The more knee-jerk partisan side o' me crows, of course. One step closer to a philibuster-proof 60...
...With all the one-party excesses that may entail, murmurs another...
And a third says, isn't this a bad sign for bipartisanship? That one of the most veteran senators feels that there's no more room for moderation in his party, and/or no ability for members of the minority to be heard and achieve workable comproise?
I haven't seen any topics on this subject yet, let me know if I missed one.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
This sucks on so many levels. 538 wrote a very good analysis -- basically, it's good for Specter, bad for the Democrats, and terrible for the Republicans.
Specter was going to lose in 2010, but now -- assuming the Democrats don't have the balls to replace him, which is typical -- he'll stay and be a worthless Lieberman-esque milquetoast. We could've had a genuine progressive there instead.
But yeah, Specter's defection is representative of the fact that the Republican party is quickly losing whatever moderates were dumb enough to stick with them through the 1990's. Palin 2012.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"One step closer to a philibuster-proof 60"
Unlike the Republicans, the Democrats are not an organised political party. After the 1936Elections, Senate Democrats held a 76to17 majority over Republicans.....plus one former Republican who had declared himself Independent. And still didn't have a filibuster-proof majority cuz of Democrats crossing over to vote with the Republicans.
I wouldn't bet on the Democrats cloturing a filibuster on any politically controversial bill or appointment that didn't have 60-or-more Senators supporting it before the filibuster began.
[ April 28, 2009, 07:35 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by nik (Member # 2114) on :
Thats because time and time again shows the Democratic party to be much more diverse then the Republican party. People are so afraid of democratic party majority. I really don't get it. The democratic party is not wielding a rubber stamp by *any* sense of the term.
Like many examples in the history of politcal parties in the United States, parties die out and new parties spring up. I suspect that in our lifetime, the Republican party will disappear and the democratic party will split up into what we now know as the "conservative liberals" and the "progressive liberals".
What we know today as "liberal" will slowly become "moderate" as the US population continues to become more liberal.
Not that I have a problem with conservative ways of thinking (in terms of fiscal responsibility), but I think it's clear that much of America is tired of the fundamentalist ideologies and intolerances that are commonly associated with the R. Party.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't think this is automatically bad for Democrats. Replacing Specter has nothing to do with whether or not the Democrats have balls, which is good, because I don't really think they do when it comes to stuff like this. Whether he stays on or not, and I think Toomey will lose almost regardless, will depend on who the Democratic nominee is. We won't know until November when we see who his primary challengers will be, and Specter will have to run as a recently changed long-standing Republican who switched parties for personal gain against established Democrats at a time when Democratic popularity is in ascendancy. His reelection is nowhere near assured, he's just priming the engine.
Also, as far as filibusters go, this is meaningless. Cloture breaking votes are ad hoc alliances that are determined more by state or region, not by straight line party votes.
The Republicans aren't going to die out as a party, but this will be a pretty decent publicity nightmare for them for awhile. So much depends on what happens with the economy as far as the midterms go, but as of now, this announcement is about jawboning and morale, not anything concrete.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Republicans have positioned themselves more and more as the party of the white, rich, old people. So demographics are changing now. The white, rich, old people are becoming a minority. Rather than become more mainstream, it seems that Republicans become ever more stridently extreme year by year. So it doesn't surprise me that moderates are leaving them and crossing over to the Dems. I mean, just listen to Fox News and Rush Limbaugh! Who wants to be like that?
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
I enjoyed the part of his press conference where he was going off on the republicans asking where they were when moderate republicans needed support. And it was a really valid point. By leaving moderate republicans out to dry and backing mostly right wing conservatives, those on the far right would win the primaries, but lose to democrats in the general, where they may have had a better chance had the moderate won the primary.
I don't doubt that Specter was doing this for his own reasons, but he wasn't trying to hide this fact at all. He said straight out that his chances of winning a republican primary were slim, and yet his chances of winning a general election are good. And that he doesn't want to bear the brunt of a republican party shifting to the right. And while I was upset with him over the Employee free choice act, he does have a pretty moderate voting record. It's a very real problem for him, all the moderate republicans who might've voted for him in the primary jumped ship to the democratic party last year.
if anything, this whole thing just goes to show for me how silly the whole two party system is, when someone can one day step over the smallest of lines and suddenly be "the other side".
