Open Chat... All Day, Every Day! Express Your Views, Debate, and Challenge the Views of Others!

In order to keep up with the nature of free, spirited debate, I wanted to place the chat feature at the top of the homepage. This ensures people can come here and share their views on anything they wish and not have it be related to any specific discussion. Here, people can share ideas, links, and views "unmoderated" and an their own pace. To me, this makes The Elephant in the Room blog truly a place for debate.

Monday, May 21, 2012

Are Political Parties Thicker than... Everything?


But it seems political loyalty is being taken to a whole new level. For example, in the past 14 days, President Obama expressed his support for same-sex marriage. As he became the first sitting president to do this, many of his closest followers expressed their disappointment with his announcement. Many black leaders communicated publicly that they were outraged with the president's decision. But what happened? Most said they will still support Obama. Sure, political affiliation comprises more than one social or economic issue, but it seems that with most supporters Obama can do no wrong. To further this, over the weekend, the N.A.A.C.P. announced that they now support same-sex marriage. In their statement, they claim they passed the resolution "endorsing same-sex marriage as a civil right and opposing any efforts 'to codify discrimination or hatred into the law.'" So, for the last 103 years, they were okay with it... until Obama said he wasn't? Please... this has absolutely nothing to do with gay marriage. It has everything to do with blindly following and political pandering.  See the Fox News article here:

I want to reaffirm that this has nothing to do with gay marriage. I actually decided to write about this because of the article I read here:

Why is this significant? Because it's another example of someone who seems to be thinking on their own only to, dare I say, "flip-flop" back to their "reality" to ensure they fall in line with the party. Up and coming democratic star Cory Booker, the current mayor of Newark, New Jersey went on NBC's meet the press and said that the Obama campaign's attack on Romney's time at Bain Capital was "nauseating." NAUSEATING! He said:

          "I have to just say from a very personal level, I'm not about to sit here and indict private equity," Booker, a Democrat, said in an appearance on NBC's "Meet The Press" on Sunday. "To me, it's just we're getting to a ridiculous point in America. Especially that I know I live in a state where pension funds, unions and other people invest in companies like Bain Capital. If you look at the totality of Bain Capital's record, they've done a lot to support businesses, to grow businesses."

He sounds like a republican. Or maybe he sounds like a person that understands reality and is speaking up for what he truly believes in spite of what his party tells him. Of course, I completely agree with his statement, and I am tired of people attacking Romney and his working at Bain Capital when they know nothing about private equity. He seems to understand it, and he also seems to endorse it (as well as Romney's working in PE). He then continued: 

          "This kind of stuff is nauseating to me on both sides," Booker continued. "It's nauseating to the American public. Enough is enough. Stop attacking private equity. Stop attacking Jeremiah Wright. This stuff has got to stop, because what it does is it undermines, to me, what this country should be focused on. It's a distraction from the real issues."

But don't worry... he soon "cleared up" the situation. Booker said:

          "I will fight hard for Obama to win," Booker wrote. "But just as his '08 campaign did, I believe we must elevate [and] not denigrate. This is the Obama I know."

And, of course, the biggest contradiction: 

          "We as 'the electorate' must also bear responsibility for changing the tone of politics as usual," he continued. "Not just root harder for our side ... I'm sick to my stomach of the politics of destruction. We now have a [federal government] that can't come together [and] solve our nation's problems. I'll always prioritize my nation over a political party. [And] right now crass divisive partisan politics is not serving the citizens of my city."

I have to laugh. "I will always prioritize my nation over a political party?" Are you sure, Mr. Booker? You strongly disagree with the Obama campaign's demonizing of private equity and Bain Capital, only to say he must get reelected? So the whole "stand up for what you believe in" thing is just thrown out the window, huh? Again, I know that political leanings do not hinder on one issue, but to express disdain so strong it makes you sick to your stomach only to flip it back to we "MUST" reelect Obama seems like a backbone isn't necessarily missing, but maybe it's a little soft? Sure, it would take a lot for me to go against the GOP or other republicans, but, if they did something that made me "nauseated," I would stand up to it. I would stand for what I believe in, and I wouldn't have a "the GOP can do nothing wrong" attitude. I have before, and I'm not afraid to express it:
It seems to me Booker and many on the left do blindly follow without question. I'm sure many on the right do, too. This isn't a democrat-only problem. I am afraid, however, in our current political atmosphere, people are becoming more and more afraid of the repercussions of saying something against their party. It seems that many take a "party first" approach, and, if it grows, will lower us to a level no better than North Korea. 

What do you think?


  1. Very well written and good points. I like that you wrote about this. There aren't many scientific conclusions to be made, but the fact that we can have a discussion and debate it is big. I think it is true that when you blindly follow someone, and this gets expressed across the whole nation, it is dangerous and toxic to that nation. Just ask Germany starting in the 1920s.

  2. Yes this is a big issue on both sides.

    I dont really get your issue with Cory Booker

    He stated he did not agree with people attacking romney on the bain capital stuff.

    That does not mean he thinks romney is a better candidate or that he is going to switch his whole platform just because he does not agree with how dem's are attacking him.

    What do you think he should have said? Seems like he did the right thing and stoop up against his own party and told them he did not agree with them. That does not mean he wants them to loose or that he would rather have romney as a president. It just means he thinks they should take a different approach.

    Mabee im missing something?

  3. I think this merely comes down to the same concept from the last reader's post.

    Summarizing what my take was:
    “We have only two real political parties but a literally limitless number of possible political, fiscal, national and social standpoints. It is 100% IMPOSSIBLE for one political party to properly represent all of the exact views of millions of people on every one of these issue.

    This doesn't necessarily prove hypocriticalness as much as it merely demonstrates the balance of different priorities.

    Some people prioritize religion, some people prioritize jobs, others social issues and freedoms, and others the economy.

    Believing that one party represents your personal priorities best, regardless of the issues you may disagree on with that party, doesn't make you a hypocrite. If anything, it points to the inherent flaw in a continually growing divisive two-party system that attempts to define every single issue as a simple ‘yay or nay?’”

    I definitely do agree that to some, political party affiliation is almost as if it’s a religious stance (and unchangeable as such). But I also feel that’s more of an outlier than a common principle.

  4. Booker has now said that it was "wrong" to say what he did against Obama and for Romney. This writeup has teeth. Thank you for bringing it to light.