-
Future of Republican Party?
Interesting article on “the rich” and young and the changing demographics & what it might mean for the future as the future is passed on to the younger:
[link=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/06/AR2010080602659.html]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/06/AR2010080602659.html[/link]
Hopes for a pivotal BP-driven eco-moment — remember President Obama’s call in June for [link=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/15/AR2010061505595.html]a new “national mission”[/link] to get America off fossil fuels? — have dissipated, seemingly confirming the common view that powerful energy firms, and corporate America more broadly, stand as the sworn enemies of any bold new environmental rules and that they have the clout to get their way.
Except that old view is no longer quite right. In fact, big business is more divided on energy and the environment than ever before, and the growing rift reflects major power shifts in the economy. On one side are business leaders and shareholders who derive their wealth from resource extraction, fossil-fuel-based power generation and energy-intensive manufacturing — they are the “dirty rich.” On the other are business leaders who run knowledge or service companies that generate very little pollution — the “clean rich.”
The dirty rich are dying off, and the clean rich are coming of age.It is hardly news that affluent liberals often fret more about the environment than working-class voters. But this class divide is poised to have a larger political impact. One reason the Republican Party can blithely block attempts to address climate change, one of the gravest threats facing humanity, is that its political base is heavily weighted with less-educated and less affluent voters who live in rural areas and small towns — and who aren’t keen on government activism to protect the planet. A poll last year by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, for instance, found that support for legislation to limit carbon emissions was 16 points higher among college graduates than those with a high school diploma or less.
Yet if the GOP is to build a durable majority, it will have to move beyond this constituency. Even if Republicans take control of the House this fall, that won’t change the fact that the Palin and Limbaugh wing of the party has badly hurt GOP fortunes by alienating affluent and educated donors and voters — as witnessed most dramatically by Obama’s crushing fundraising edge over McCain. Wooing back these natural allies, especially the clean rich, will require tacking to the center. And climate change, an issue driven by scientific evidence and with appeal in this newly influential community, is a great candidate for a softened stance. Its time will come soon — and could come even faster if a few far-sighted Republicans recognize their plight and decide to hasten that transformation. -
1 Reply
-
I think the demographic question is valid. However, I think the analysis is overblown.
People in the late 70s said the same thing…that the demographics of the country had led to to the dying of the Republicans…and then came Reagan.
In the late 80s, after Bush won, people were questioning whether a niche party like the Democrats that only own California and the Northeast could ever win the presidency again…and then came Bill Clinton.
I think part of this is the American public adapts. They change the parties, as well as the parties changing themselves. They don’t trust any one party…thus the largest group of people in this country are independents, that can shift easily one way or another.
-
Bill Clinton came 22 years after Reagan a long time in the wilderness.
-
12 years, Frumi, 12…
-
DUH! sorry. Calculator battery must be on the fritz.
-
Its ok, we all have a brain freeze now and again…
-
Clinton ran and managed as a moderate. There is no demographic breakdown to suggest that a liberal, of any race or individual popularity, would have his/her agenda more accepted by the populace. There is no call for a “national mission” of social responsibility (ie more government directed control of power to control wealth, energy consumption, etc), in particular by those who vote.
There is a national call though to grow the economy and create jobs, to which this president is so far failing on. Tax breaks and deregulation lead the way with the Reagan and the Clinton-Gingrich recoveries in the past. This president is looking and sounding a lot like Jimmy Carter accepting stagnation for the American people.-
The only problem is that, with the exception of Clinton, all recoveries were accomplished using leverage which placed the country into deeper debt than each prior administration. Clinton did raise taxes & had a surplus in the last years of his Presidency. Fear of more deficits have people running for the hills so maybe more tax breaks wouldn’t help especially considering that businesses already are sitting on $1.8T and their stock prices have seen a substantial recovery as well as their profits. Only the so-called “consumer” is not experiencing higher profits as their wages have been essentially stagnant since the 1980’s when inflation is calculated in.
-
A major change in this country is the loss of middle class. It is becoming much more the haves and the have nots. That is also what is now driving politics and taxes. You can’t have a small tax increase on the middle class make a big difference because there just aren’t enough in that category. That is definite change from the last century or so. I fear that this is going to be an ever widening chasm. With 25-40% of students not finishing HS, what future do they have? It is going to become more and more the educated wealthy vs the uneducated poor.
-
Well, and some educated poor in there as well. I just read that, yes, 46% of all unemployed are long-term unemployed, but that figure of long term is 6.8 million people. They can’t all be highschool dropouts. And after running through their funds for a year or two to make mortgage and cover medical (esp. after unemployment benefits run out), they face losing their homes… they are as close to “poor” as that many people need to be for this to be a crisis of colossal proportion.
-
ORIGINAL: Raddocmed
I fear that this is going to be an ever widening chasm. With 25-40% of students not finishing HS, what future do they have?
I agree with you. Many schools have failed our children in the last 50 years. Individual state teacher unions have gotten to be well-off in politicking for indentured positions where their individual members can’t be fired or even seen to be responsible for failure. And they retire on 90% of their income with benefits standard deviations better than the average worker. That would be a hard trade-off to provide teachers, [i]even if[/i], they were showing accomplishment. But certainly the model of non-merit pay and tenure has been an unarguable large contributor to the failures of schools. The interia against what both dems and repubs do comes largely from the teacher’s unions. We are seeing this with the small steps Arnie Duncan has to navigate while trying to bribe the teachers who failed American children with 10s of billions of bailout dollars for very overvalued pensions.
We could go back and forth about this contention. We have to educate our children better. I have a simpler idea. The schools that dont educate their share should not be allowed to participate in athletics. I am not one of these people who believe that organized athletic programs are an essential element for a school purpose. As a way to get more student scholastic achievement, these programs that fail children should go on league sports probation first, then be forced to give up their participation in all sports until there is scholastic improvement. More time and money for study halls as far as I am concerned. It will spend the message to students, administrators, and parents.
-
Peggy Noonan in today’s WSJ:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703748904575411713335505250.html
The biggest political change in my lifetime is that Americans no longer assume that their children will have it better than they did. This is a huge break with the past, with assumptions and traditions that shaped us.
The country I was born into was a country that had existed steadily, for almost two centuries, as a nation in which everyone thoughtwherever they were from, whatever their circumstancesthat their children would have better lives than they did. That was what kept people pulling their boots on in the morning after the first weary pause: [i]My kids will have it better. [/i]They’ll be richer or more educated, they’ll have a better job or a better house, they’ll take a step up in terms of rank, class or status. America always claimed to be, and meant to be, a nation that made little of class. But America is human. “The richest family in town,” they said, admiringly. Read Booth Tarkington on turn-of-the-last-century Indiana. It’s all about trying to rise.
Parents now fear something has stopped. They think they lived through the great abundance, a time of historic growth in wealth and material enjoyment. They got it, and they enjoyed it, and their kids did, too: a lot of toys in that age, a lot of Xboxes and iPhones. (Who is the most self-punishing person in America right now? The person who didn’t do well during the abundance.) But they look around, follow the political stories and debates, and deep down they think their children will live in a more limited country, that jobs won’t be made at a great enough pace, that taxestoo many people in the cart, not enough pulling itwill dishearten them, that the effects of 30 years of a low, sad culture will leave the whole country messed up. And then there is the world: nuts with nukes, etc.So it’s ironic that our leaders don’t do what in the end would get them what they say they want, which is comprehensive reform.
When the adults of a great nation feel long-term pessimism, it only makes matters worse when those in authority take actions that reveal their detachment from the concernseven from the essential natureof their fellow citizens. And it makes those citizens feel powerless.
Inner pessimism and powerlessness: That is a dangerous combination. -
Peggy Noonan obviously has a short term memory. Much of Reagan’s electoral run in 1980 circled around the very things she is talking about. People had very low expectations for their children and future generations in 1980.
I agree, we need wholesale reform…but we are not getting that from this current group. We are getting more of the same.
-
Yes, similarities but the downturn in 2008 was worse & Reagan had a lot more elbow room to work solutions as in cutting taxes from 70% to 35%, not exactly small change while our rates have been historically low for years. So Reagan worked from a different baseline & had many more options like a deficit that wasn’t anywhere near today’s. Let’s propose deficit spending like Reagan had & see what kind of cheers we’ll get from business and opposition politicians and media and taxpayers? Bronx cheers is likely.
-
Good point about ‘elbow room’…never thought of it that way. Obama’s margin is smaller.
That said, Reagan had LESS deficit spending as a percentage of GDP than Obama…so Reagan was an amateur compared to our current commander in chief. Reagan’s deficits hit a high of 5.9%; Obama’s have already hit 10.6% of GDP. It is not even close.
-
Again all I ask is point out Obama’s spending that wasn’t brought over from Bush’s budget? Obama has spent $326B in stimulus, what else other than needs to support Iraq & Afghanistan has he spent?
-
As for relative deficit spending, let’s assume a baseline for each of them the day they each took office as zero & then increased the deficit from that point. While at it let’s include GDP starting points. I believe Obama had to start at a much lower point than Reagan so not exactly a direct apples to apples comparison.
-
Look, that number I used…is just for 2010. That is what he is going to spend this year…that is all Obama’s. I understand your argument for 2009; even taking out the TARP expenses in the 2009 budget, Obama’s deficit spending would be over 6%…still higher than any other postwar President. So even if you totally exclude the TARP in the deficit spending (which, frankly, doesn’t make sense since Obama actually supported and voted for TARP while in the Senate, but let us assume your train of thought), Obama is STILL spending much more than any other modern president.
As for the wars…Afghanistan is costing more than double now than it did under Bush, so that is Obama’s to bear. Bush was winding down Iraq, and Obama has succeeded in basically ending that war, so that is becoming a smaller and smaller piece of the pie.
No matter how you cut it, Obama is deficit spending at a world record pace.
-
ORIGINAL: MISTRAD
Look, that number I used…is just for 2010. That is what he is going to spend this year…that is all Obama’s. I understand your argument for 2009; even taking out the TARP expenses in the 2009 budget, Obama’s deficit spending would be over 6%…still higher than any other postwar President. So even if you totally exclude the TARP in the deficit spending (which, frankly, doesn’t make sense since Obama actually supported and voted for TARP while in the Senate, but let us assume your train of thought), Obama is STILL spending much more than any other modern president.
As for the wars…Afghanistan is costing more than double now than it did under Bush, so that is Obama’s to bear. Bush was winding down Iraq, and Obama has succeeded in basically ending that war, so that is becoming a smaller and smaller piece of the pie.
No matter how you cut it, Obama is deficit spending at a world record pace.
You never provide numbers or the fact behind the numbers. What are the numbers in the budget? What are the federal tax and Medicare receipts in 2008 and 2009 (est annualize 2010)? What is the cost of Iraq + Afghanistan 2008 vs 2009 (est annualize 2010)? Cost of stimulus 2009? Cost of TARP 2008 & 2009? Interest payments on debt 2008 & 2009? Costs Medicare/Medicaid including Medicare Prescription costs 2008 and 2009? Other 2008 and 2009? And finally, in Jan 2009 and late 2008, the CBO estimated the budget for 2009, what was the estimate?
These numbers should provide a realistic view. I’ll bet you a nickel that other than the $326B in the stimulus the spending deficit picture is directly a result of reduced revenue receipts, increased interest payments & support for the downturn & not much more.
-
Those statistics are readily available…feel free to post the stats as you wish.
-
Sorry for cross posting but my brave right wing friends never seem to have to the cojones to answer certain questions!
why do mistrad, aldo, sardonicus and other right wingers … never bring up the free market when we talk about 13 trillion dollar bailout of wall street which was supposed to help Main street. This is was a combination repug and democrap boondoggle of the the most massive kind. What happens to the free market when we defend GWB, Barney frank and chris dodd giving away our children’s future by enslaving them to wall street.
As a libertarian i an disgusted when repugs or democraps bring up the free market, but never bring up our bloated miltiary industrial complex which only survives by vampirically drinking off the tax paper with waste projects like the joint strike fighter, useless submarines and nothing that actually helps the national defense for a 4th generation war. Both sides of the isle fill their bloated district budgets with freebies and white elephants that hardworking american have to then pay for.
If we applied all the money uselessly thrown at wall street and the military and applied it to reinvigorating america we could have jumpstarted our biotech and non-petroenergy businesses and created jobs. We also could have paid for free healthcare for everyone for 50 years with the amount wasted, and you are busy debating the few nickels we tossed towards the uninsured. Face it guys all our congresscritters are bought and paid for stop arguing repub vs democrap.
-
LOL.
I post more facts and statistics than anyone here.
If you want to disprove me, go ahead…but don’t be so lame and lazy. If I am wrong, it should be quite easy to prove that I am.
Now, we will see how much effort our liberal friends put into answering that question.
-
when the free market doesnt work….the right blames it on too much regulation.
when the free market doesnt work…for the same situation…the left blames it on not enough regulation.
forest fires? right blames it on too much conservation….tree huggers wont let us chop down trees…so now so many trees that fires dont burn themselves out.
left blames it on not enough conservation….global warming results in stronger and more forceful fires.
i mean there are no “facts”…..people just view the facts through the prism of their ideology and then fill in the blanks to complete their picture.
we now have a world where people only like read papers/articles/web sites…or listen to radio stations/satellite radio that support their already held beliefs…they dont want their belief system to be shattered by listening to the other side/sides.
-
“There are no facts?”. Let’s look at this as scientists.
The fiscal and socialist experiment into which the Democrats have thrust our nation is the largest controlled experiment in the history of our country. A real, live experiment, right out there in the open for all to witness.
The hypothesis: Keynesian stimulation, union bailouts and punitive taxation is going to stimulate the economy.
The results: At the conclusion of a two year experiment, we have stubborn unemployment of 9.5%, under-employment of nearly 10%. Double-dip recession. Endless bailouts. More demands for stimulus. Decreased tax revenues. The Federal Reserve monetizing the debt. No private sector jobs. Private enterprise sitting on $2 trillion and not willing to spend it.
Conclusion: A rational individual would conclude that the socialist experiment has failed. A liberal, however concludes that there are no facts, or that it is entirely the fault of the military-industrial complex, or maybe we didn’t build enough windmills.
-
Alda,
You’re taking oxymoronic positions. Since when do Republicans look at anything “like scientists” when scientists are involved in a Worldwide mass conspiracy inventing fake evidence & conclusions in order to steal money for further false investigations to make faked evidence. Read your right-wing positions on science & scientists. There isn’t trustworthy individual amongst them – except for the ones who agree with the Conspiracy Theories. The anti-science goes into all disciplines, climate science, evolution, medicine including stem cell research, etc. If the polls are to be believed Obama is the anti-Christ (now there’s Science for you [link=http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=presidential-harrisment%29]http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=presidential-harrisment)[/link] according to 24% of Republicans, slightly less than 1/2 believe him not be a US citizen, lately I’ve read that E=mc2 and Relativity are not to be believed (http://conservapedia.com/Theory_of_relativity)???
As for “Government Control,” we just had the largest free-market market abdication of responsibility in history outside of the Great Depression with all of the Capitalists holding out their one hand holding an iconic martini in the other; it was a Republican President and Administration who started the Govt “Take-over” with bail-outs and assuming direct control of banks, investment houses, insurance. And an FYI, part of Keynesian solutions you so abhor are tax cuts and as for taxes, they’ve gone DOWN as of this date, not up. There is NO punitive taxation unless cutting taxes is “punitive” in a Republican dictionary.
The problem with Republicans is the rejection of reality-based arguments and evidence and solutions. A “rational” republican is a RINO.Who was that Iranian cleric who said that earthquakes & volcanoes were a result of women behaving immorally? I think Republican Science is rooted in the same “facts” as this Iranian cleric.
-
ORIGINAL: MISTRAD
LOL.
I post more facts and statistics than anyone here.
I can’t agree with that but i can say you do have a sense of humor in trying to sell that bridge.
-
-
-
You are not taking into account efficiencies added to the economy in all sectors. More affordable goods, services of every kind are available at cheaper prices. Home ownership through the last 30 years has steadily increase. College attendence has also steadily increased over the last 30 years. All which leads an unbiased observer or to steer away from the leftist perspective of “stagnant” wages or “loss of middle class”. The world has skrunk and the big wages that manufacutring jobs have gone elsewhere. This is what not going to be reversed and it would be helpful for you to mention that when you make sweeping charges of wage stagnation-as you otherwise leave the impression that somehow America has failed or “vicitimized” groups. Sure there are boom and bust cycles which hit the more vulnerable harder. There are also robust recoveries that provide a lot of middle class accurtrements to just about everybody. If we go back to the hayday of labor movement in the 40s-50s, can the working or middle class every come close to the levels of comforts that is easily available to just about everybody? ( level of college attendence, free of movement from a birthplace, telecommunications, air-conditioning, housing, consumer goods of all types).