Posted by nik (Member # 2114) on :
. I think I just made a new friend in Tatiana.
Strider, we never supposed to be a party system. Geroge Washington himself warned of the danger of political parties, and how they would turn the government from a group of people interested in their nation's future to a rabbling mob of power hungry professional politicians.
quote:The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
you're preaching to the choir, i'm a registered independent for these very reasons. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The idea that we were never going to have parties was pretty naive given the factions that already existed when the Constitution went into force.
They were, perhaps idealistically, fooling themselves.
Posted by Mr.Gumby (Member # 6303) on :
Hey, my history teacher just told us about this change of parties. He straight out told us that politicians are whores. They'll do anything to get elected.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I'm in the "This Screws The Republicans" camp but I'm a little more optimistic about what this entails for democratic interests and progressive agendas.
First: the big news this week is going to be that the GOP ceded supermajority through defection. It's the worst kind of bad news piled on top of other bad news for the conservatives and it entails more actionable (as in, 'can be spun good, at least') news for an Obama administration that is seeing an overall increase in support and power.
Second: Spectre is seen primarily as being a 'middle road' sort of a moderate. Now that he's switched, the GOP is going to react vociferously in a way that calcifies their less-electable extremism. Right now, the right wing blogs are going pretty much nuts shouting down Spectre as a traitor and a worthless and/or spineless moderate and/or appeaser and how they don't really need that 'scum' in their party anyway.
This is the inverse of the 'big tent' strategy that served the GOP throughout its history.
They're reacting to their losses by entrenching hostility to moderacy and the moderates.
What they are doing to themselves is terrible.
Think about it. If you are a moderate party-member in a moderate state, the last thing your party wants to do is offer you less support because you are not towing a party line. This is why the GOP is falling.
Paul Krugman's words about the Republican death spiral — "the smaller it gets, the more it's dominated by the hard right, which makes it even smaller" perfectly encapsulates the serious vicious cycle they face, which is compounded by the fact that the people making this party change happen either can not or do not want to realize why this pushes the party further away from electability.
Third: The republicans were boned in Specter's joint whether or not there was a politically expedient defection. In Spectre's PA realm, any sapient democrat will win against the republican contender. The group in the "We could take it or leave it" category are the Democrats, in terms of political control. But they'll happily take it, seeing as this event is another black eye stacked on top of a GOP that is doing remarkably poorly.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: That one of the most veteran senators feels that there's no more room for moderation in his party, and/or no ability for members of the minority to be heard and achieve workable comproise?
Note that he ain't the only one, and that this event has already inspired the GOP to react in a way that further erodes their support and their capacity to attract moderates.
quote:Two leading Republicans say Sen. Arlen Specter's decision to become a Democrat highlights the hostility moderates feel from an increasingly conservative GOP.
“You haven't certainly heard warm encouraging words about how [the GOP] views moderates,” said Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe, one of the few remaining moderate Republicans in the Senate.
Snowe said the party's message has been, “Either you're with us or you’re against us.”
..
"I don't want to be a member of the Club for Growth,” said Graham. “I want to be a member of a vibrant national Republican party that can attract people from all corners of the country — and we can govern the country from a center-right perspective.”
“As Republicans, we got a problem,” he said.
The internal criticism came less than an hour before Specter walked into the Republicans' weekly Senate luncheon, where members discuss strategy, policy and other key items on the party agenda.
Snowe criticized party leadership for failing to change its tone after Republicans lost six Senate seats in the 2006 election.
“I happened to win with 74 percent of the vote in a blue-collar state, but no one asked me, 'How did you do it?'” she said. “Seems to me that would have been the first question that would have come from the Republican Party to find out so we could avoid further losses."
“Ultimately, we're heading to having the smallest political tent in history, the way things are unfolding,” Snowe said.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'd love to see specific comments from Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins from Maine on this. Considering they're virtually in the same boat as far as political alignment and voting record, I'm curious to see how they react, and I'd love to sit down with them and ask them questions about their own place in the party.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
I didn't expect Specter's defection. That said, I'm not surprised.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'd love to see specific comments from Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins from Maine on this. Considering they're virtually in the same boat as far as political alignment and voting record, I'm curious to see how they react, and I'd love to sit down with them and ask them questions about their own place in the party.
