14 12:27pm
I abandoned the Republican party because of ignorance and FUD like this.
By RF9 on 11.10.14 5:30pm
Cruse is a Tea Party member & not a Republican. Come back when you get your facts straight.
By sparky388 on 11.10.14 12:46pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
By Humpledink on 11.10.14 12:59pm