-
ORIGINAL: MRImadman
You are not taking into account efficiencies added to the economy in all sectors. More affordable goods, services of every kind are available at cheaper prices. Home ownership through the last 30 years has steadily increase. College attendence has also steadily increased over the last 30 years. All which leads an unbiased observer or to steer away from the leftist perspective of “stagnant” wages or “loss of middle class”. The world has skrunk and the big wages that manufacutring jobs have gone elsewhere. This is what not going to be reversed and it would be helpful for you to mention that when you make sweeping charges of wage stagnation-as you otherwise leave the impression that somehow America has failed or “vicitimized” groups. Sure there are boom and bust cycles which hit the more vulnerable harder. There are also robust recoveries that provide a lot of middle class accurtrements to just about everybody. If we go back to the hayday of labor movement in the 40s-50s, can the working or middle class every come close to the levels of comforts that is easily available to just about everybody? ( level of college attendence, free of movement from a birthplace, telecommunications, air-conditioning, housing, consumer goods of all types).
All of these come with a lot of caveats, conditions qualifiers 1st being all of this “efficiencies” have been with borrowed money creating large deficits, losing jobs, lowering or stagnating wages for a large number of Americans for a couple of decades. Yes, a poor or low wage family can own a car (maybe), a house (maybe), a TV & cell phone but I know quite a few who don’t own that house or bought it decades ago, have a car but their adult children can’t afford one with insurance.
The question is when measuring these improvements you list, who are the primary beneficiaries & what is the cost? Did they buy that car using their Home Equity? Are the benefits for most or primarily the upper 10% or even 50%?
The real black & white is the average wages have remained stagnant since the 1980’s.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I’m a Trump fan but I think the GOP is doomed due to demographics. The writing is on the wall.
Now I just want to preserve the safety and wealth of myself and my loved ones.
The country is inexorably in decline.-
Why do you think the country is s decline?
Is it because uneducated white people are now in minority and are having a hard time dealing with it?
Kinda like the early 1900’s when my ancestors arrived here n this country….. The native underclass were labeling them as as communist and anarchists and felt the country was in decline as well
American Dream——- get yourself educated… Doesn’t matter who you are or where your people cone from
This country is not in decline…. The faces are just changing
-
Because tax consumers are steadily outgrowing tax payers. And the country is going broke.
-
The country is in decline, because it has been “transformed”. The weight of the government has made us less competitive. Personal freedoms are increasingly eroded. Free expression and free speech are stymied. The press is corrupt. We now elect officials based on reality show status, rather than substance. We have no stomach for a fight and will stand for nothing of value. The Athenians did a much better job of protecting their democracy than we do. Our culture is fixated on PC, pop idols, diversity and global warming alarmism. Black Lives Matter and the gay agenda drive the narrative of tribalism and special rights. Little or no value is placed on our history, traditions, hard work and meritocracy.
Unfortunately, this is what gets us the likes of a demagogue such as Donald Trump. People want to believe that he can regain America, the way it used to be when it was a “shining city on a hill”. The America of John Wayne and Ronald Reagan. Unfortunately, Trump is an unprincipled buffoon, who presents a larger danger than the corrupt and opportunistic liberal democrats. So the choice is between the poison that will kill you (Trump), and the poison that might kill you (Hillary).
The only answer I see to the connundrum is to bloc Trump or at least not vote for him and to vote in every possible conservative Republican into Congress in the hope of creating gridlock and not giving HRC a mandate.
That’s where I’m going.
-
Quote from aldadoc
The America of John Wayne and Ronald Reagan
You mean the America of John Wayne, who opted out of WWII while so many of his Hollywood and entertainment colleagues were going overseas? That John Wayne? Yep, a great American hero.
And, Ronald Reagan? The same one who raised the debt ceiling 18 times, slashed taxes for his cronies causing catastrophic changes in so many areas, including the mental health arena, changes which plague us to this day? The great Ronald Reagan, the one who presided over Iran-Contra? The one who championed the “trickle down” theory, which has never been shown to be a success? That Ronald Reagan?
Yeah, a couple of class acts, both of them.-
Oh please Reagan was the original reality show president…Trump is the natural result of the evolution of the Republican party from Reagan. The fact that you repeat your Hannity-esque description of the country show you are part of the problem. If you believe all that garbage then you should be voting for Trump
-
Remember too
Reagan was the original Outsourcer……………….He was the one who sent all these jobs overseas
He was also the President Who made college unaffordable by decimating Pell Grants and letting his banking Buddies run the student loan organization…..all with government backing
Ronald Reagan destroyed the middle class
-
-
-
-
Quote from Gauss
Because tax consumers are steadily outgrowing tax payers. And the country is going broke.
Maybe the solution was never tax cuts making deficits higher and higher each year since Reagan.
I quit my job and now I work for WalMart. But the bills are the same or higher each year. Must be my kids’ fault.
-
-
-
-
-
An interesting analysis of the “pretty cool cartoon” posted by agentmichael is the given that jobs were exported to other countries with lower pay, Why? The cartoon says to break the influence of Unions. I think yes but the primary reason was in order to increase the stock price & profits of businesses who exported those jobs by lowering the cost to the businesses using meager wages in the 3rd world countries. Now, how happy are those middle class people, formerly employed or working substantially lower wage paying jobs going to be? How to appease them? Sell them the cheaper goods they formally made (would have to be cheaper since their wages were lower) as in Wal-Mart model & copies and give them tax cuts. So much so that 50% pay essentially no taxes or very low taxes. Buy them off with lower taxes (on lower wages)?
But since George W. Bush we have the rhetoric that the affluent pay too much & need to have their taxes lowered, that the affluent pay the vast majority of tax receipts. This has made our deficit even worse so now we also have the rhetoric from the affluent that the less-affluent need to get on the program & start paying taxes or more taxes and meanwhile “stimulate” the economy with more tax cuts and capital gains tax cuts making the deficit even worse than now.
-
Obama has the reverse Midas touch. Everything he touches goes in the crapper. He decided that Afghanistan was the “right war”, so he escalated the war. He pushed for the stimulus plan, an abject failure and waste of resources. He pushed for the health care reform act, another waste of money and bureaucratic morass. He backed cap and tax under the false premise of AGW. He continues to support bailout of the unions and states addicted to socialist programs. His financial regulation plan has led to increased costs to banks and has further hampered lending. Giving him the keys to the car has been a costly enterprise.
It would be a lot cheaper and better for the country if he took a vacation to Spain with Michelle and stayed at the Ritz Carlton for the rest of his term doing nothing but sipping sangria by the pool.
-
ORIGINAL: aldadoc
Obama has the reverse Midas touch. Everything he touches goes in the crapper. He decided that Afghanistan was the “right war”, so he escalated the war. He pushed for the stimulus plan, an abject failure and waste of resources. He pushed for the health care reform act, another waste of money and bureaucratic morass. He backed cap and tax under the false premise of AGW. He continues to support bailout of the unions and states addicted to socialist programs. His financial regulation plan has led to increased costs to banks and has further hampered lending. Giving him the keys to the car has been a costly enterprise.
It would be a lot cheaper and better for the country if he took a vacation to Spain with Michelle and stayed at the Ritz Carlton for the rest of his term doing nothing but sipping sangria by the pool.
You continue to amaze me.
-
-
The article on Relativity was odd: nothing new there, there’s been no secret that many physicists discredit some of the assumptions necessary for the theory to be functional, in an attempt to find some “middle ground” that will incorporate later theoretical work… odd, that is, until you come to this (which I admit has never been a component of any [i]legitimate[/i] argument against relativity, that I’m aware of):
Time Dilation and Creation Science
[i]For a more detailed treatment, see [link=http://conservapedia.com/Starlight_problem#Humphreys.27_model][u][color=#0000ff]Starlight problem#Humphreys.27_model[/color][/u][/link].[/i]Creation scientists such as physicists Dr. [link=http://conservapedia.com/Russell_Humphreys][u][color=#0000ff]Russell Humphreys[/color][/u][/link] and Dr. [link=http://conservapedia.com/John_Hartnett][u][color=#0000ff]John Hartnett[/color][/u][/link] have used relativistic time dilation to explain how the earth can be only 6,000 years old even though cosmological data (background radiation, supernovae, etc.) set a much older age for the universe.
Your “women’s immorality causing earthquakes” analogy was perfectly apt. “Conservative science” indeed.-
Isn’t that simply a variant of how long was the first “days” from the Scopes Monkey Trial since the sun wasn’t created until the 4th day according to the Bible ….of course since water and land creatures were created on days 5 and 6 so the whole concept as it applies to the fossil record is not so clear…
-
If the theological community wants to discuss possible non-literal interpretations of the bible in an effort to reconcile their beliefs with the scientific record, that is their business… but that discussion has no relevance to the scientific community at large (outside of certain “boutique” interest groups within the larger community).
It was disingenuous for “Conservapedia” to present an argument for dismissing Einstein without offering upfront that such an ultimately teleological goal was their primary motivation (the ruse was pretty apparent given the insinuation of “novelty”, when it was anything but).-
But here is the point: I have more data that shows that large scale government spending does not help an economy recover (with repeated examples) than you have of man made global warming.
And yet, liberals hold on to that belief. No matter how many times it has failed.
So don’t talk to me about scientific data. There are plenty of delusions on the left.
-
No you haven’t.
What delusions of the supernatural vs science or giant corrupt conspiracies caliber that are equivalent?
You’re making stuff up again.
-
Physicists and UFO believers come in all flavors, Democrats and Republican. Take for example Senator Dennis Kucinich, Mr. UFO.
Einstein was actually a traditionalist and a religious person. It was his beliefs that kept him from fully accepting the theory of quantum mechanics. He famously stated that “God does not play with dice”.
Being a conservative does not disqualify a person from being a scientist or believing in evolution, just the opposite, it stabilizes the mind, freeing you to discard trutherism like 911 truthers when the facts are obvious. I don’t dispute that there are those who don’t believe that Obama was born in this country, but then, maybe that data hasn’t been adequately been vetted.
-
ORIGINAL: aldadoc
Einstein was actually a traditionalist and a religious person. It was his beliefs that kept him from fully accepting the theory of quantum mechanics. He famously stated that “God does not play with dice”. And I believe he was an agnostic.
Being a conservative does not disqualify a person from being a scientist or believing in evolution, just the opposite, it stabilizes the mind, freeing you to discard trutherism like 911 truthers when the facts are obvious. I don’t dispute that there are those who don’t believe that Obama was born in this country, but then, maybe that data hasn’t been adequately been vetted.
Einstein had problems visualizing Quantum Theory, therefore his quote about God & dice.
You are correct, it does not. However, these lunatic positions are given a lot of free air time on right wing sites, books, media, etc. The best you can say is that there is virtually no criticism of this lunacy & those that do venture out get their heads handed to them as Jim Manzi recently found out, the worst you can say is these people are actually lunatics or the lies are deliberate in order to “inspire” the faithful. The fact is, they’re either lies or supreme ignorance & it is highly tolerated on the Right.
-
[b]just the opposite, it stabilizes the mind[/b]
[b][/b]
ROFLMAO… all recent evidence to the contrary, I suppose you meant to say!-
ORIGINAL: itchn2help
[b]just the opposite, it stabilizes the mind[/b]
[b][/b]
ROFLMAO… all recent evidence to the contrary, I suppose you meant to say!Itchin, the facts are against you again. Take the issue of AGW. It is now clear that the scientific evidence was falsified in order to fit a political agenda … or should I say a new religion.
-
Can you show falsified data & who says so? It cannot be addressed with so open a vague an answer.
-
Quote from dergon
Thank you, Voxeled. 🙂 While I’m an atheist liberal, I do live in Dennis Kucinic’s old district, so maybe there’s a chance.
For Aldadoc, here is a nice 10 point winning republican platform:
Conservatism
Balanced budgets and fiscal discipline
Comprehensive tax reform
Revitalizing Social Security through allowing individuals to invest in their futures
Strong national defense
Legal immigration reforms that are fair and humane
Marriage equality for all Americans
A broad, inclusive definition of family in America
Non-discrimination in employment
Market driven health reform
RCP provides suggestion for a GOP Congress in 2014
1. Bring back the budget process. Government by the process known as continuing resolution isnt governing at all. Its time we Republicans actually put our fiscally conservative values to work, make some value-based decisions, and send a feasible budget to the White House.
2. Devise and pass immigration reform. It need not be the comprehensive bill liberals are calling for. Republicans probably cant reconcile all their differences on this issue, but Democrats are increasingly hemmed in by their unwillingness or inability to be for anything short of complete amnesty. Lets start with the easy stuff: Let the high-tech sector keep the engineers it needs and allow Americas farmers some certainty in their workforces.
3. Reform the tax code. In particular, fix once and for allor, better yet, get rid ofthe alternative minimum tax. Find new ways to allow small business owners and sole proprietors to keep more of their money. Reduce corporate income taxes in exchange for a commitment from corporate America that they will repatriate the hundreds of billions in cash they hold [link=http://patriotpost.us/opinion/28090]overseas[/link].
4. Fix the broken parts of Obamacare. There is plenty to dislike about the presidents signature domestic achievement, but the sun will come up in the West before Obama signs anything that repeals it.
5. Lead on education. According to local school districts, there are dozens of conflicting and expensive regulations handed down by the federal Department of Education. Avoid the silly bromide of demolishing the agency (despite its [link=http://www.buzzfeed.com/bennyjohnson/the-7-most-heinously-ugly-government-buildings-in-washington?utm_term=32ucwk6&sub=3389743_3400751]heinous architecture[/link]), and pass something that will actually assist in returning local control to states and localities. Education Secretary Arne Duncan may actually be an ally on this, as hes shown a willingness to [link=http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/07/14/teachers-threaten-education-secretary-arne-duncan-shape-up-or-ship-out]take on the education establishment[/link].
6. Make a pledge that legislation not related to getting these things accomplished will be tabled until such time as the country is back on firm economic footing.
Americans have long been of two minds when it comes to their government in Washington. They detest it, but want it to do something. We cannot fall prey to the factions within our party whose only suggestion is to burn the house down. There is no question we live in a claptrap old manse on a shaky foundation, but lets start with some renovations before deciding to scrap it completely. Maybe if we fix it up a bit, well decide that the old homestead is worth keeping after all.-
Republicans lead? That was the past, it is not the present & will not be the future for awhile. Besides how does one lead government when the platform mantra is that government never does and can’t do anything right because “Government is the problem.” Not to mention that 47% of American are the bloodsucking enemy. Correction, they are not “real Americans” according to the GOP’s heroes like Palin, Bachman, et al.
-
[link=http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/jenna-bush-independence-party-error-article-1.1926894]http://www.nydailynews.co…rror-article-1.1926894[/link]
[size=”0″]Neither George Bush’s daughters are Republicans. Both are independents (although one accidentally registered with the Independence party while meaning to declare herself independent. The twins prefer to avoid the label Republican or Democrat.[/size]
[size=”0″]
[/size]
-
[link=http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/after-the-midterms-the-diversity-gap-in-the-house-will-be-wider-than-ever/]http://fivethirtyeight.co…ll-be-wider-than-ever/[/link]
On how white and male is the GOP congress
Today, 89 percent of House Republicans are white men, compared to just 47 percent of House Democrats. For some context, [link=http://www.census.gov/popest/data/national/asrh/2013/index.html]according to 2013 Census estimates[/link] just 31 percent of U.S. residents are non-Hispanic white males.
On Election Night in 2012, when it was clear Republicans would comfortably hold onto the House despite winning 1.4 million fewer votes than Democrats in House races, Democrats took pride in a different statistic: For the first time ever, women and minorities would compose a majority 53 percent of their caucus. Meanwhile, the share of women and minorities in the GOP House conference went [i]down[/i], from 14 percent to 11 percent.
Even in the last two years, the demographic chasm between the parties has widened. Eight members of the 113th House of Representatives have been elected in special elections since 2012. All six Republican winners have been white men, five of whom prevailed over women in their primaries. Both Democratic winners have been women who prevailed over men in their primaries.
Political polarization in the House and Senate is now at the highest level since the end of Reconstruction, as the crack team of political scientists at[link=http://voteview.com/about.asp]VoteView [/link]has asserted, but so is demographic polarization. Its a trend that shows no sign of abating after the upcoming midterm elections.
{why?}
More Democratic voters than Republican voters value the idea that Congress should better reflect the countrys demographics.
Redistricting especially the increased packing of minorities into heavily Democratic districts has transformed the House Democratic caucus.
Democrats have built a much stronger network to recruit and fund female candidates for office, while Republicans are playing catch-up.
