Skip to main content

I am retired on disability and have a lot of time to spend on the internet.  I have put most of it to use on reading about politics during this election and have continued that habit since the election, checking out various sites including some on the right that I visit to see what "the other side" is thinking.

I've read much and watched many clips about GOP efforts to understand and explain what happened in this election, how President Obama prevailed, how they were blind-sided and what it will take for them to have any chance at winning in the future.

One of the most distinguishing and frequently mentioned policy differences between the two candidates was their approach to taxes and the deficit.  In polls before and after the election the majority affirmed that the President "understood people like them" and was most concerned about the middle class.  Conversely, Romney was seen as not only rich but as preferring and protecting the rich in his policies.  Finally, both before and after the election, polls clearly indicated that a significant majority of Americans either want taxes to increase on the rich or to increase across the board.

So why isn't this aspect of the perception of the GOP by the electorate mentioned in any of the discussion about the election results, even by the left?  (If I've missed it, somebody give me the link(s) in the comments.)  And on election day, before we even knew the outcome, and every day since, Boehner has been out there making keeping the Bush tax cuts for the rich the top priority of the GOP.  

I am just baffled.  I understand the misguided greed of the rich and their dominance over the party but how can they ignore this issue completely?  

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  You have a valid point. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    translatorpro, FiredUpInCA

    It sure does not enter the discussion like it should.  Re:  taxing the rich, perhaps the right is so dug into that position it just hasn't sunk in. I dunno.

    Be the change you want to see in the world. -Gandhi

    by DRo on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 12:19:48 PM PST

  •  Obama pretty much said that on Friday (4+ / 0-)

    Conservatives will talk up and fight for their agenda, elections or not, but that's a different issue altogether.

  •  Policy differences (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nuclear winter solstice

    It's hard to debate policy differences unless each candidate takes a stand.  Romney seemed to be standing everywhere at once -- or wherever he deemed efficacious on a given day.  I think we did flesh out some clear differences, but by and large, the media seemed more concerned with campaign tactics than actual policy.  Such as it is.

    Things work out best for those who make the best of the way things work out.

    by winsock on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 12:32:38 PM PST

  •  The "no new taxes" issue is so ingrained in (0+ / 0-)

    the conservative mindset, that the far right won't entertain any thought of compromise. Boehner has to make a pretense of defending their hardline stance, or he faces the wrath of the Teahadist wing of the party, as well as Grover Norquist. If you don't know about Mr. Norquist, here is a good place to start:

    http://thinkprogress.org/...

    However, the more realistic Republicans probably realize they are in a weakened position, but keep up the bluster anyway. The tax issue is actually front and center all the time, even if only on a subliminal level. But one of the first things both parties made statements on following the election was a tax-related issue, both drawing lines in the sand. So I think it's there, but maybe not so explicitly expressed that everyone recognizes it immediately.

    I hope I understood your question correctly.

    „Wer kämpft, kann verlieren. Wer nicht kämpft, hat schon verloren.“ - Bertolt Brecht

    by translatorpro on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 12:33:53 PM PST

    •  Yeah, I know about Norquist alright. (0+ / 0-)

      I just don't get why, if the economy was the "most important" issue of the election, that all the talking heads go on about reasons for GOP failure without asking the questions "why didn't people buy the GOP economic plan?" and "why is the GOP perceived by so many as the party of the rich"?  And, perhaps especially, "is that perception going to erode GOP support in the future and do we need to do something about it"?  

  •  MSM is largely muzzled (0+ / 0-)

    as news shows now kowtow to ad revenues

  •  In a democratic plutocracy like ours, (0+ / 0-)

    public opinion and money squabble till after the election, when media prepares the way for lobbyists to go back to work undoing the people's will.

    Same as it ever was.

    "I was a big supporter of waterboarding" - Dick Cheney 2/14/10

    by Bob Love on Sun Nov 11, 2012 at 12:47:38 PM PST

  •  Good question, and one I have (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mideedah

    myself!  I work a non-reportage job for a public radio station so I hear NPR all the time, and they usually shy away from the obvious greed-coddling aspect of the GOP because of some perceived "moral highground bias" I think.  But once in awhile it slips through how indefensible the "rich getting richer" tax policy argument really is.  I expect we finally are due for a discussion of this.

    One more thing.  Romney kept bringing up "more take-home pay" for the middle class.  I suspect his plan was to gut Social Security deductions from paychecks and then sock it to the middle class by removing cherished tax deductions for the middle class.  Thereby he was actually not lying.  We would get more take-home pay but far less "after-tax" income.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site