I don't think they'd really comment on it. Afterall, they can just say that they represent the great state of Maine, Specter represents Pennsylvania and therefore is an issue between him and his constituents. Also, Maine is an 'edgy' state in that they're fairly independent and proud of it. I wouldn't be surprised if they take their moderate Republican senators with pride. I haven't seen any polling on Snowe and Collins' popularity, but I imagine they're pretty safe avoiding this issue.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
And I think Vadon is right. Snowe and Collins are safe, electorally; Specter recently polled at more than 20 points down against a more conservative Republican opponent. He probably wouldn't have survived the primary. This is the only way he keeps his seat.
--j_k
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'd love to see specific comments from Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins from Maine on this. Considering they're virtually in the same boat as far as political alignment and voting record, I'm curious to see how they react, and I'd love to sit down with them and ask them questions about their own place in the party.
Here you go, Sen. Collins on Arlen Spector:
quote:"I have great respect for Senator Specter who has worked hard for many years on behalf of the people of Pennsylvania.
"I am, however, extremely surprised and disappointed with his decision to leave the Republican party.
"Senator Specter has long been a leading moderate voice in the Senate, and I believe that his decision is more a reflection of Pennsylvania politics than anything else."
She is taking the party line at this point, while it seems Snowe is going the other direction.
If either one of them were to defect from the Republican Party, it would be Snowe and not Collins, but I don't think either will ever do it. Maine is fairly independent, they have at least 3 members of the Green Party and at least 3 independents in the state legislature, a Democratic Gov., and 2 moderate Republican Senators, and so many differing views are represented in Maine Politics. Plus, neither is up for re-election until 2012 (Collins) and 2014 (Snowe), so they can continue to do what they have been doing.
What I think is interesting is whether this will change how the Republicans deal with Snowe and Collins in Maine. Michael Steele has intimated that there would be retribution for their stimulus bill votes, but I wonder if that will change now that Sen. Specter has changed parties. The extreme elements of the Republican Party are hurting the party, but they are also hurting America. I think the solution to this has to be a strong Republican party that can temper it's own extremist elements because I think the country needs two strong and intelligent parties.
It's the same strategy we have to have for Islamic extremists and terrorists, we have to appeal to the moderate forces of the region and allow them to temper the voices of the extremists that give them bad names. Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh cannot be the voices of the Republican Party, at least if they want to help America and win a national election, and in that sense, they only have themselves to blame. They must stand up or the extremists will run them over.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I didn't mean to suggest that either Snowe or Collins were in any trouble as far as reelection goes. They're wildly popular in Maine, despite the fact that the state is trending Democrat more and more, and that's a testament to both their connection to their constituents, and to their being centrists in a truer sense of the word. I just wanted to know what someone from the center had to say about this, someone who wouldn't say "good riddance!" but who would really understand his position and them comment on it.
But I ventured my musing because this is exactly what I wanted to see come out of her mouth:
quote:From Olympia Snowe: It is true that being a Republican moderate sometimes feels like being a cast member of “Survivor” — you are presented with multiple challenges, and you often get the distinct feeling that you’re no longer welcome in the tribe. But it is truly a dangerous signal that a Republican senator of nearly three decades no longer felt able to remain in the party.
and this:
quote:There is no plausible scenario under which Republicans can grow into a majority while shrinking our ideological confines and continuing to retract into a regional party. Ideological purity is not the ticket back to the promised land of governing majorities — indeed, it was when we began to emphasize social issues to the detriment of some of our basic tenets as a party that we encountered an electoral backlash.
Someone had to say it out loud, and I think it was most likely to come from one of those two, because she isn't talking about Specter, she's talking about herself and her fellow Senator from Maine. If the Republicans have learned even half of what they should have from last November, they'll pay really close attention to what she's saying there, but part of me feels, especially after putting Steele in charge of the RNC (which is the goofiest publicity stunt I've ever seen since the guy has been a gaffe machine), that they haven't learned a thing, and that Specter is only going to push them further into entrenchment rather than force a real crisis of confidence and introspective self-analysis.
Rush Limbaugh's "good riddance" approach is the absolute worst stance the GOP could take right now, but it remains to be seen how they'll handle it.