—–
Republicans may have a lock on control of the House, in part because they’ve succeeded in drawing themselves districts much whiter than the nation as a whole. But when a congressional party is 87 percent white and male versus 31 percent of the countrys population, it might have a brand image problem even [link=http://www.amctv.com/shows/mad-men/job-interview]Sterling Cooper Draper Pryce[/link] would be hard-pressed to solve.
In that sense, an unrepresentative House may be just one more obstacle in the Republican presidential nominees way come 2016.
-
A nice read
[link=http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/09/good-news-democrats-youre-going-to-lose-111467.html#.VCxwo_ldXUU]http://www.politico.com/m…1467.html#.VCxwo_ldXUU[/link]
[b]
Good News, Democrats, Youre Going to Lose! [/b]If the latest round of polls is accurate, Democrats will lose nearly every competitive Senate race, giving Republicans full control of Congress for the first time in 10 years.
This is excellent news for Democrats.
Instead of another two years of the same old gridlock that has turned voters off of both parties, Democrats will get to kick back with a large tub of buttery popcorn and watch the Republican soap opera hit peak suds.…youll be on the edge of your seat as these two Animal Houses flail about and flagellate each other trying (or not trying) to keep the government open and avoid a debt default.
Sen. Mitch McConnell has already mapped out a confrontational budget strategy with no end game: Jam spending bills, which are necessary for funding the government, with a bunch of right-wing riders unpalatable to President Obama. What if Obama vetoes your bills, POLITICO recently [link=http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/2014-election-mitch-mcconnells-barack-obama-confrontation-110154.html]asked[/link] him? Yeah, he could, shrugged McConnell. He skirts what would happen next: the proverbial hot potato would get tossed back to him and Boehner, and the simmering GOP civil war between the cautious and the revolutionary would be on full boil.
An organized opposition party could use control of Congress to rally the nation behind a package of popular proposals and set the stage for a White House triumph. But Republicans will be going to war with the party they have, not the party they wish to have: All this incarnation of the GOP can win in November is the opportunity to work out its dysfunctional family issues under the white-hot spotlight of a presidential campaign.
To their credit, GOP chieftains have largely contained the worst impulses of the right in the run-up to Election Day. No shutdown redux, no Todd Akins, no witches. But in exchange for limited drama, friction between the factions is only being papered over.
You can sum up the Republican midterm strategy in one word: Duck. Republicans are punting on policy: Have you seen a single ad in which a Republican Senate candidate is promising to enact legislation that passed the House this year?
Republicans may believe that despite these challenges, winning the Senate still will be worthwhile. They cannot win any new ability to block the presidents legislative agendacontrol of the House already takes care of that. Yet Republicans will be able to block judicial nominations and complicate Democratic chances for keeping the White House in 2016 by launching a blizzard of executive branch investigations. Thats worth the price of a little infighting, right? -
Watch them continue to run from the terrorists & then complain that it’s Obama’s fault for not unilaterally doing an end run around Congress. Or complain when he actually does an end run & leads.
Blithering idiots. The inmates running their asylum.
-
I hope the Democrats get kicked out on their collective butts and the Senate turns Republican. Maybe we can get some adults in charge. The last 6 years has been a combination of Barney Fife and the Keystone cops running the government. Harry Reid has blocked every bill and debased the once great deliberative body known as the US Senate. No wonder there is a sense of malaise and angst in the country.
Politico’s wishful thinking is an attempt at rationalizing and innoculating the party of the donkeys against a loss. Pretty soon, Politico is going to go the way of The New York Times, with massive layoffs, because nobody will read their Democrat Party propaganda anymore. All of those unemployed liberal reporters will soon be joining the liberals here at Aunt Minnie, because they have no other audience. Welcome Thomas Friedman et al. Heh!
The Democrats will enjoy getting back to being the pundits, pushing for “social justice”, higher taxes, more welfare, open borders, repeal of the US Constitution and racial strife. Best go back to saving polar bears. The adults need to step in for a while and save the people from the idiots. -
And how well did republicans do in the Bush years? Something to look forward to again, looking back – “back to the future.”
Republicans can’t govern their way out of a paper bag, they’re too busy proving that it’s government that’s the problem, by always running away from responsibility. Dysfunctional Kansas as the future.
Speaking of, anyone see John Oliver’s show this week with the segment on Kansas selling porn to raise $$$ for public education after Kansas cut it?
[link=http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/228574/kansas-to-sell-porn-sex-toys-online-to-recoup-tax-debt/]http://www.deathandtaxesm…ne-to-recoup-tax-debt/[/link]
[link=http://crooksandliars.com/2014/09/john-oliver-offers-help-kansas-sell]http://crooksandliars.com…ffers-help-kansas-sell[/link]
-
-
-
GOP won the popular vote once since 1988
It’s not because of handouts or all those non working scum sucking democrats Romney talked about.
It’s because as the country is slowly changing they have veered farther and farther right
The democrats right now are more mainstream
The center right argument of some is just another republican lie
The middle is the middle and the dems are closer to it
-
Since Reagan, everything has moved to the right, including Democrats, it’s just that Republicans have shifted more extremely to the right. And ironically, as Obama adopted several Republican ideas, it drove Republicans even further to the right just so Republicans could avoid ever having to say they agree with Obama, even for all their own ideas.
The Gods have a sense of humor. Republicans have entered that humorous territory where the Gods use the Republican’s own hubris against them.
-
Quote from kpack123
GOP won the popular vote once since 1988
It’s not because of handouts or all those non working scum sucking democrats Romney talked about.
It’s because as the country is slowly changing they have veered farther and farther right
The democrats right now are more mainstream
The center right argument of some is just another republican lie
The middle is the middle and the dems are closer to it
You may be right—I never thought free cell phones would be mainstream—but you may be right.
-
Yeah I guess 97% of people get free cell phones
-
First off, every red southern state must get permission to make any changes to their elections approved by the Dept of Justice under the burdensome privisions of the Voting Rights Act. This includes federal approval of the redrawing of congressional districts with new census data. So the district redraws that occured in these red states in the last 20 years were approved by the Clinton admiistration (2000 census) and Obama (2010 census).
Thus are we to fault the Clinton and Obama DOJs for your claims of Gerrymandering? If you are to look at the history of each state’s congressional districts, it is the paramount goal of the Black Congressional Caucus/NAACP and every black leader, as a matter of civil rights, to have multiple districts with special carve-outs to ensure that multiple persons of color would get elected to each state’s federal Congressional delegation. That’s Gerrymandering. And the Gerrymandering has led to an indentured class of corrupt politicians that has disproportionately affected the Black Congressional Caucus–politicians such as Jefferson, Rangel, Waters, Jackson Jr., among others. This racial Gerrymandering assumed and performed by the DOJ is clearly shown by the North Carolinas wondering 12th district along a random interstate. The result has been to leave non-minority communities clustered in different districts and hence the genesis of this phony claim of republican Gerrymandering. Messages to libs-when you tell your own minority base that they should no longer get unique carve-outs to get people of color elected to Congress, then we can start to have a legitamate discussion about elections imbalances such as voter fraud, and possible steps to elinimate all Gerrymandering.
If I give you that what you have written is true ( i wouldn’t call the gerrymandering “phony” but to say that much of it is related to DOJ action is accurate) will it lead you to then explain how that means that the GOP retaining the House of Representatives in 2012 was somehow a national “aversion to any form of liberalism”?
The whole reason we got sidetracked on redistricting was an assertion that republicans holding the house was some form a national repudiation of progressivism. I just do not see any validation for that viewpoint.
-
-
-
No more hiding it:
[h1]Republican Civil War Erupts: Business Groups v. Tea Party[/h1]A battle for control of the Republican Party erupted today as an emboldened Tea Party is moving to oust senators who voted to reopen the government, and business groups began mobilizing to defeat allies of the small-government movement.
Primary blood baths coming -
A new University of Virginia poll finds 84% of Donald Trump voters say they either strongly or somewhat agree that discrimination against whites will increase in the U.S. in the next few years.
Of those who voted for Joe Biden, just 38% said they felt the same way.
On discrimination against racial minorities, the respondents were flipped, with 87% of Biden voters saying they believe white people have advantages over people of color while just 38% of Trump voters said the same.
-
Virginia running into trouble regarding districting as Republicans view the new map as providing better minority rights which they view as minority voters electing more Democrats as opposed to voters actually being allowed to elect representatives of their choice.
[link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/10/05/virginia-bipartisan-redistricting-commission-threatened-tribalism/]https://www.washingtonpos…-threatened-tribalism/[/link]Virginias new bipartisan [link=https://virginiaredistricting.org/]redistricting commission[/link], approved last year by voters who hoped it would shred old-style partisan machinations by which the commonwealths electoral districts are drawn, is barreling toward failure. Barring an 11th-hour epiphany read: reasonableness and compromise on the part of its [link=https://redistricting.lls.edu/state/virginia/?cycle=2020&level=Congress&startdate=]16 members[/link], eight aligned with each party, it looks set to succumb to the same tribal paralysis that has beset the nations politics.
The commissions deadlock arises partly or largely over [link=https://www.virginiamercury.com/2021/10/05/were-sort-of-stuck-va-redistricting-commission-divided-over-race-as-deadline-looms/]minority voting rights[/link] specifically, how many state legislative districts would empower African Americans and other minorities to exercise clout in races for the state Senate and House of Delegates. (Congressional maps remain a work in progress, with a later deadline.) The Democrats maps maximize such districts, in line with the explicit language of the constitutional amendment [link=https://www.virginiamercury.com/2020/11/04/in-historic-change-virginia-voters-approve-bipartisan-commission-to-handle-political-redistricting/]approved[/link] last fall by voters, which says the commission shall provide, where practicable, opportunities for racial and ethnic communities to elect candidates of their choice.
[b]Thats a clear mandate but not clear enough for some Republicans on the commission, who, fearing more Black political power means GOP election losses, have sought to limit opportunity districts. Opportunity for what, to elect more Democrats?[/b] [link=https://www.virginiamercury.com/2021/10/05/were-sort-of-stuck-va-redistricting-commission-divided-over-race-as-deadline-looms/]said[/link] Sen. William M. Stanley Jr., a Republican from Franklin County in southern Virginia, where African Americans make up [link=https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/franklincountyvirginia]8 percent[/link] of residents, compared with [link=https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/VA]20 percent[/link] statewide.
-
-
Just to show I am equal opportunity minded. The Republicans have the same responsibility as the Dems. Do the right thing from the middle. The lunatics are not the problem. They are the potential solution, for both sides.
-
-
-
[b]Kyle Rittenhouse Meets With GOP House Caucus [/B]
Quote:
The caucus is chaired by Reps. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.). Rittenhouse posed for a photo with both of them, and with Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.).
Quote:
He also posed for a wild Twitter photo in front of the Capitol, writing: T- 5 years until I can call this place my office?
Quote:
It was an honor to have Kyle join the Second Amendment Caucus, Boebert, whose close election appears headed for a recount, told The Hill in a statement. He is a powerful example of why we must never give an inch on our Second Amendment rights, and his perseverance and love for our country was an inspiration.-
Paul Ryan interview on ABC –
he essentially said that now that Trump can’t win elections for the GOP, he is useless. It’s not that he’s unfit. It’s not that he’s dangerous to American democracy. It’s just that he limits the GOP’s ability to expand power.
That is what it is all about, not Country, not Principle.[link=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_4ZLM1ph6w]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_4ZLM1ph6w[/link]
Put Ryan right there with Bill Barr who, in the same breath acknowledges that the DOJ has a strong criminal case against Trump but … because I believe that the greatest threat to the country is the progressive agenda being pushed by the Democratic Party… its inconceivable to me that I wouldnt vote for the Republican nominee.
_____________
That’s not the kind of purging of Trump that’s going to keep him from the nomination.-
Well I guess this shows Trump is not a has-been loser for the GQP as they continue to court the Trumpublican base.
So much for moderate RINOs doing anything useful other than really earning the RINO name.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ORIGINAL: Frumious
No you haven’t.
What delusions of the supernatural vs science or giant corrupt conspiracies caliber that are equivalent?
You’re making stuff up again.
Show me a single example in recent history where a big govt bailout saved a nation from a long term recession. The closest you can come to is the Great Depression…and even then, ‘recovery’ is loosely used when in 1938, in FDR’s second term, unemployment was still 18%.
The closest example we have is Japan…which is in their second decade of stagnation. You could argue China, but even then they were never in a recent recession, just slower growth.
If I am wrong, prove me wrong. Otherwise, it is you that is making stuff up.
-
ORIGINAL: MISTRAD
ORIGINAL: Frumious
No you haven’t.
What delusions of the supernatural vs science or giant corrupt conspiracies caliber that are equivalent?
You’re making stuff up again.
Show me a single example in recent history where a big govt bailout saved a nation from a long term recession. The closest you can come to is the Great Depression…and even then, ‘recovery’ is loosely used when in 1938, in FDR’s second term, unemployment was still 18%.
The closest example we have is Japan…which is in their second decade of stagnation. You could argue China, but even then they were never in a recent recession, just slower growth.
If I am wrong, prove me wrong. Otherwise, it is you that is making stuff up.
[link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_banking_rescue]The Swedish banking rescue[/link]
-
What a joke of a posting. The Swedish Government=Swedish banks//Swedish Banks=Swedish Government. If you are going to post about solutions , try to at least feign a belief in free markets.
-
What? The banks were partly nationalized as a response to the crisis. Maybe the point is too nuanced.
-
ORIGINAL: nobody2008
What? The banks were partly nationalized as a response to the crisis. Maybe the point is too nuanced.
You are soooo confused, honey!-
ORIGINAL: pmsrad
ORIGINAL: nobody2008
What? The banks were partly nationalized as a response to the crisis. Maybe the point is too nuanced.
You are soooo confused, honey!
Enlighten us, sweetie! How is the Swedish solution not a bailout? Uh oh! Now you’re going to have to actually back up your assertions!
-
-
-
-
-
ORIGINAL: MISTRAD
Show me a single example in recent history where a big govt bailout saved a nation from a long term recession. The closest you can come to is the Great Depression…and even then, ‘recovery’ is loosely used when in 1938, in FDR’s second term, unemployment was still 18%.
Hamilton and the banks in 1790
Germany is out of the Depression around 1936.
USA is considered out of the Depression around 1937 & the Conservatives force through backing off Roosevelt’s plans leading to the recession of 1937. By 1939 the GDP has grown high again although unemployment is still high, it is decreasing as America begins manufacturing to help our allies. Then the largest government program ever, WWII on 2 fronts “solves” the unemployment problem & manufacturing zooms up.Google & read the results, look at the graphs. It’s all there for you to see if you try.
-
You are so off base.
Hamilton and the Banks…the Swedish example..and Roosevelt’s banking initatives have much more relationship to TARP than to the Obama stimulus. That is a different animal; to stabilize a specific market after the bubble.
I was asking for a time when a large scale govt stimulus helped the economy recover.
In both the Germany case in 1936 and the US in 1938, what was causing their increased GDP? The war effort. So yes, a war is usually a good way to increase your output. So if you want to start a war with, say, China, great economic potential. But that is different than a peacetime large scale stimulus.
And you will note…you have not picked a case within the last 75 years or so. So much for modern examples.
Again, this is the liberal argument…use examples that have almost nothing to do with America as it exists today, or has nothing to do with the example at hand.
Yup, try again.
-
You used the word “bailout”, not “stimulus”. It isn’t my fault you can’t keep things straight.
Gov’t spending, “stimulus”, is an established way to make up for private spending since at least the New Deal.
What examples do you want? I have a feeling there will be absolutely no example, real or imagined, that would satisfy you so this is a complete waste of time.
-
-
-
-
Why don’t u just blame it on Bush, shmoopie? BTW, why don’t you PM me and I’ll fly you out here to talk face to face. If you are half-way physically attractive, we might have dinner and then who knows what….
-
ORIGINAL: pmsrad
Why don’t u just blame it on Bush, shmoopie? BTW, why don’t you PM me and I’ll fly you out here to talk face to face. If you are half-way physically attractive, we might have dinner and then who knows what….
Need a date that bad, huh?
-
-
You are absolutely right Nobody. I misspoke. Sorry for the error.
I wasn’t talking about the bailout, I was referring to Obama’s stimulus, and its relation to economic recovery, and historical precedent for it.
As for the example…I can’t find one time, in the last 50 years or so, that a country spent a large percentage of its GDP on a stimulus and reversed economic course significantly. Japan is the prime example of failure of multiple stimuli, I think we would both agree.
I don’t think it is a complete waste of time. Even if you don’t convince me, you may convince a lot of others that are on the fence.
-
ORIGINAL: MISTRAD
You are absolutely right Nobody. I misspoke. Sorry for the error.
I wasn’t talking about the bailout, I was referring to Obama’s stimulus, and its relation to economic recovery, and historical precedent for it.
As for the example…I can’t find one time, in the last 50 years or so, that a country spent a large percentage of its GDP on a stimulus and reversed economic course significantly. Japan is the prime example of failure of multiple stimuli, I think we would both agree.
I don’t think it is a complete waste of time. Even if you don’t convince me, you may convince a lot of others that are on the fence.
Ok. It is a matter of record that the FDR haters don’t think the New Deal got us out of the great depression. They believe it took the massive spending to gear up for WWII to really get us out of the funk. I recall you yourself have made such an assertion. Is this true? Maybe, maybe not. Some version of this was taught to me in high school.
-
This is my view of FDR.
He was one of our greatest presidents. He saved this nation in 1933. Hoover ran the country into the ground, and FDR did what he had to do to keep the nation going. He basically instituted the biggest jobs program in history. Some of it was productive…some of it was simply digging ditches. But he kept a lot of people alive when they had no other resource.
OK, I think you will agree with all that.
Where we diverge is whether this helped the economy recover. Without WWII, I would argue that the economy would not have recovered. A economy needs to be productive. FDR’s programs helped keep people going, which was a great thing…but productivity was almost nil. We were producing nothing, and ultimately that is what the economy is driven on. WWII, for multiple reasons we can go into, helped increase productivity to unheard of levels. It completely altered our economy. And we started to produce stuff at very high levels, and very efficiently. It was the precursor for much of our growth in the 40s and 50s.
So there is two parts of the equation. FDR IMHO was our greatest President probably after Lincoln. But that doesn’t mean his policies really helped the economy recover. Those are two separate issues.
-
So short of war now what are we going to produce? And was not war a govt stimulus to the military industrial complex? Whatever you may think, it is ultimately govt spending that allowed us to emerge from the Depression. Further, many of the programs that grew from the Depression allowed for the continued prosperity of the country until we chose to go back to the boom/bust economy in the 1980 that mimicked the roaring 20’s by dismantling the protections and regulations of the FDR era. In the 80’s we got greedy and decided that steady growth and a vivrant middle class was not this countries ideal anymore. We had to make more, faster, needed the opportunity for more uber wealthy even when it made more poor than super rich. No one stopped to ask how much is too much or what are the consequences of what we are doing…we see it now fewer and fewer can afford to save, there is little or no manufacturing. Companies no longer want to provide worker benefits because it cuts into corporate profits and our work force is being pushed to the bottom rung rather than elevated as it had been through the 50s and 60s.
And the Republicans answer to all this is let the wealthy get wealthier? Tried that…we are seeing the results of the “Reagan revolution” as it is piously conceived by the right. Of course Reagan himself was pragmatic enough to raise taxes when necessary…If Reagan came back today, he would in reality be labelled a RINO and be considered to the left of Lindsay Graham.
-
If you want a war for economic stimulus…propose one. Be my guest.
Short of a war, govt spending does not help get us out of recessions. That is the problem. The debt accumulated during WWII exceeds any kind of spending that anyone would accept as stimulus. That is the point: when survival is at risk, you are willing to spend like anything. That is not as true with a recession.
If you use the 20s, 30s analogy…it took (including the war) about 12 years for unemployment to significantly decrease. You really think the public is going to give Dems that much time? I don’t think so.
Actually, the disparity of income between the rich and the poor INCREASED during the great depression. It actually increases during EVERY RECESSION, and likely will increase during this one. If income disparity is your worry, then long recessions are the worst case scenario.
-
It is not that I disagree with you, and I agree in the short term the Dems will pay the price (in the middle the Repubs will). Quite frankly I am pessimistic about unemployment for precisely the reason you state; absent a stimulus of the magnitude of WWII (preferably without war) we are in for a lost decade like Japan. The fact is that unless this country starts to look out for the lower and middle classes then we are in for some very rough decades in this country as a whole
-
On the “Future of the Republican Party” original topic, an interesting piece on Virginia and the GOP:
[link=http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/virginia-exemplifies-gop-dilemma-85468.html?ml=po_r]http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/virginia-exemplifies-gop-dilemma-85468.html?ml=po_r[/link]
Look no further than [link=http://www.politico.com/tag/virginia]Virginia[/link] to catch a glimpse of the GOPs national dilemma.
As the Old Dominion becomes a firmly centrist state, more closely resembling the rest of the country demographically and politically, Virginia Republicans are shifting rightward.
After President Barack Obama carried the state twice, its plausible that the party will nominate a slate of three movement conservative white males for governor, lieutenant governor and attorney general next year.At a traditional party gathering earlier this month called The Advance, Virginia GOP leaders said there was no need to retreat or even accommodate.
Attorney General [link=http://www.politico.com/tag/ken-cuccinelli]Ken [/link][link=http://www.politico.com/tag/ken-cuccinelli]Cuccinelli[/link], the GOPs presumptive gubernatorial nominee, was defiant at the gathering, citing Virginia Republican revivals in past years following Democratic presidential wins.
Cuccinelli scorned what he said were media calls for GOP change, re-evaluation, remake, retreat.…….
Virginia GOP Chairman Pat Mullins insisted at the state partys Advance that Republicans still have a winning formula.
Virginias a conservative state, and when we stick up for our beliefs, and our values, and our principles we win elections, said Mullins, according to The Washington Post. When we choose to run like Democrats, we lose elections because we havent given anybody a choice.
Mullinss assertion, even with latitude given for the rah-rah circumstances of a party rally, confounds many longtime observers of Old Dominion politics.
Their election analysis is a predictable one-note samba, said University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato. Its never their issues or their inclusiveness. Therefore, the solution is always to look for a better messenger for hard-core conservatism, ignoring the hard reality that some of their message, especially on social issues, is alienating large segments of the population in an increasingly diverse and moderate state.
Theres this tremendous disconnect, commented one Richmond Republican hand of how the GOP has become more conservative even as Democrats have won two presidential races, two of the last three gubernatorial contests and both Senate seats. It seems that both in Virginia and nationally the movement conservatives are getting more and more rabid and less enthralled with establishment conservatives like George Allen and more into the crusaders.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
And hot off the presses an Op-ed from the FT with the same title as the thread:
[link=http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/08916578-42e4-11e2-a3d2-00144feabdc0.html?ftcamp=published_links%2Frss%2Fcomment_editorial%2Ffeed%2F%2Fproduct#axzz2GGwMdeoR]http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/08916578-42e4-11e2-a3d2-00144feabdc0.html?ftcamp=published_links%2Frss%2Fcomment_editorial%2Ffeed%2F%2Fproduct#axzz2GGwMdeoR[/link]
[b]
[h1]The future of the Republican party[/b][/h1]Since November 6, a handful of senior Republicans have urged [link=http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/8e071486-492a-11e2-b94d-00144feab49a.html]compromise on taxes[/link] to help avert the [link=http://www.ft.com/indepth/us-fiscal-cliff]fiscal cliff[/link]. Several have pleaded for a more balanced approach on immigration. But these are still rare voices in a party that, if anything, [link=http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b41e2a4a-4b93-11e2-887b-00144feab49a.html]looks to be digging in its heels[/link] (note its silence on gun control since the Sandy Hook massacre). At some point Republicans will either need to adapt to the realities of 21st-century America or face the spectre of accelerated decline. The sooner they grasp that choice the better.
Healing begins with the facts. Only once since 1988 has a Republican presidential candidate gained more than half the popular vote George W. Bush took 50.73 per cent in 2004. Even where the Republicans do win, such as retaining the [link=http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/4175c4b4-3d86-11e2-9f35-00144feabdc0.html]House[/link] last month, it is often by default. Democrats garnered a million more votes than Republicans in last months congressional election but won fewer districts.
…..The party also urgently needs to rethink its economic worldview. In the 1970s Ronald Reagan was reacting to overextended government, high taxes and runaway inflation. Todays problems are very different. Without the aggressive intervention of the US Federal Reserve since 2008 and President Barack Obamas $830bn stimulus in 2009, the US economy would have followed countries such as the UK into double-dip recession. Alas, conservatives now see Ben Bernanke a Republican as an enemy of the wealth creators. To paraphrase Reagan, it was the Republican party that left Mr Bernanke, not the other way round. It needs to recapture its pragmatism.
Likewise, Republicans must belatedly recognise the deep challenge that is posed by a declining US middle class. Taxes have nothing to do with why there has been a double-digit fall in median household income since 2000. All Americans paid higher tax rates in the 1990s, the last decade in which all incomes rose. Yet, perversely, many conservatives believe Americas poor are undertaxed the notorious 47 per cent who are defined moochers in the Randian universe. In reality, the vast majority pay tax in many forms even if they are not wealthy enough to incur federal income tax.
The US cannot afford another four years of a Republican party in this condition. Perhaps its mood will alter once the fiscal cliff crisis is over. Yet there is little to suggest the take-no-prisoners base is loosening its hold indeed, as the party has shrunk, its grip has tightened. Only leadership can alter this bleak dialectic. To be sure, bold reformers will always risk being turfed out by an angry grassroots. But there is also real opportunity for whoever can show courage and succeed. Todays Republican party is a bit like a headless body striking out blindly against change. The premium on bold and intelligent leadership keeps going up.-
The Republican party will be just fine. Selling out principles for political expediency would be the wrong course. They should stick to the principles of smaller government, low taxes and personal freedoms. They can leave the demagoguery the Democrats, even if they lose a few election cycles. The electorate should wake from its stupor once they realize that they were sold a load of crap by the liberals.
-
Quote from aldadoc
The Republican party will be just fine. Selling out principles for political expediency would be the wrong course. They should stick to the principles of smaller government, low taxes and personal freedoms. They can leave the demagoguery the Democrats, even if they lose a few election cycles. The electorate should wake from its stupor once they realize that they were sold a load of crap by the liberals.
Yeah, hold that thought, aldadoc.
-
[link=http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/freedomworks-tea-party-group-nearly-falls-apart-in-fight-between-old-and-new-guard/2012/12/25/dd095b68-4545-11e2-8061-253bccfc7532_story.html]http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/freedomworks-tea-party-group-nearly-falls-apart-in-fight-between-old-and-new-guard/2012/12/25/dd095b68-4545-11e2-8061-253bccfc7532_story.html[/link]
Richard K. Armey, the groups chairman and a former House majority leader, walked into the groups Capitol Hill offices with his wife, Susan, and an aide holstering a handgun at his waist. The aim was to seize control of the group and expel Armeys enemies: The gun-wielding assistant escorted FreedomWorks top two employees off the premises, while Armey suspended several others who broke down in sobs at the news.
Yeah, they will be just fine…internal armed coups and money laundering speak to their principles
-
-
Quote from aldadoc
The Republican party will be just fine. Selling out principles for political expediency would be the wrong course. They should stick to the principles of smaller government, low taxes and personal freedoms.
What kind of hypocrisy is this?
The record clearly shows that, historically, the LARGEST government, HIGHEST taxes, and LEAST personal freedoms have all occurred under REPUBLICAN Presidents. What history book have you been consulting, the World According to Faux News?
This is typical of so-called far-right conservatives. It’s actually gotten to the point that whenever I hear a staunch conservative accuse the Dems of something, it usually turns out that the guilty party is that [i]conservative![/i] It’s the old “he who smelt it, dealt it” syndrome.
[b]Most Federal Employees:[/b]
[i]Reagan and G.H.W. Bush…[/i]
[link=http://www.truthfulpolitics.com/http:/truthfulpolitics.com/comments/u-s-federal-government-employment-president-political-party/]http://www.truthfulpoliti…ident-political-party/[/link]
[b]Highest Taxes:[/b]
[i]Eisenhower…[/i]
[link=http://ants-and-grasshoppers.blogspot.com/2012/12/highest-tax-rates-of-every-president.html]http://ants-and-grasshopp…f-every-president.html[/link]
[b]Least Personal Freedoms:[/b]
[i]G.W. Bush…[/i]
[link=http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,83941,00.html]http://www.military.com/o…/0,15202,83941,00.html[/link]
-
Hopeless revisionists.
-
-
-
-
Quote from aldadoc
. They should stick to the principles of smaller government, low taxes and personal freedoms.
If they rediscovered the “personal freedoms” part of this triad they could actually probably become a majority. But gay marriage opposition, reproductive rights opposition, the too cozy relationship with christianity as the nation’s religion, and opposition to drug decriminalization among other issues has made them definitively *not* the party of personal freedoms.
Sometimes I get the feeling the republican party wishes that the bill of rights had only one ammendment …. the 2nd.-
hah, that was a burn.
you should run for office dergon. unfortunately, since you have common sense, you probably would have no chance with either party.-
Thank you, Voxeled. 🙂 While I’m an atheist liberal, I do live in Dennis Kucinic’s old district, so maybe there’s a chance.
For Aldadoc, here is a nice 10 point winning republican platform:
[*]Conservatism[*]Balanced budgets and fiscal discipline[*]Comprehensive tax reform[*]Revitalizing Social Security through allowing individuals to invest in their futures[*]Strong national defense[*]Legal immigration reforms that are fair and humane[*]Marriage equality for all Americans[*]A broad, inclusive definition of family in America[*]Non-discrimination in employment[*]Market driven health reform
Those are central themes from the 2012 platform for the Log Cabin Republicans. The rest of the party would be well served to follow their lead.-
one point missing that is vital..the issue of women’s rights concerning their choice of healthcare. Look at the Gov. of Virginia, those potential vaginal prob US studies lost countless votes in 12 and will in 16. It has to be a more inclusive party for all sorta not just a mirror reflection of the field of radiology.
Just saw Lincoln..predict best picture/best actor. Sally Field may get best actress..I can’t believe President’s were so out in the open back then …just riding down the street in horse and buggy taking questions from the average citizen. That was the GOP party back then..trying to be inclusive. Rutherford B Hayes tried too post reconstruction but obstructionism was always there. I am proud of his post president work.
Loved the congress debate scenes.Quote from dergon
Thank you, Voxeled. 🙂 While I’m an atheist liberal, I do live in Dennis Kucinic’s old district, so maybe there’s a chance.
For Aldadoc, here is a nice 10 point winning republican platform:
[*]Conservatism[*]Balanced budgets and fiscal discipline[*]Comprehensive tax reform[*]Revitalizing Social Security through allowing individuals to invest in their futures[*]Strong national defense[*]Legal immigration reforms that are fair and humane[*]Marriage equality for all Americans[*]A broad, inclusive definition of family in America[*]Non-discrimination in employment[*]Market driven health reform
Those are central themes from the 2012 platform for the Log Cabin Republicans. The rest of the party would be well served to follow their lead. -
Dergon, I believe that you are a Republican and don’t know it. That is a fine list. I would just leave out the social agenda. That’s not the puriew of government. Equal protection under the law is all you need. That is already in our laws.
Quote from dergon
Thank you, Voxeled. 🙂 While I’m an atheist liberal, I do live in Dennis Kucinic’s old district, so maybe there’s a chance.
For Aldadoc, here is a nice 10 point winning republican platform:
[*]Conservatism[*]Balanced budgets and fiscal discipline[*]Comprehensive tax reform[*]Revitalizing Social Security through allowing individuals to invest in their futures[*]Strong national defense[*]Legal immigration reforms that are fair and humane[*]Marriage equality for all Americans[*]A broad, inclusive definition of family in America[*]Non-discrimination in employment[*]Market driven health reform
Those are central themes from the 2012 platform for the Log Cabin Republicans. The rest of the party would be well served to follow their lead.-
Oh. I didn’t say that list was something I personally would vote for. I’m a big government liberal, tried and true.
What I’m saying is that the platform listed is a way that a republican could get a governing majority.
But you’re right. If you just had the republican platform say “equal protection” and they meant it with regard to race, gender, creed, orientation etc and that they were not going to let political or religious doga interfere with that , they’d go a long way to undoing the damage they’ve done to their own image.-
Interesting read today. The only way forward for Obama’s second term is to destroy the GOP.
[link=http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/01/barack_obama_s_second_inaugural_address_the_president_should_declare_war.html]http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/01/barack_obama_s_second_inaugural_address_the_president_should_declare_war.html[/link]
[b]
Go for the Throat![/h2] Why if he wants to transform American politics, Obama must declare war on the Republican Party.[/b][/h1]As Obama explained in his last press conference, he thinks the Republicans are dead set on opposing him. They cannot be unchained by schmoozing. Even if Obama were wrong about Republican intransigence, other constraints will limit the chance for cooperation. Republican lawmakers worried about primary challenges in 2014 are not going to be willing partners. He probably has at most 18 months before people start dropping the lame-duck label in close proximity to his name.