What sort of retribution can Steele possibly threaten Snowe and Collins with? Especially with Specter gone, those two have even more power now than they had before. They're lynch pins that Steele can't possibly afford to alienate, for while I don't really see the danger of them switching parties, not with their local political situations, pissing them off isn't going to help Steele at all. When you're down as many votes as the Republicans are, rallying the troops is too important to start pushing people even further to the outskirts.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:What sort of retribution can Steele possibly threaten Snowe and Collins with? Especially with Specter gone, those two have even more power now than they had before. They're lynch pins that Steele can't possibly afford to alienate, for while I don't really see the danger of them switching parties, not with their local political situations, pissing them off isn't going to help Steele at all. When you're down as many votes as the Republicans are, rallying the troops is too important to start pushing people even further to the outskirts.
Yeah, placing Steele in charge just showed a lack of ideas and leadership on the part of the Republicans. But look at what they were going to do with Specter, they were going to run a Conservative Republican against him that would have been destroyed by a Democrat with a pulse in Pennsylvania and the seat would have been lost by both Specter and the Republicans. I don't think the Republicans care at this point whether they can win general elections or whether they will be severely weakened or whether they can rally the troops, they are more intent on purifying their party of any moderate elements.
Besides, I think that the hard-core elements of the Republican Party believe that they *can* win general elections and build majorities by becoming more conservative and more exclusive. Politicians like Sarah Palin, Bobby Jindal, and Gov. Sanford are seen as the future of the Republican Party, whereas moderates like Charlie Crist, Colin Powell, and others are seen to be weak and out of touch. All of which means that I could see scenarios where Steele and other conservative groups attack Sens. Collins and Snowe in an attempt to defeat them, and I don't think it matters what the electorate looks like or what the reality of the situation is at the time.
You know what's sad? The litmus test for the Republican party won't be anything about policy or governance, it will be whether someone in the party can stand up and claim that Rush Limbaugh is not it's leader. And then not apologize for it the next day...
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Michael Steele:
quote: "We are cooling. We are not warming. The warming you see out there, the supposed warming, and I use my fingers as quotation marks, is part of the cooling process. Greenland, which is covered in ice, it was once called Greenland for a reason, right?"
I think when it comes to little tidbits like this, I'm either shocked at how stupid the person sounds, or offended at how stupid the person speaking expects the listeners to be. Only a very stupid, or a very cocky person would choose to say something like this.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Wow, he doesn't know Greenland was named that as a bit of propaganda to try to get people to go there?
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
...wow.
Are there any Republicans left on Hatrack, or has everyone left the party?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Wow, he doesn't know Greenland was named that as a bit of propaganda to try to get people to go there?
Not to mention that Greenland does have a sizable portion of arable land on it- even if it is mostly not inhabitable.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Paul Krugman's words about the Republican death spiral — "the smaller it gets, the more it's dominated by the hard right, which makes it even smaller" perfectly encapsulates the serious vicious cycle they face, which is compounded by the fact that the people making this party change happen either can not or do not want to realize why this pushes the party further away from electability.
Part of the trouble is the influence that conservative talk radio and Fox News have. By distorting the facts into an alternate reality, conservative media leaves the impression that this is all inevitably going to be good for the party, that there's a conservative revolution waiting to happen once all the moderates get pushed out. Just look at the "tea party" coverage.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Specter left because he knows he cannot win reelection. He cannot beat a Republican challenger like Toomey so he jumped ship to hopefully stay in office. This is just about a politician clinging to his power and not about a moderate being forced to out of the Republican party. I know his office was flooded with calls and emails about not voting for the stimulus package and he did anyway. His email response was basically I will do whatever I think is best and not what my voters feel is best.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Part of the trouble is the influence that conservative talk radio and Fox News have. By distorting the facts into an alternate reality, conservative media leaves the impression that this is all inevitably going to be good for the party, that there's a conservative revolution waiting to happen once all the moderates get pushed out. Just look at the "tea party" coverage.
The same can be said for CNN, NBC, CBS, and other news outlets that are spinning all of the stories in the opposite direction.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:The same can be said for CNN, NBC, CBS, and other news outlets that are spinning all of the stories in the opposite direction.
Not really. Despite what Rush might say, those networks don't spin things remotely as much as conservative radio or Fox News does. There are a few shows like Obermann that do, but I don't think they wield nearly as much influence.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:...With all the one-party excesses that may entail, murmurs another...
Yeah, when Canada has a majority government it's all we can do to stop Hitler taking over.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: You know what's sad? The litmus test for the Republican party won't be anything about policy or governance, it will be whether someone in the party can stand up and claim that Rush Limbaugh is not it's leader. And then not apologize for it the next day...
Except that isn't what happened and is completely false. Specter switching parties proves it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote: You know what's sad? The litmus test for the Republican party won't be anything about policy or governance, it will be whether someone in the party can stand up and claim that Rush Limbaugh is not it's leader. And then not apologize for it the next day...
Except that isn't what happened and is completely false. Specter switching parties proves it.
Proves what?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Chicken butt.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote: Part of the trouble is the influence that conservative talk radio and Fox News have. By distorting the facts into an alternate reality, conservative media leaves the impression that this is all inevitably going to be good for the party, that there's a conservative revolution waiting to happen once all the moderates get pushed out. Just look at the "tea party" coverage.
The same can be said for CNN, NBC, CBS, and other news outlets that are spinning all of the stories in the opposite direction.
The same can be said, but the same is not necessarily true. I'm pretty independent politically, but it's not at all hard for me to see that the networks you named are not nearly as biased or tailored to a specific view as Fox is. Hell, Jon Stewart shows less hardcore political bias than fox news, and he does it while hosting a decidedly liberal program. By "hardcore" bias, I mean to say that Fox news continually pretends to be reporting the news, while they are in fact towing various corporate and party lines, while Stewart makes no claim to objectivity, but nevertheless refuses to tow party lines- the bias is at the foundation of what Fox does, while fairness and honesty are at the foundation of Stewart's show. The main problem I see with the Republican party in the media is that it has been bought up and junked together like a frankenstein creation of mass marketing. The non-republican dominated media, or the rest of the media, is diverse and competitive, while Republican dominated media interests are conglomerated into media empires with Rush Limbaugh on 600 stations whether he is listened to or not.
Rush can claim he is the number one most listened to radio host in America and be right, except he won't tell you he is the most widely broadcast, and that in his tenure as a media figure, the radio business has suffered fatal losses in all the markets he controls. So I feel as if the Republican party is constantly thinking that way, putting one message on the air, one voice, as Clearchannel did with Rush, then looking at the numbers and going "awesome!" Except it never occured to them that the radio markets they were serving were drying up, even as the numbers *appeared* to be good. It's not impressive that a million or ten million people listen to Rush in 600 markets, if 50 million together used to listen to all the other personalities that used to be represented where Rush now sits. And that's more or less the story- I'll be quite surprised if radio can afford Limbaugh for his next contract, and in fact I'm fairly sure he'll take a massive pay-cut just to keep himself on the air.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Chicken butt.
But why?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Up until recently, I used to be a registered Republican, and one in Pennsylvania too. One aspect of this story that I haven't seen touched on here is that this is not an isolated trend. The Republicans have been hemorrhaging voters in PA since at least 2006. I think the number I saw was over 300,000 have switched their political party away from the GOP during that time, most of whom went to the Democrats. There was definitely a shift to get in on the Democratic primaries of 2008, but that is far from the whole story. And I'm willing to bet that most of those people were Arlen Specter voters.
For myself, I was a registered Republican because, as I see it, the party was split between different influences, some of which I think are very valuable, some of which I think are misguided, and some of which I think are a disgrace. I registered Republican to try to do my bit to influence the party towards the good stuff and away from the bad stuff. But the 2000s have been one long stretch of the GOP abandoning and often spitting on the things I thought were good about their platform while playing to the some of the very worst elements.
At this point, unless they pull a 180 (or the much more likely Democrats really, really screwing themselves) I think they are committed to becoming a regional party that caters almost exclusively to people who live in Limbaughland. Even if I felt like I could have some slight influence, why should I bother. The bad people are marginalizing themselves without any help from me.
[ April 29, 2009, 11:23 AM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: I registered Republican to try to do my bit to influence the party towards the good stuff and away from the bad stuff.
What is the good stuff and what is the bad stuff?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Joining the majority party makes it possible for you to have more power on Senate and House Committees, such as being named chairman.