Obamas only remaining option is to pulverize. Whether he succeeds in passing legislation or not, given his ambitions, his goal should be to delegitimize his opponents. Through a series of clarifying fights over controversial issues, he can force Republicans to either side with their coalition’s most extreme elements or cause a rift in the party that will leave it, at least temporarily, in disarray.
….
Obama’s gambit in 2009 was to build a new post-partisan consensus. That didn’t work, but by exploiting the weaknesses of todays Republican Party, Obama has an opportunity to hasten the demise of the old order by increasing the political cost of having the GOP coalition defined by Second Amendment absolutists, climate science deniers, supporters of self-deportation and the pure no-tax wing.
……
Out of fear for the long-term prospects of the GOP, some Republicans may be willing to partner with the president. That would actually mean progress on important issues facing the country, which would enhance Obamas legacy. If not, the president will stir up a fracas between those in the Republican Party who believe it must show evolution on issues like immigration, gun control, or climate change and those who accuse those people of betraying party principles.
That fight will be loud and in the openand in the short term unproductive. The president can stir up these fights by poking the fear among Republicans that the party is becoming defined by its most extreme elements, which will in turn provoke fear among the most faithful conservatives that weak-willed conservatives are bending to the popular mood. That will lead to more tin-eared, dooming declarations of absolutism like those made by conservatives who sought to define the difference between legitimate and illegitimate rapeand handed control of the Senate to Democrats along the way.
This approach is not a path of gentle engagement. It requires confrontation and bright lines and tactics that are more aggressive than the president demonstrated in the first term. He can’t turn into a snarling hack. The posture is probably one similar to his official second-term photograph: [link=http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/18/for-obama-second-term-brings-a-new-look/]smiling, but with arms crossed. [/link]-
Quote from dergon
Interesting read today. The only way forward for Obama’s second term is to destroy the GOP.
[link=http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/01/barack_obama_s_second_inaugural_address_the_president_should_declare_war.html]http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/01/barack_obama_s_second_inaugural_address_the_president_should_declare_war.html[/link]
[b]
Go for the Throat! Why if he wants to transform American politics, Obama must declare war on the Republican Party.[/b]As Obama explained in his last press conference, he thinks the Republicans are dead set on opposing him. They cannot be unchained by schmoozing. Even if Obama were wrong about Republican intransigence, other constraints will limit the chance for cooperation. Republican lawmakers worried about primary challenges in 2014 are not going to be willing partners. He probably has at most 18 months before people start dropping the lame-duck label in close proximity to his name.
Obamas only remaining option is to pulverize. Whether he succeeds in passing legislation or not, given his ambitions, his goal should be to delegitimize his opponents. Through a series of clarifying fights over controversial issues, he can force Republicans to either side with their coalition’s most extreme elements or cause a rift in the party that will leave it, at least temporarily, in disarray.….
Obama’s gambit in 2009 was to build a new post-partisan consensus. That didn’t work, but by exploiting the weaknesses of todays Republican Party, Obama has an opportunity to hasten the demise of the old order by increasing the political cost of having the GOP coalition defined by Second Amendment absolutists, climate science deniers, supporters of self-deportation and the pure no-tax wing.
……Out of fear for the long-term prospects of the GOP, some Republicans may be willing to partner with the president. That would actually mean progress on important issues facing the country, which would enhance Obamas legacy. If not, the president will stir up a fracas between those in the Republican Party who believe it must show evolution on issues like immigration, gun control, or climate change and those who accuse those people of betraying party principles.
That fight will be loud and in the openand in the short term unproductive. The president can stir up these fights by poking the fear among Republicans that the party is becoming defined by its most extreme elements, which will in turn provoke fear among the most faithful conservatives that weak-willed conservatives are bending to the popular mood. That will lead to more tin-eared, dooming declarations of absolutism like those made by conservatives who sought to define the difference between legitimate and illegitimate rapeand handed control of the Senate to Democrats along the way.
This approach is not a path of gentle engagement. It requires confrontation and bright lines and tactics that are more aggressive than the president demonstrated in the first term. He can’t turn into a snarling hack. The posture is probably one similar to his official second-term photograph: [link=http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/18/for-obama-second-term-brings-a-new-look/]smiling, but with arms crossed. [/link]
IMHO, I think you are a victim of wishful thinking. Granted, this administration has always been about continuous campaigning and obama seems to be extending the virulent 2012 election attacks against the productive. However, without clear paths to a majority + some there is nothing obama can do to garner more support, legislatively or demagoguery.
Its obvious that the prez is ‘going for the throat’ over gun control and specifically targeting one of the more successful components of the republican/conservative base-gun owners and the NRA. It may seem like liberals are winning something right now. However, the conservatives know what happen to Clinton in the mid-90s. Much of Clinton’s initial election capital was spent going after gun owners. Now, we see the same seedlings of this happening again [i]from the prez’s own party. [/i][i]
[/i]
[link=http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/18/us/politics/democrats-in-congress-split-over-approach-to-gun-laws.html?_r=0]http://www.nytimes.com/20…-to-gun-laws.html?_r=0[/link]
More and more gun owners are voicing their opposition to any registration efforts of existing guns or other senseless legislation because it has been proven to be useless in the past. Any bill that also wouldnt include federal criminal statues for individuals committing crimes with guns is not legit in any moderate or conservatives mind. But many liberals refuse to talk about the law and order side crime and punishment with gun-related felonies. The result– it will be a lot of hot-air over no real new legislation. However, the dems have been forced into supporting largely symbolic but useless /repetitive legislation. Now the base of the republican party will have an issue to keep the congress as red as possible.
The prez and progressives are seeking to kick down the conservative fortress through any means-including this Machiavellian posturing of guns after the child massacre in CT. The prez wants to weaken the republicans sitting at the table with direct negotiations over the budget. Then sees it as an avenue to ask for more and more government largess and higher taxes and trying to forward a progressive agenda of spending on everything not related to the defense of America. Its not going to work out for the prez. Boehner has taken it on the chin with witless rhetoric. And who cares if his unpopularity in Harlem or Compton increases from 95% to 99%. More importantly, he and McConnell have have remained relative reticent and held. They are letting the loud mouth libs go over the cliff with their zealotry against gun owners and their refusal to trim the debt. Once one or both of these items starts swinging the repubs way, mixed in with a possible scandal that plagues every second administration, that’s when repubs will start making moves for curb obama’s unprecedented rein of spending. Just like 2009, the tea party plank and smaller govt crowd will join in with resisting deals that are cloaked ways of spending.So, let the dems bellow out the repeated attacks and enjoy it in their own echo chamber for the time being. Dems likely cant enjoy Mr. Obamas 49-50% popularity right now and this mediocre economy-because there is no impetus for increased statism. None whats so ever. There is no message or mandate for anything but balanced budgets or shrinking the govt. The 72 member progressive caucus is farily large, noisy but useless. With the attacks comes an impetus for further the statist/social agenda. However, the smarter dems know it be 2010 redux easily.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
More and more gun owners are voicing their opposition to any registration efforts of existing guns or other senseless legislation because it has been proven to be useless in the past.
I think this is just a false statement. More gun owners are now moving in favor of “common sense” legislation. 9 out 10 owners favor background checks. Overall (whole population) you have Gallup showing a majority 53% and a 10% point spread in favor of registration. Overall the answer to the general “should gun regulations be tightened?” has bumped in favor of “yes” by 15 points since Spring 2012.However, the conservatives know what happen to Clinton in the mid-90s. Much of Clinton’s initial election capital was spent going after gun owners. Now, we see the same seedlings of this happening again [i]from the prez’s own party.
[/i][i]
[/i]
The Clinton coalition of conservative democrats that he stole back from reagan doesn’t exist for Obama. He won on massive urban support and minorties. He doesn’t have to worry about losing any significant portion of his base on gun control beyond a few red state dems.
And even if he doesn’t get those blue dogs to vote for his legislation he can still win the issue and further beat down house GOPers.
The prez wants to weaken the republicans sitting at the table with direct negotiations over the budget. Then sees it as an avenue to ask for more and more government largess and higher taxes and trying to forward a progressive agenda of spending on everything not related to the defense of America. Its not going to work out for the prez. Boehner has taken it on the chin with witless rhetoric. And who cares if his unpopularity in Harlem or Compton increases from 95% to 99%. More importantly, he and McConnell have have remained relative reticent and held.
Yes Obama wants to weaken the republicans. Boehner and McConnell have held?! Really? You can say that with a straight face?
They are letting the loud mouth libs go over the cliff with their zealotry against gun owners and their refusal to trim the debt. Once one or both of these items starts swinging the repubs way, mixed in with a possible scandal that plagues every second administration, that’s when repubs will start making moves for curb obama’s unprecedented rein of spending. Just like 2009, the tea party plank and smaller govt crowd will join in with resisting deals that are cloaked ways of spending.
Benghazi went nowhere (except for the far right). I guess it’s just wishful thinking that some Obama administration scandal will materialize from the ether to derail his agenda. ( It could happen, but for now that is no more than speculation. )
You’re right that the Tea Party crowd wiill continue to dig in, but the politics and polling right now on debt, cuts, taxes, even guns is with the Prezident. That makes it more likely that the people looking for cover will be house republicans in swing districts that have to look at 64% disapproval numbers going in to the 2014 midterms.
Piece by David Gergen today that is pretty on the nose:
[link=http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/18/opinion/gergen-obama-two/index.html?hpt=hp_c1]http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/18/opinion/gergen-obama-two/index.html?hpt=hp_c1[/link]
All of this has added up for Obama to one of the most effective transitions in modern times. And it is paying rich dividends: A CNN poll this past week pegged his approval rating at 55%, far above the doldrums he was in for much of the past two years. Many of his long-time supporters are rallying behind him. As the first Democrat since Franklin D. Roosevelt to score back-to-back election victories with more than 50% of the vote, Obama is in the strongest position since early in his first year.
Smarter, tougher, bolder — his new style is paying off politically. But in the long run, will it also pay off in better governance? Perhaps — and for the country’s sake, let’s hope so.
…..
While a majority of Americans now approve of Obama’s job performance, conservatives increasingly believe that in his new toughness, he is going overboard, trying to run over them. They don’t see a president who wants to roll up his sleeves and negotiate; they see a president who wants to barnstorm the country to beat them up. News that Obama is converting his campaign apparatus into a nonprofit to support his second term will only deepen that sense. [b]And it frustrates them that he is winning: At their retreat, House Republicans learned that their disapproval has risen to 64%.[/b]
Conceivably, Obama’s tactics could pressure Republicans into capitulation on several fronts. More likely, they will be spoiling for more fights. Chances for a “grand bargain” appear to be hanging by a thread.
Two suspicions are starting to float among those with distaste for the president. The first is that he isn’t really all that committed to bringing deficits under control. If he were, he would be pushing a master plan by now. Instead, it is argued, he will tinker with the deficits but cares much more about leaving a progressive legacy — health care reform, a stronger safety net, green energy, and the like.
[b]Second, the suspicion is taking hold that he is approaching the second term with a clear eye on elections ahead. What if he can drive Republicans out of control of the House in 2014? Then he could get his real agenda done. [/b]What if he could set the stage for another Democrat to win the presidency in 2016? Then he could leave behind a majority coalition that could run the country for years, just as FDR did. Democrats, of course, think the real point is that Obama is finally showing the toughness that is needed.
It’s possible that he could over-reach and some of these issues could turn on him and his party. But right now he’s got the people and the polling with him, much to the consternation of the Right.-
He has taken the oath officially with Chief Justice Stevens.
Quote from dergon
More and more gun owners are voicing their opposition to any registration efforts of existing guns or other senseless legislation because it has been proven to be useless in the past.
I think this is just a false statement. More gun owners are now moving in favor of “common sense” legislation. 9 out 10 owners favor background checks. Overall (whole population) you have Gallup showing a majority 53% and a 10% point spread in favor of registration. Overall the answer to the general “should gun regulations be tightened?” has bumped in favor of “yes” by 15 points since Spring 2012.
However, the conservatives know what happen to Clinton in the mid-90s. Much of Clinton’s initial election capital was spent going after gun owners. Now, we see the same seedlings of this happening again [i]from the prez’s own party.
[/i][i]
[/i]
The Clinton coalition of conservative democrats that he stole back from reagan doesn’t exist for Obama. He won on massive urban support and minorties. He doesn’t have to worry about losing any significant portion of his base on gun control beyond a few red state dems.And even if he doesn’t get those blue dogs to vote for his legislation he can still win the issue and further beat down house GOPers.
The prez wants to weaken the republicans sitting at the table with direct negotiations over the budget. Then sees it as an avenue to ask for more and more government largess and higher taxes and trying to forward a progressive agenda of spending on everything not related to the defense of America. Its not going to work out for the prez. Boehner has taken it on the chin with witless rhetoric. And who cares if his unpopularity in Harlem or Compton increases from 95% to 99%. More importantly, he and McConnell have have remained relative reticent and held.
Yes Obama wants to weaken the republicans. Boehner and McConnell have held?! Really? You can say that with a straight face?
They are letting the loud mouth libs go over the cliff with their zealotry against gun owners and their refusal to trim the debt. Once one or both of these items starts swinging the repubs way, mixed in with a possible scandal that plagues every second administration, that’s when repubs will start making moves for curb obama’s unprecedented rein of spending. Just like 2009, the tea party plank and smaller govt crowd will join in with resisting deals that are cloaked ways of spending.Benghazi went nowhere (except for the far right). I guess it’s just wishful thinking that some Obama administration scandal will materialize from the ether to derail his agenda. ( It could happen, but for now that is no more than speculation. )
You’re right that the Tea Party crowd wiill continue to dig in, but the politics and polling right now on debt, cuts, taxes, even guns is with the Prezident. That makes it more likely that the people looking for cover will be house republicans in swing districts that have to look at 64% disapproval numbers going in to the 2014 midterms.
Piece by David Gergen today that is pretty on the nose:
[link=http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/18/opinion/gergen-obama-two/index.html?hpt=hp_c1]http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/18/opinion/gergen-obama-two/index.html?hpt=hp_c1[/link]
All of this has added up for Obama to one of the most effective transitions in modern times. And it is paying rich dividends: A CNN poll this past week pegged his approval rating at 55%, far above the doldrums he was in for much of the past two years. Many of his long-time supporters are rallying behind him. As the first Democrat since Franklin D. Roosevelt to score back-to-back election victories with more than 50% of the vote, Obama is in the strongest position since early in his first year.
Smarter, tougher, bolder — his new style is paying off politically. But in the long run, will it also pay off in better governance? Perhaps — and for the country’s sake, let’s hope so.
…..While a majority of Americans now approve of Obama’s job performance, conservatives increasingly believe that in his new toughness, he is going overboard, trying to run over them. They don’t see a president who wants to roll up his sleeves and negotiate; they see a president who wants to barnstorm the country to beat them up. News that Obama is converting his campaign apparatus into a nonprofit to support his second term will only deepen that sense. [b]And it frustrates them that he is winning: At their retreat, House Republicans learned that their disapproval has risen to 64%.[/b]
Conceivably, Obama’s tactics could pressure Republicans into capitulation on several fronts. More likely, they will be spoiling for more fights. Chances for a “grand bargain” appear to be hanging by a thread.
Two suspicions are starting to float among those with distaste for the president. The first is that he isn’t really all that committed to bringing deficits under control. If he were, he would be pushing a master plan by now. Instead, it is argued, he will tinker with the deficits but cares much more about leaving a progressive legacy — health care reform, a stronger safety net, green energy, and the like.[b]Second, the suspicion is taking hold that he is approaching the second term with a clear eye on elections ahead. What if he can drive Republicans out of control of the House in 2014? Then he could get his real agenda done. [/b]What if he could set the stage for another Democrat to win the presidency in 2016? Then he could leave behind a majority coalition that could run the country for years, just as FDR did. Democrats, of course, think the real point is that Obama is finally showing the toughness that is needed.
It’s possible that he could over-reach and some of these issues could turn on him and his party. But right now he’s got the people and the polling with him, much to the consternation of the Right.
-
Quote from dergon
More and more gun owners are voicing their opposition to any registration efforts of existing guns or other senseless legislation because it has been proven to be useless in the past.
I think this is just a false statement.
As others have pointed out multiple times on this thread, registration efforts have not decreased gun violence in a myriad of localities. Liberals can not or will not (for fear of being called out as a racist) offer a convincing argument why the places with the highest level of gun violence in America -Chicago and DC-occur in the districts with the most stringent gun laws. Conversely, the states where there is near high proportion of gun ownership have among the lowest rates of violent crimes with guns.
And if you are confused or unsure what the prez and the democrat unilaterality on this issue is doing or going to lead to politically, take a look at this pole.
[link=http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/gun_control/65_see_gun_rights_as_protection_against_tyranny]http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/gun_control/65_see_gun_rights_as_protection_against_tyranny[/link]
That’s 2/3rds of Americans-including a majority of moderates-that favor fundamental guns rights as precious as the right of free speech or privacy. What does this mean? Well the prez like in his inaugural speech as well as zealot Govs in the northeast are keeping up with their flamboyant and ill-directed rhetroic against gun-owners. It can easily be seen as a strong push for gun abolition besides a political attack/ lunge at a majority of gun owners who are moderate or conservative. The republicans are quiet and just playing a waiting game for any bill to reach the floors of Congreess before the red Charlton Heston wanna-bes start flaming it and anybody associated with it. The way I see it, the pockets of red that elected a conservative majority congress already—are going to get redder, not bluer.Quote from dergon
However, the conservatives know what happen to Clinton in the mid-90s. Much of Clinton’s initial election capital was spent going after gun owners. Now, we see the same seedlings of this happening again [i]from the prez’s own party.
[/i]
The Clinton coalition of conservative democrats that he stole back from reagan doesn’t exist for Obama. He won on massive urban support and minorties. He doesn’t have to worry about losing any significant portion of his base on gun control beyond a few red state dems. And even if he doesn’t get those blue dogs to vote for his legislation he can still win the issue and further beat down house GOPers.You cant possibly be that naive to think the democrat base ( the Harlem-Cleveland-Detroit-Compton axis) is going to move Congress to passing liberal legislation the way this prez wants to. There is little pressure and no political capital progressives can put on almost any republican not to stand firm and exercise their agenda for smaller government. Yet, democrats are already fleeing any notions but superficial measures at gun control, as the NYTimes link above points out. ([link=http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/18/us/politics/democrats-in-congress-split-over-approach-to-gun-laws.html?_r=0]http://www.nytimes.com/20…-to-gun-laws.html?_r=0[/link]). Six democrat senators are up for re-election in states that voted 42% or less for Obama. That means the republicans will likely tie or control the senate [i]even if [/i]clones of Murdoch or Aiken get through repub primaries. That’s how much Alaska, Lousiana, Arkansas, SD, has absolute disdain for the prez and his policies.
[link=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/11/09/senate-democrats-face-a-very-tough-2014-map/]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/11/09/senate-democrats-face-a-very-tough-2014-map/[/link]
Its indeed wishful thinking to believe that there is a new majority coaltiion of progressive and democrats that has materialized with the 2012 election. Minoritites voted in numbers and ratios for one-party rule not seen in another country outside of the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea. That type of support will never materialize in the mid–term elections of 2014. Not only because of history, (9 out of 10 times Congress is lost by the incumbents president party) but because minorities will not be able to vote for the great leader in 2014.
In fact, the libs logic on this, that there is a new majority way of thinking in America for more statism/larger govt, was already proven wrong by the 2012 elections. Despite obama recording record numbers of minority votes, the house still was won comfortably by republicans. It seems from a logical standpoint, until proven otherwise, that the prez is incredibly popular among some people due to his ethnic background and personal appeal, but majority of Americans dont like or support his agenda.-
Virginia putsch, the only way Republicans can win elections these days.
[link=http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kathleen-parker-obama-is-no-patsy-now/2013/01/22/098193d0-64dc-11e2-85f5-a8a9228e55e7_story.html]http://www.washingtonpost…8a9228e55e7_story.html[/link]
[link=http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/va-politics/va-republicans-move-on-redistricting-draws-criticism/2013/01/22/f7645ee8-64b9-11e2-9e1b-07db1d2ccd5b_story.html]http://www.washingtonpost…7db1d2ccd5b_story.html[/link]
-
[link=http://www.salon.com/2013/01/25/how_obama_is_unraveling_reagan_republicanism/]http://www.salon.com/2013/01/25/how_obama_is_unraveling_reagan_republicanism/[/link]
Soon after President Obamas second inaugural address, John Boehner [link=http://www.riponsociety.org/news_1-22-13.htm]said[/link] the White House would try to annihilate the Republican Party and shove us into the dustbin of history.
The GOP crackup was probably inevitable. Inconsistencies and tensions within the GOP have been growing for years ever since Ronald Reagan put together the coalition that became the modern Republican Party.
Reagans coalition remained fragile. It depended fundamentally on creating a common enemy: communists and terrorists abroad, liberals and people of color at home.
On the surface Reagans GOP celebrated Norman Rockwells traditional, white middle-class, small-town America. Below the surface it stoked fires of fear and hate of others who threatened this idealized portrait.
In his first term Barack Obama seemed the perfect foil: A black man, a big- spending liberal, perhaps (they hissed) not even an American.
Republicans accused him of being insufficiently patriotic. Right-wing TV and radio snarled he secretly wanted to take over America, suspend our rights. Mitch McConnell declared that unseating him was his partys first priority.
But it didnt work. The 2012 Republican primaries exposed all the cracks and fissures in the GOP coalition.
….
History and demographics are on the side of the Democrats, but history and demography have been on the Democrats side for decades. Whats new is the Republican crackup opening the way for a new Democratic coalition of socially-liberal young people, women, minorities, middle-class professionals, and whats left of the anti-corporate working class.
If Obama remains as clear and combative as he has been since Election Day, his second term may be noted not only for its accomplishment but also for finally unraveling what Reagan put together. In other words, John Boehners fear may be well-founded.-
Quote from dergon
[link=http://www.salon.com/2013/01/25/how_obama_is_unraveling_reagan_republicanism/]http://www.salon.com/2013/01/25/how_obama_is_unraveling_reagan_republicanism/[/link]
In other words, John Boehners fear may be well-founded.
Perhaps not quite. It won’t be the White House that get attributed to the unraveling of the GOP. Rather, history will frame the GOP as being totally responsible for its own undoing.
-
Quote from Lux
Perhaps not quite. It won’t be the White House that get attributed to the unraveling of the GOP. Rather, history will frame the GOP as being totally responsible for its own undoing.
Very true. George W tried to buy the hispanic vote with free and open immigration and the black vote with faith-based initiatives (ie. payoffs to black (& other) churches). Not to mention he tried to buy up the education cartel vote with NCLB. All utter failures. -
The GOP is marginalizing itself. Their leadership keeps making moves to slap some sense into the biggest nutbars (House Rs) but the nuts just turn their incivility up, refusing to govern. The gerrymandered crazies believe they have a mandate to dismantle America, despite the protestations of their own leadership. It is a beautiful thing to watch. Obama is merely handing them an anchor.
-
MY response to GOP..U don’t have to go the nonCOOPERATIVE route …look within..LINCOLN told U about INCLUSION. It is never to late to do the RIGHT THING!!!!
THE UNITED STATES MUST and WILL STAND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
The pity party of the GOP complaining that Obama wants to destroy them! Complaining that if only Obama showed some outreach!
As my grandmother would say, “They made their bed, now they have to sleep in it!” Poor Dears. A little bit of sanity would help after 2 decades of crazy, or as Jindal says, “stupid.”
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
d*mn it! wrong thread again — sorry
-
Wishful thinking from a lot of posters on this thread about the demise of republicans. Contradicts what is and will be obviously transpiring during the course of the next two years:
Tom Harkin-the out of place porkalous lib is out.
Soon Jay Rockerfeller will be out in WV.
And without the ‘great leader’ to vote for, lemmings in the minority communities will not come out to the polls in 2014. The result will be the senate will turn red in 2014. and an even redder.
Did I hear something about the republicans dying off LOL? Nah, its liberal dreams killed from their own party (ie useless gun laws, inability to stop 1/2 of the governors from inacting obamacare, senate filibuster reform etc). Soon affirmative action will take a bit hit. Good luck getting moderate dems to vote for a quota bill. Also, as with every administration’s second term, there’s a scandal or two ready.-
Uh, no. The House is full of extremist Rs thanks to gerrymandering. They have consistently lost all policy battles due to their unyielding unpopular positions, reducing the power of the GOP and driving away moderates. Demographics are killing them in elections and it will only get worse. The latest scheme to change electoral votes to proportional in only the states Obama won is the tell – they are making a last grasp for the WH before their chances slip away forever. Or until they drive the extremists from the party, as they should.
-
The republicans are going to have to change if they want to win Nationally. If you want to deny this go ahead.
-
Quote from kpack123
The republicans are going to have to change if they want to win Nationally. If you want to deny this go ahead.
Quote from INDEED nobody 2008
Demographics are killing them in elections and it will only get worse. …
they are making a last grasp for the WH before their chances slip away forever.
We heard this same line of thinking in the 30s-40s and the 60s. Then came Nixon and Reagan and overwhelming majorities appealing to common sense on(often at odds with liberal agendas): national security, economics and public safety. We heard from generations of old democrats with disbelief how Nixon and Reagan got elected, or, the 1994 and 2010 clarion mid-term elections. Libs like yourselves still dont get it, and wont be able to anticipate nor stop it when a republican breakthrough happens again. Just look at all those folks spontaneously lining up for guns on top of guns these last two weeks, in numbers far exceeding the ‘Occupy Wall street’ stunts of union paid-off college art majors. Just google ‘record crowds gun shows”. The liberal democrat is just sealing their fates while McConnell and Boehner are just quiet.
Since libs believe there is a new and more multicultural (whatever that really means or politically manifests itself as) political dynamic and electorate, why is the Congress this red and republican controlled? Also, why didnt Obama’s two election victories create more democrats in Congress the way Nixon’s and Reagan’s election year victories had?
And if we have new liberal political priorities in America: please tell me which of the following planks of the progressive/lib caucus, frequently and openly discussed among its now 72 members, is going to get federally enacted any time soon?:
-Income taxes that significantly exceed the moderate Clinton eras.
-Introduction of a national ‘personal property tax’ where two-three percent of an individual’s wealth is turned over the government-each year.
-Highly-level taxed or outright abolition of Inheritance.
-Stringent restrictions and confiscation of guns and ammunition.
-Disarming municipal police forces. Also, enforced establishment of citizen review boards of all police forces.
-Centralization of communication including control of broadband/cellular phones technology and the internet. Enforced ‘equality’ in the distribution of communication services to bridge the ‘digital divide’
-Centralization of most American credit, given permanently to the government (even more than Freddie/Fanny).
-Gravitation to equality of pay among all forms of labor-regardless of training or subjective importance.
-Passage of card check or other union friendly bills. Also, attempts to stimulate/grow declining union membership.
-Shrinking the Pentagon to pre-WWII levels. Also, curtailing defense subsidies to allies, while giving the United Nations ultimate say on where and how much American money is to be spent overseas.
-The overturning of ‘Three strikes laws” and making jail terms shorter and parole more lenient.
-‘Reparations’ for slavery.
-Declassification of Marijuana as a controlled substance.
-Establish permanent quotas at professional schools receiving federal loans.
-“Free’ college and professional schools and student loan forgiveness.
-Establishment of federal stipends/pay for maternity/paternity leave.
-4 to 6 weeks of nationally compensated ‘holiday’ pay.
-Free and unhindered abortion on demand in all US territories by federal decree.
-Abolition of fracking of natural gas/oil or any additional extraction carbon-sourced energy.
-Gas prices commensurate with Europe (8-10 dollars a gallon).(Just typing this list makes one think of a country controlled by LA rioters blended with a little Mad Max and Clockwork Orange hoodlums, all fully unbound and functioning in a state with the ethics of an American Robert Mugabe like Charles Rangel).
When even one of these fundamental planks (even the prevention of the Keystone pipeline) of the progressive caucus comes close to passing in Congress-please then crow. Until then, just think of how far the Reagan revolution has taken us from the path of mediocrity democrats were careening us to after WWII, the same way the UK was stunted by its integrations of statism and socialism.
-
Quote from Saddest Rad
why is the Congress this red and republican controlled? Also, why didnt Obama’s two election victories create more democrats in Congress the way Nixon’s and Reagan’s election year victories had?
The House is GOP controlled thanks to gerrymandering. I mentioned this already. You are in for a rough future if you really believe the GOP constituency is on the rise. The Teaparty movement consists of the disaffected Boomers who didn’t get that American Dream they were promised and now want to keep the gov’ts money for themselves. Eff everyone else. That ain’t a winning strategery, as we are seeing now.
Ryan went on the Sunday shows saying there will be no gov’t shutdown, in direct opposition to the crazy GOP House. Wonder how that one is going to go over?-
To expand upon nobody2008’s commentary, redistricting is done based on the census figures every 10 years. Who is in control at the time of the census strongly plays in to who will have favorable congressional districting for the coming decade.
If you look at net vote count (which, admittedly doesn’t matter but is illustrative) the GOP got fewer total House votes than the democrats. They simply had more solid districts to buffer them from the blue wave of 2012.
Here is a thing on the Republican Party’s own take on redistriction :
[link=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/17/gop-redmap-memo-gerrymandering_n_2498913.html]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/17/gop-redmap-memo-gerrymandering_n_2498913.html[/link]The report — drafted as a summary of the importance of the [link=http://www.redistrictingmajorityproject.com/]RSLC’s Redistricting Majority Project[/link] (REDMAP) — serves as a breakdown of the broader GOP plan to take control of state legislatures, giving Republicans free rein to mount an aggressive gerrymandering campaign that allowed the party to keep a House majority, despite getting fewer votes in those races overall.
“The rationale was straightforward,” [link=http://rslc.com/_blog/News/post/REDMAP_2012_Summary_Report]reads the memo[/link]. “Controlling the redistricting process in these states would have the greatest impact on determining how both state legislative and congressional district boundaries would be drawn. Drawing new district lines in states with the most redistricting activity presented the opportunity to solidify conservative policymaking at the state level and maintain a Republican stronghold in the U.S. House of Representatives for the next decade.”
-
Gentlemen- please resort to Occam’s razor when doing your wishful thinking political analysis. Gerrymanding?! Even with a possible town or two move in and out of districts, gerrymandering alone cant explain the continued republican success at capturing the House for now two decades (except when the anti-war movement unseated them). However, aversion to liberals being in control, and strong national dislike of liberal heros such as Pelosi is the more direct and plausible explaination for this voting trend.
Your sincere responses have really got me laughing about this gerrymanding argument because democrats have been doing this for generations. There have been specific minority carve outs that defy logic and geography such as NC 12 seen below.
[link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Carolina%27s_12th_congressional_district]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Carolina%27s_12th_congressional_district[/link]
Gentlemen, its an aversion to any form of liberalism that accounts for the current House make-up. And in 2014 without the messhiah to vote for, the House will get even redder, and the senate will turn as well.
-
So an aversion to liberalism is why more than a million more votes were cast for house democratic candidates in 2012 than were for republicans?
That’s an [i]interesting[/i] take on it.-
Quote from dergon
So an aversion to liberalism is why more than a million more votes were cast for house democratic candidates in 2012 than were for republicans?
That’s an [i]interesting[/i] take on it.
That a very novel and strange way to look at House elections. In fact, it is historically unprecedented to Balkanize individual American congress results such as what you and other libs are doing. I dont think I have heard of legitimate political analysis before 2012 that mentioned a total vote for the House as providing a definitive message or being of any consequence. Can you site to me in important American historical documents or elsewhere in the historical record of American elections where the total combined vote for individual Congressmen was rendered as important or useful? I cant.
The answer to your question is obvious to anybody without liberal blinders. There are several districts around America that voted for one party as if it was the old Soviet Politburo or North Korea, providing over 99% of the vote. Why? They were voting because of the race of the head of the democrat party. It was the ultimate in racial and divisive politics performed by the democrat base. That is unless one believes that in a free society one party deserves 99% of the vote which is more akin to fascism than anything else.-
Tit for tat is the best defense you can muster, MRImadman? Why not just oppose gerrymandering regardless of whomever does it for whatever reason since any reason will be to subvert the voters & rig the game for whomever is doing the gerrymandering.
JUST SAY NO! It’s that easy.
Try this if you want to see some strange maps on a State-wide level.
[link=http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/11/07/how_ridiculous_gerrymanders_saved_the_house_republican_majority.html]http://www.slate.com/blog…publican_majority.html[/link]
-
-
-
-
-
-
Quote from saddest rad
And if we have new liberal political priorities in America: please tell me which of the following planks of the progressive/lib caucus, frequently and openly discussed among its now 72 members, is going to get federally enacted any time soon?:
-Income taxes that significantly exceed the moderate Clinton eras.
-Introduction of a national ‘personal property tax’ where two-three percent of an individual’s wealth is turned over the government-each year.
-Highly-level taxed or outright abolition of Inheritance.
-Stringent restrictions and confiscation of guns and ammunition.
-Disarming municipal police forces. Also, enforced establishment of citizen review boards of all police forces.
-Centralization of communication including control of broadband/cellular phones technology and the internet. Enforced ‘equality’ in the distribution of communication services to bridge the ‘digital divide’
-Centralization of most American credit, given permanently to the government (even more than Freddie/Fanny).
-Gravitation to equality of pay among all forms of labor-regardless of training or subjective importance.
-Passage of card check or other union friendly bills. Also, attempts to stimulate/grow declining union membership.
-Shrinking the Pentagon to pre-WWII levels. Also, curtailing defense subsidies to allies, while giving the United Nations ultimate say on where and how much American money is to be spent overseas.
-The overturning of ‘Three strikes laws” and making jail terms shorter and parole more lenient.
-‘Reparations’ for slavery.
-Declassification of Marijuana as a controlled substance.
-Establish permanent quotas at professional schools receiving federal loans.
-“Free’ college and professional schools and student loan forgiveness.
-Establishment of federal stipends/pay for maternity/paternity leave.
-4 to 6 weeks of nationally compensated ‘holiday’ pay.
-Free and unhindered abortion on demand in all US territories by federal decree.
-Abolition of fracking of natural gas/oil or any additional extraction carbon-sourced energy.
-Gas prices commensurate with Europe (8-10 dollars a gallon).
So, if the American electorate has fundamentally changed and become more liberal-please tell what is going to change? We already got Obamacare with an attempt to control doctors decisions, salaries and meter medicine from Washington. That likely wont be implemented for many decades to come. But if there a new liberal ethos-tell me what from the above list is going to occur.
For inspiration, I’ll list policy in the last 35 years+ where conservatives thinking was adopted to the benefit of most. In the modern hey-day of secular liberalism, lets say sometime after the mid-late 1960s and the election of Carter, who could have predicted the incredible right-ward change that undoubtedly benefited America over the next 35+ years:
-Decreasing all tax rates on income, investment by at least 1/2 (to 1/4th) from post WWII levels that persisted to the late 1970s. The results-all ship rose with the rising tide and tax revenue went through the roof.
-Strong defense that essentially intimidated and outmatched the Soviet Union and their satellites.
-Intolerance of all levels of crime-from petty and serious. Its had an undeniable effect in the reduction of all crime, but it particular violent crime.
-Deregulation of a lot of industries which have fostered competition and lowered prices. The same federally manipulated airline ticket in the 1970s, adjusted for inflation, would now be in excess of $1500.
-Related is the efforts to keep gas affordable to sustain a mobile culture and home-ownership culture that is not accepted in the UK and Western Europe.
-Deregulation of electronic communications-from the emergence of cable to now broadband, which all matured and dynamically adapted to a marketplace far quicker and more thoroughly than the US government ever did with utilities in the past including landline phone, mail, water, electricity, rail. All other utilities took 50-100 years to get the distribution that it took deregulated broadband/cellular in 10 years.
-The reversal of welfare culture where stagnant pockets of people for multiple generations sought nothing more than looking for the next check from government.
-The natural decline of anti-competitive cartels (free trade agreements) and unions which artificially benefited from barriers. Would the quality of America cars changed significantly if there wasnt competition? Also, the unsung rebirth of the car industry in this country in the south using the free American worker, showing the world how efficient we are once extricated from union middle men taking their cut.
-Standing up to government unions trying to intimidate the public (PATCO), in essence saying the public service is more important than their individualist demands and entitlements. (Too bad this hasnt translated to public education and the administrators who prevent the sinking of public schools).
-Placing enduring values of freedom and personal liberty (not equality) as touchstones to guide America against its enemies who see governing as the submission of the individual and family to the state (Soviet Union) or religious supremacy (Serbia to Islamic ‘republics’).
-The fight against inflation and the temptation to print money (ended with Obama).
-Seeing generalized prosperity NOT redistributed ‘equality’ as the paramount goal for an economy. As Oliver Stone tried and failed to parody in the movie [i]Wall Street[/i] “Greed (for the sake of providing to one’s own self, family and kin) is good”. Government cant provide. This was even sincerely shared by Bill Clinton. The result, for the last 30 years (pre Obama)American saw the lowest levels of poverty, highest levels of economic satisfaction, highest mean incomes, highest rates of private property ownership, highest rates of post-secondary education.
-In a similar vein, any unionized police force wont universally act to protect you, in particular in crisis like a storm or roit. Its then up to the individual to ward of threats to protect his/her family and property with personal firearms. Thankfully, we started to adopt a deeper understanding in the 80s going forward that guns werent just for criminals and the importance to arm the individual law abiding citizen for self-protection.
-Medical advances from SSRIs, prilosec, lipitor, stents, mainstream CT/MR, genetic therapeutics. All of which is threatened to be severely curtailed by Obamas short-sighted obedience to lib policy mantras.
-Compromise with political enemies (SS deal, 1986 tax reform) to forward the country, and not unilateral enforced policy like Obamacare.
Now, do any libs on here have the foresight to tell us what this ‘new order’ and political re-alignment would be able to accomplish and its possible result?
-
[b][i]”Decreasing all tax rates on income…and tax revenue went through the roof.”[/i][/b]
Huh?
-
-
-
-
-
-
The fact that there are some disctricts and precincts that are hyperconcentrated minority (and therefore democrat) is….. a fact. So is the fact that gerry mandering had been used by both parties when in power…. also a fact.
But I don’t see how that connects in any way to your claim that the GOP holding the House was somehow indicitive of a nationwide rejection of liberal politics.
It was only a rejection of those politics in the well-protected red congressional districts set up by many state legislatures.
I personally don’t think that the 2012 election was marked a large shift in the electorate in favor of liberalism either. ( Although I *do* think that on social policies the center is sliding leftward slightly). The same gerrymandering that locked the house for republicans is a double-edged sword. Fear of primary challenges has pulled the house, and hence the party as a whole, far too far to the right for the likings of the average americans. Given the choice between right and center-left most americans went with center left……. except in those safe districts and statewide in the reddest states.
-
In the words of Ramesh Ponnuru in a National REview article following the election,
“…Republicans can do well when they choose the voters rather than vice versa.”
[link=http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/333344/party-s-problem-ramesh-ponnuru]http://www.nationalreview…problem-ramesh-ponnuru[/link]
Before settling on this story of party weakness, we need to examine three apparent pieces of evidence of strength. The first is that Republicans retained control of the House even as they lost the presidential and Senate races. Republicans are likely to have their second-largest House majority in 60 years. [b][u]They appear, however, to have narrowly lost the popular vote for the House.[/u][/b] One reason they won so many seats anyway is that 2010 was an unusually good Republican year, and [i][b]Republicans were therefore able to draw the lines of congressional districts following that years census.[/b][/i] What the House success demonstrates, in part, is that Republicans can do well when they choose the voters rather than vice versa. Another reason for the House success, as Michael Barone has observed, is that the geographic distribution of Republican voters within states tends to favor them. Thats not much help, though, in amassing a national majority from statewide races.
The second piece of evidence for Republican political strength is that they hold 30 of the 50 governorships. [u]That strength, too, is misleading. Each of those Republican governors was elected either in a state Romney carried or in the unusually Republican years of 2009 and 2010 or, in most cases, both[/u].
-
Your modern-day story-telling theories of republican Gerrymandering neglect historic facts about the subject you are talking about.
First off, every red southern state must get permission to make any changes to their elections approved by the Dept of Justice under the burdensome privisions of the Voting Rights Act. This includes federal approval of the redrawing of congressional districts with new census data. So the district redraws that occured in these red states in the last 20 years were approved by the Clinton admiistration (2000 census) and Obama (2010 census).
Thus are we to fault the Clinton and Obama DOJs for your claims of Gerrymandering? If you are to look at the history of each state’s congressional districts, it is the paramount goal of the Black Congressional Caucus/NAACP and every black leader, as a matter of civil rights, to have multiple districts with special carve-outs to ensure that multiple persons of color would get elected to each state’s federal Congressional delegation. That’s Gerrymandering. And the Gerrymandering has led to an indentured class of corrupt politicians that has disproportionately affected the Black Congressional Caucus–politicians such as Jefferson, Rangel, Waters, Jackson Jr., among others. This racial Gerrymandering assumed and performed by the DOJ is clearly shown by the North Carolinas wondering 12th district along a random interstate. The result has been to leave non-minority communities clustered in different districts and hence the genesis of this phony claim of republican Gerrymandering. Messages to libs-when you tell your own minority base that they should no longer get unique carve-outs to get people of color elected to Congress, then we can start to have a legitamate discussion about elections imbalances such as voter fraud, and possible steps to elinimate all Gerrymandering.-
It’s like this
The republicans are a rural and a southern party. Their ideas resonate in those areas.
While geographically that’s a large part of the country population wise it is smaller
If they want to succeed they need to either hope for a crisis or change
It doesn’t seem like they want to change
-
Republicans need change? Well it depends. First, there is no use trying to move towards the democrats extreme social welfare positions beacause they will just keep moving left–no use trying to out democrat the democrats. Republicans need to emphasize the policy differences—one side is work hard and enjoy the fruits of success—the other side promotes equal outcomes by force of government. Repubs need not drop their (losing)moral agenda—but rather minimize it–after all legislating morality is nanny state politics that repubs oppose.
-
-
-
-
Quote from billainsworth
Quote from kpack123
GOP won the popular vote once since 1988
It’s not because of handouts or all those non working scum sucking democrats Romney talked about.
It’s because as the country is slowly changing they have veered farther and farther right
The democrats right now are more mainstream
The center right argument of some is just another republican lie
The middle is the middle and the dems are closer to it
You may be right—I never thought free cell phones would be mainstream—but you may be right.
I thought it was the GOP’s strategy to get votes any way they can. Wasn’t that the meaning behind “Elections, elections, elections!” quip from McCain when asked why the sudden GOP turnaround in supporting the new immigration legislation?
-
Let’s see how it works out because they had NM governor upfront at the GOP convention and Obama still won
Quote from Lux
Quote from billainsworth
Quote from kpack123
GOP won the popular vote once since 1988
It’s not because of handouts or all those non working scum sucking democrats Romney talked about.
It’s because as the country is slowly changing they have veered farther and farther right
The democrats right now are more mainstream
The center right argument of some is just another republican lie
The middle is the middle and the dems are closer to it
You may be right—I never thought free cell phones would be mainstream—but you may be right.
I thought it was the GOP’s strategy to get votes any way they can. Wasn’t that the meaning behind “Elections, elections, elections!” quip from McCain when asked why the sudden GOP turnaround in supporting the new immigration legislation?
-
I’m not sure that the electorate is more liberal.
The middle is the middle. Always has been. The center right country was a lie just like WMD’s was a lie.
I am sure that the Republicans have moved farther right and now are more extreme.
The dems are closer to the mainstream
-
I also think the Rights interpretation of Liberal has evolved immensely over the past 25 years
Years ago liberal meant the far left wing of the dems
Today it means anything to the left of the extreme right
And you don’t understand why your party is getting smaller
-
Quote from kpack123
I also think the Rights interpretation of Liberal has evolved immensely over the past 25 years
Years ago liberal meant the far left wing of the dems
Today it means anything to the left of the extreme right
And you don’t understand why your party is getting smaller
This is precisely what I’m seeing too. Those that make up the centrist right are getting alienated by the bully minority extremists in their own party. Talk about cutting your own throat.
The GOP might want to seriously consider ejecting the Tea Partiers into a third party. If they did that, the GOP may take a hit for another 4 years plus or minus, but in the long run it will be a healthy move to restore the GOP back to being [i]Grand[/i] rather than their current delusional [i]Grandiose[/i].
Right now though, the only thing that remains of the “GOP” that has any notable value is the “O”.
-
Yet another interesting read on the status of the GOP from one of their own (one of McCain’s campaign managers):
[link=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/01/30/gop_needs_to_rethink_its_product_line_116830.html]http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/01/30/gop_needs_to_rethink_its_product_line_116830.html[/link]
Today the GOP is like the Detroit auto industry of the mid-1980s. It produces ugly cars, poorly designed and built. Worse, only legacy buyers want them. When I was a kid, my family had a 1985 Oldsmobile Firenza. It was the typically hideous metallic powder-blue box on wheels. One day it stopped running. The mechanic said there was a crack in the engine block — GMs engines of that era were notorious for such complete structural failures, he said.
We Republicans need to go back to the drawing board and come up with new engineering and a new production line. As much as we like to look back on Ronald Reagans Morning in America from 1984, that country doesnt exist anymore.
The imagery — an old man raising the American flag, a straight white couple getting married in a church, a farmer on his tractor — is still valid. But those kinds of tableaux arent enough for Republicans to tell our story in the 21st century.
The hagiography with which we discuss Reagan is comforting, as it allows us to look back on a time when everything seemed to make sense. The Soviets were bad, church was good, the American way of life was heroic. We finally felt good about ourselves again. Reagan was a great president, but a key ingredient in his success was that he that brought his vision — his positive vision — to an electorate desperately looking for one.
Republicans have become too negative and exclusive. In too many cases were trying too hard to hold onto something that now exists only in our memories and YouTube videos.
….
Our problem is not how we frame our arguments. Its that our arguments dont fit the views of the national electorate: A majority of Americans found our solutions uncompelling. All the data mining, social media interaction and television advertising wont do a bit of good if our messages and messengers arent powerful and believable.
….
The alternative to this fundamental shift in how we communicate, to whom we speak and how we run campaigns is to simply wait for systemic failure, as is the case in states like California. That isnt a strategy. Its cynicism. And it is the last thing the party or the country needs more of.-
Getting close to full on Civil War inside the GOP:
Karl Rove and Mitch McConnell both wanting to kill off the Tea Party.
[link=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/09/mitch-mcconnell-karl-rove_n_2652927.html]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/09/mitch-mcconnell-karl-rove_n_2652927.html[/link]
[b]Mitch McConnell Had Previously Floated Karl Rove Idea To Target Weak Tea Party Candidates[/b]
A firestorm on the right has greeted a new Karl Rove-backed super PAC aimed at knocking off weak conservative Senate candidates and protecting strong incumbents in GOP primaries, but the new PAC may well prove to be a plus in the eyes of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.
Thats not surprising: The model for the new super PAC, dubbed the Conservative Victory Project, is akin to one that McConnell has touted the need for at GOP events in recent years, two GOP fundraisers with good ties to the senator told Huffington Post. Both asked for anonymity to speak candidly about private events and discussions.
McConnells office declined to comment on whether he backed Roves new super PAC or to address whether he had touted a similar idea at GOP events in recent years, as the two fundraisers told HuffPost. The senators spokesman also didnt answer whether McConnell had ever discussed his general concerns or the need for such a PAC with Rove or Steven Law, the president of the Victory Project, or other Crossroads advisers.
The conservative reaction to the new Rove PAC has been fast and ferocious. I think its going to be very harmful to Karl, said Colin Hanna, who runs Let Freedom Ring, a Pennsylvania-based advocacy group that spent millions last year to try to defeat President Obama and has backing from such wealthy conservative donors as John Templeton, Jr. Rove may be appointing himself the arbiter of conservative candidate selection but his motion may die for the lack of a second.
Despite the loud backlash from conservatives, other moderate GOP groups subscribe to the goal of blocking ultra-conservative candidates from nabbing Senate nominations in the primaries. Venture capitalist Fred Malek, who founded the American Action Network, told The Huffington Post that the donor community is tired of losing and wants to see nominees who can win.
The Network has focused mainly on helping the GOP win House races, but Malek pointed out that his group had also run ads in some Senate primaries: The group ran ads to help Kelly Ayotte, who won in New Hampshire, and Indiana Sen. Richard Lugar, who lost his primary battle to conservative darling Richard Mourdock, who went on to lose in November.
I wouldnt hesitate to do it again in the future if we saw the need, Malek said.
-
and Rand Paul and Rubio for post State of the Union address, does not exactly make anyone get thrilled
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
[link=http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/17/magazine/can-the-republicans-be-saved-from-obsolescence.html]http://www.nytimes.com/20…from-obsolescence.html[/link]
But the problem for the G.O.P. extends well beyond its flawed candidate and his flawed operation. The unnerving truth, which the Red Edge team and other younger conservatives worry that their leaders have yet to appreciate, is that the Republican Partys technological deficiencies barely begin to explain why the G.O.P. has lost the popular vote in five of the last six presidential elections. The party brand which is to say, its message and its messengers has become practically abhorrent to emerging demographic groups like Latinos and African-Americans, not to mention an entire generation of young voters. As one of the partys most highly respected strategists told me: It ought to concern people that the most Republican part of the electorate under Ronald Reagan were 18-to-29-year-olds. And today, people I know who are under 40 are embarrassed to say theyre Republicans. Theyre embarrassed! They get harassed for it, the same way we used to give liberals a hard time.
About an hour into the session, Anderson walked up to a whiteboard and took out a magic marker. Im going to write down a word, and you guys free-associate with whatever comes to mind, she said. The first word she wrote was Democrat.
Young people, one woman called out.
Liberal, another said. Followed by: Diverse. Bill Clinton.Change.Open-minded.Spending.Handouts.Green.More science-based.
When Anderson then wrote Republican, the outburst was immediate and vehement: Corporate greed.Old.Middle-aged white men. Rich. Religious. Conservative. Hypocritical. Military retirees. Narrow-minded. Rigid. Not progressive. Polarizing. Stuck in their ways. Farmers.
The session with the young men was equally jarring. None of them expressed great enthusiasm for Obama. But their depiction of Republicans was even more lacerating than the womens had been. Racist, out of touch and hateful made the list and put 1950s on there too! one called out.
And to add to the mix, a republican wants to outlaw through a Class H felony, the public exposure of the female breast and nipple and any part of the areola. If you must show those things, please cover them with duct tape.
Beware! Breast feeding in public is a felony! Please hide when you do disgusting things like feeding your child. Oh, ‘scuse, there’s an exception. So tell the judge you were preparing to breastfeed.
Why is strident insanity such a part of the GOP? Taliban Republicans.
[link=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/15/rep-rayne-brown-north-carolina-introduces-bill-criminalizing-nipple-exposure_n_2695720.html]http://www.huffingtonpost…xposure_n_2695720.html[/link]
-
[link=http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/rnc-report-growth-and-opportunity-88987.html]http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/rnc-report-growth-and-opportunity-88987.html[/link]
A the republican “autopsy” is out. Officially named the “RNC Growth And Opportunity Project Report”
The [link=http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/rnc-report-gop-scary-out-of-touch-88974.html]Republican National Committee (RNC) released[/link] its wide-ranging “autopsy” report on Monday, admitting some of its shortcomings after losing the 2012 presidential election.
Coined the [link=http://growthopp.gop.com/RNC_Growth_Opportunity_Book_2013.pdf]Growth and Opportunity Project[/link], the document includes market research from voter focus groups around the country.
“Asked to describe Republicans, they said that the Party is scary, narrow minded, and out of touch and that we were a Party of stuffy old men. This is consistent with the findings of other post-election surveys,” the report states.
Hours before the report was live, [link=http://www.mediaite.com/tv/gops-reince-priebus-we-have-done-a-lousy-job-of-branding-and-marketing-who-we-are/]RNC Chair Reince Priebus[/link] leveled about the GOP’s struggles in an interview on CBS’ “Face The Nation,” telling host Bob Schieffer that the party did a “lousy job” of marketing itself.
This is not short term view, Bob, I know everything isnt going to change in one year. If we dont start now were not going to have anymore success in four years, eight years, or twelve years, he said.-
It’s more than a god-damned marketing problem. These people really believe the crap they’re selling!
-
Apparently now it’s a conspiracy take-over effort by the Establishment Republicans, a con-job.
-
Quote from Frumious
It’s more than a god-damned marketing problem. These people really believe the crap they’re selling!
[b]QUESTION[/b]: What do politicians call it when they cover their horrible proposals in a thick smokescreen in an effort to make people think it’s something totally different than it really is?
[b]ANSWER[/b]: “Marketing”.
-
Quote from Frumious
It’s more than a god-damned marketing problem. These people really believe the crap they’re selling!
Following this sentiment, an opinion from NYT:
[link=http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/20/opinion/for-the-gop-its-not-just-the-message.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=0]http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/20/opinion/for-the-gop-its-not-just-the-message.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=0[/link]
This [the autopsy] is an encouragingly candid self-assessment on the part of Republican leaders and could be the beginning of the partys return to the mainstream. Unfortunately, the report seems overly focused on the mechanics of how Republicans should focus their message, conveniently ignoring what that message should be. And for years, the partys message has been the opposite of inclusion, driving away the very voters the report seeks to attract.
The report, for example, says that Republicans have a lot in common with African-Americans, and should hire more black communications directors and make more of an effort to draw black voters. It doesnt mention, however, that Republican lawmakers across the country have avidly passed laws that make it harder for blacks and other minorities to vote, as part of an effort to reduce the turnout of Democrats. Repudiating these measures should be high on the list of any party that claims to be interested in outreach to minorities.
It talks about developing a forward-leaning vision for voting Republican that appeals to women, without ever using the words abortion or birth control or even hinting that the partys policies on these issues have repelled women by the millions.
Most significant, the report shows no recognition that the Republican goals of shrinking government and lowering taxes for the rich which have turned particularly malicious during the Tea Party era have proved brutally unpopular at a time when the recession left more people in need of government assistance than ever. The partys job, it says, is to champion private growth so people will not turn to the government in the first place, but the party has never been able to demonstrate how its trickle-down agenda of cutting budgets and taxes, embodied by the new Paul Ryan House budget, would do that.
The report should be commended for urging more tolerant policies on immigration and gay issues (though it is hardly specific). But the party will have to move much farther from its extremist tendencies if it hopes to expand its appeal in the long term.-
[link=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/20/reince-priebus-gay-marriage_n_2915998.html]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/20/reince-priebus-gay-marriage_n_2915998.html[/link]
The headline says it all:
[b]CPAC 2013: Rand Paul, Reince Priebus Signal Libertarian Revolution Within[/b]
From a [link=http://cei.org/news-releases/cei-cpac-rainbow-right]gay rights panel[/link] hosted by a libertarian think tank called the Competitive Enterprise Institute to appearances by the founder of [link=http://studentsforliberty.org/]Students for Liberty[/link] (Alexander McCobin) and the executive director of [link=http://www.yaliberty.org/]Young Americans for Liberty[/link] (Jeff Frazee), CPAC embraced freedom in many ways.
Rand Paul then spoke on the future of the Republican Party and stated that The FaceBook generation are the core of the leave me alone coalition.They arent afraid of individual liberty. He went on to say that The new GOP, the GOP that will win again, will need to embrace liberty in both the economic and personal sphere.
The conservative attendees of CPAC cheered these libertarian comments with enthusiasm as Paul went on to exclaim that, If we are going to have a Republican Party that can win, liberty needs to be the backbone of the GOP.
And almost immediately backpedalling, Priebus reaffirmed that the GOP is solid on the platform plank that marriage is between one man and one woman today.-
Quote from dergon
And almost immediately backpedalling, Priebus reaffirmed that the GOP is solid on the platform plank that marriage is between one man and one woman today.
Big deal. There is room to maneuver here. The republicans can take a states’ rights stance or even announce support for “civil unions”.
-
Quote from billainsworth
Quote from dergon
And almost immediately backpedalling, Priebus reaffirmed that the GOP is solid on the platform plank that marriage is between one man and one woman today.
Big deal. There is room to maneuver here. The republicans can take a states’ rights stance or even announce support for “civil unions”.
If the GOP moves in favor of civil unions I would consider that to be a rather dramatic shift leftward in policy. Hells, that is still the position of most democrats, of Obama until a year ago, and Hillary Clinton until 72 hours ago.-
Quote from dergon
If the GOP moves in favor of civil unions I would consider that to be a rather dramatic shift leftward in policy. Hells, that is still the position of most democrats, of Obama until a year ago, and Hillary Clinton until 72 hours ago.
Why is it that when the democrats flip-flop it’s normal “evolution” but when the republicans change, it’s clear evidence of hypocrisy????
-
Quote from billainsworth
Why is it that when the democrats flip-flop it’s normal “evolution” but when the republicans change, it’s clear evidence of hypocrisy????
That’s just a ridiculous statement. By the GOP’s own words, they’re not interesteed in “evolving” anything but their spin, which CPAC fondly referred to as “marketing”. But I dare you to cite any change in GOP strategy that represents a true evolution in ideology, at least in the past 4 years.
-
Quote from Lux
Quote from billainsworth
Why is it that when the democrats flip-flop it’s normal “evolution” but when the republicans change, it’s clear evidence of hypocrisy????
That’s just a ridiculous statement. By the GOP’s own words, they’re not interesteed in “evolving” anything but their spin, which CPAC fondly referred to as “marketing”. But I dare you to cite any change in GOP strategy that represents a true evolution in ideology, at least in the past 4 years.
You missed the filibuster? The young gun ideologues are usurping the “moss covered” republicans of yore.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Quote from dergon
[link=http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/rnc-report-growth-and-opportunity-88987.html]http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/rnc-report-growth-and-opportunity-88987.html[/link]
A the republican “autopsy” is out. Officially named the “RNC Growth And Opportunity Project Report”
The [link=http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/rnc-report-gop-scary-out-of-touch-88974.html]Republican National Committee (RNC) released[/link] its wide-ranging “autopsy” report on Monday, admitting some of its shortcomings after losing the 2012 presidential election.
Coined the [link=http://growthopp.gop.com/RNC_Growth_Opportunity_Book_2013.pdf]Growth and Opportunity Project[/link], the document includes market research from voter focus groups around the country.
“Asked to describe Republicans, they said that the Party is scary, narrow minded, and out of touch and that we were a Party of stuffy old men. This is consistent with the findings of other post-election surveys,” the report states.
Hours before the report was live, [link=http://www.mediaite.com/tv/gops-reince-priebus-we-have-done-a-lousy-job-of-branding-and-marketing-who-we-are/]RNC Chair Reince Priebus[/link] leveled about the GOP’s struggles in an interview on CBS’ “Face The Nation,” telling host Bob Schieffer that the party did a “lousy job” of marketing itself.
This is not short term view, Bob, I know everything isnt going to change in one year. If we dont start now were not going to have anymore success in four years, eight years, or twelve years, he said.[link=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/16/david-keene-cpac-speech-2013_n_2864889.html?utm_hp_ref=politics]http://www.huffingtonpost…ml?utm_hp_ref=politics[/link]
[link=http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50142985n&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CBSNewsGamecore+%28GameCore%3A+CBSnews.com%29]http://www.cbsnews.com/vi…Core%3A+CBSnews.com%29[/link]
David Keene, a senior fellow of the entire modern conservative movement, pretty much reiterated what I had posted last week about various GOP intra-party divisions and how they were resolved in the long-term. He talked in particular about Sen. Goldwater in 1964 and how he was viewed as ‘an extremist’. Now four decades later, Barry Goldwater’s hyper-vigilent defense of US interests are pretty much standard operating procedure of any administration, including the Obama administration usage of drones. For those who let flow useless diarrhea about extremism in CPAC is doing as much out of sore losers rhetoric and not based in any facts or independent judgement of whats transpired since the Great Society.
While on the topic of intra-party divisions, the democrats wrote the book on modern party divisions and backstabbing to their own members. Democrats had huge majorities in the 1960s-1970s. Yet as seen on the streets of Chicago in 1968 and continuing through the 2008 nomination process, there has always been a division between hawks vs. non-aggressors/ pacifists. The 1968 democrat convention split has in fact never gone away. There have been divisions over the speed and breath of change of liberal social issues embraced by democrats, which led to working class , catholics and poor southern protestants, to flee the democrats in large numbers by the early 1980s.
In 1980, intraparty personal backstabbing was on the agenda, as an incumbent president was impudently undermined by a flawed Kennedy’s hierarchical desires. This directly led to the unimaginable to dem insiders, conservative darling Ronald Reagan becoming President. A year earlier, Carter’s SALT II treaty was defeated in party by conservative democrats, which lead to Carter looking weak on foreign policy. In the 1980s, the democrats could not coalesce to prevent Reagan’s agenda of lower taxes, and more economic liberty in markets. This was partly because powerful figures like Robert Byrd and John Murtha had their hands in the every kickback scheme imaginable that they could be counted on for delaying and dismissing social democratic agenda for pet projects.
In the 1990s, a figure of the counter-culture was elected as President. However his aspirations for govt take-over of healthcare was undermined by moderates dems like Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan. DPM stated bluntly that “there is no health crisis’ and “anyone who thinks it (Hillarycare) can work in the real world as presently written isn’t living in it.” Meanwhile other Democrats, instead of uniting behind the President’s original proposal, offered a number of competing plans of their own. Of course, there was always a faction of libs fought for a flighty and never to be obtained single-payer system. Then came the then historic defeats of dems in 1994. Bill Clinton turned on his own democratic base by dressing up as a moderate republican to gain as much personal political capital and personal popularity as possible. By doing such, he signed trade agreements which ravaged whatever was left of the private union movement who supply money and very loyal votes to the dem base. He also introduced workfare to the dismay of inner city politicians and liberated the banks to a degree that even ex-Reaganites challenged. Bill Clinton did all this by making it seem like the republicans were the big bad bogyman that first and foremost he had to outflank or any democratic agenda would be killed. But if you think about it, it was the liberal dems who were rolled by Clinton, bigggg time.
Leaping forward to Obama first term and the 111th Congress (yuck), a liberal democrat has to be honest about who thwarted the liberal agenda. A strong public option was not included in Obamacare. Why? Ask a bunch of midwest democrat senators who would have never voted for it (Nelson, Lincoln, etc) and then the second tier of moderate democrats like Nelson in Fl, Landreau, McKaskill, Dorgan, Max Baucus who would have been right there to block it, even if Scott Brown wasnt elected in Massachusetts. And Brown’s election itself, in a highly blue state, is pretty much symbolic of the divide in the democratic party between moderates and liberals who could not stop the obvious tipping point for the dilution of Obamacare. As a result, obamacare turned into a scattered mess of a diffuse and fairly uninterpretable law that has many weak links that makes in not universally applicable. The same can be said about banking reform and other democrat led intuitive including the return socialist-like high tax rates.
So, in other words, dont get so giddy as a liberal about a few tough/terse words between republicans or Ann Coulter jokes about Gov. Christie. They’re pretty much used to being lightening rods as conservatives. There has always been philosophical division within and between members of the republican party-conservative movement and there will always be. But democrats real and lasting divisions have kept liberals firmly from achieving even 10-20% of their much desired agenda, which they take much more personally.
-
I think we democrats just *assume* our party will be divided with its head up its own a$$ most of the time. That’s the price paid for a big tent.
Finally seeing the same chaos out of the GOP after three decades of nearly lockstep party unity is a refreshing change of pace. 🙂
-
Quote from dergon
I think we democrats just *assume* our party will be divided with its head up its own a$$ most of the time. That’s the price paid for a big tent.
Finally seeing the same chaos out of the GOP after three decades of nearly lockstep party unity is a refreshing change of pace. 🙂
You libs thrive on chaos, don’t you? A divided country is your dream sandbox. That “big tent” looks more like a circus tent to me – full of clowns – biden and the obummer.
-
Quote from Point Man
…A divided country is your dream sandbox. That “big tent” looks more like a circus tent to me – full of clowns…
Were you looking in the mirror when you wrote that or what? Because it sounds like the conclusion at CPAC about the GOP.
-
-
Quote from dergon
I think we democrats just *assume* our party will be divided with its head up its own a$$ most of the time. That’s the price paid for a big tent.
Finally seeing the same chaos out of the GOP after three decades of nearly lockstep party unity is a refreshing change of pace. 🙂
You are right about this type of open ‘insurrection’ or discussion has seldom been seen with the GOP. The GOP has always had a top-down organization with command-control over the bottom. The code for it was ‘herding the cats”. George Clooney, yes the actor, had the best analysis about this when he analogized the republican party resembling the mafia in this regard. Think of Trent Lott. One day senate leader of the party, one inappropriate comment (The Strom Thurmann celebration), and boom he’s done for and quickly. When Newt got into hot water, instead of circling the wagons to protect him, he was told to leave for Fox.
But now times are a changing, thanks to the force of the libertarians and the tea party. Mitch McConnell wanted to perform a crib death on young Dr. Rand Paul’s burgeoning political aspiration-but couldnt. The republican party knows it needs the energy of the libertarians, and vice versa. So Rand is making noise to step into leadership being that nobody is there to stop him from ascending from low-end capo to higher escutcheons. However, when the old guard produces candidates of ascendency rather than of political ground-swell (like the ground swell that carried Obama over Clinton) such as the GHWB, Dole, McCain, and after indecision, Romney. I tend to think this new open trend is going to be good for the GOP being that there are a lot of republican govs besides Sen. Rubio and perhaps Paul, who make the GOP bench fairly young, ambitious and deep. This is in contrast to the establishment figure of Jeb Bush seeking to be anointed as the smarter progeny. IMHO, in this new guard of republican leaders, a candidate or two will sweep to power and defeat the democrat to become president. Unfortunately, that means at times hearing out some screaming banshees like Bachmann and Palin (not to be sexist here) which makes the sober GOP less dignified than it should be. The democrats are going to have to fill a “vision’ and ‘inspiration’ void from obama, the same void that followed successive GOP candidates following Reagan. Hillary Clinton is not going to fill that personality void and it is questionable if she can put together such a strong showing from the base, although admittedly the female electorate should make up for that void.
-
-
-
-