Rush "Red Herring" Limbaugh is in no way representative of the Republican party. He isn't a politician, for one thing. Is the New York Times (which is now in crisis mode because of declining readership) representative of Democrats?
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Proves what?
It proves that
quote: The litmus test for the Republican party won't be anything about policy or governance, it will be whether someone in the party can stand up and claim that Rush Limbaugh is not it's leader. And then not apologize for it the next day...
is false. Specter failed the litmus test for the Repulican party when he voted for the $3+trillion stimulus package.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Rush "Red Herring" Limbaugh is in no way representative of the Republican party.
I eagerly await the next Republican who dares to say so aloud and is then forced to apologize.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: I eagerly await the next Republican who dares to say so aloud and is then forced to apologize.
Rush Limbaugh has stated many many times that he does not represent the Republican party despite the left's attempts to paint him that way. Rush Limbaugh has always said he promotes the conservative viewpoint. So if a Republican said that Rush does not represent the Republican party, that he is not a Republican hack, but that he is a conservative and promotes a conservative point of view I would imagine Rush would loudly applaud.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: Specter left because he knows he cannot win reelection. He cannot beat a Republican challenger like Toomey so he jumped ship to hopefully stay in office. This is just about a politician clinging to his power and not about a moderate being forced to out of the Republican party.
The party leadership (and Steele in particular) had every opportunity to do what they normally do in these situations, which is to call Toomey and firmly tell him not to pursue the challenge. Instead, they all but endorsed Toomey outright. In American party politics, that is virtually the definition of "forcing someone out of the party." The Democrats did the exact same thing to Lieberman back in aught six, and nobody had the audacity then to claim that they were doing anything but primarying him out of the party.
quote:I know his office was flooded with calls and emails about not voting for the stimulus package and he did anyway. His email response was basically I will do whatever I think is best and not what my voters feel is best. [/QB]
Close, but not quite. His response was, "I will do whatever I think is best because my voters elected me to do so."
If Pennsylvanian voters are so disgusted with his vote on the stimulus, then they'll vote him out of office in the coming election. Sure, his fate will no longer depend upon the increasingly-marginal Republican minority in Pennsylvania, but he still has to deal with a Democratic primary and a general election.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
DarkKnight, you would much more credible on this subject if the proclamation-and-apology had not recently happened.
Rush Limbaugh is, God help us, so strong amongst Republicans - or is perceived as so strong, which amounts to the same thing - that the official leader of the party has to kowtow to him. In short order, no less.
Now, whatever you think about Rush Limbaugh, or the GOP, or its leadership, certain facts remain.
1. Steele hears Limbaugh referred to as the leader of the GOP in an interview. 2. Steele denies that, asserts his own leadership, and goes on to criticize Limbaugh as incendiary, ugly, and points out that he is 'just an entertainer'. 3. Right-wing gets super-pissed 4. Less than two days later, Steele apologizes.
All of those things happened, DarkKnight, as sure as God made little apples and the sky is blue. Frankly you're just making yourself look silly suggesting it didn't or things were somehow 'spun'.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
It's sort of funny that the consequence of this move is likely to be a more moderate Senate than if Sen Specter stayed a Republican. Pat Toomey would beat him handily in the primary, but would get crushed in the general. But Arlen Specter has a pretty good chance of winning the Democratic primary, taking the place of the likely more liberal candidate that the Dems would have run against Pat Toomey.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote: I eagerly await the next Republican who dares to say so aloud and is then forced to apologize.
Rush Limbaugh has stated many many times that he does not represent the Republican party despite the left's attempts to paint him that way. Rush Limbaugh has always said he promotes the conservative viewpoint. So if a Republican said that Rush does not represent the Republican party, that he is not a Republican hack, but that he is a conservative and promotes a conservative point of view I would imagine Rush would loudly applaud.
Of course he loudly proclaims that he isn't the voice of the Republican Party and that if he was, he would "fire himself." Rush's ambitions are not limited to that rabble of fools, he wants to be thought of as the, "voice of conservatism." He wants William F. Buckley's old position. It's why David Frum wrote a long piece for Newsweek about why Rush Limbaugh is terrible for modern conservatism. Call up Rush Limbaugh and call him the voice of the American conservatism and see if he rejects the title.
How can Rush be the voice of the Republican party, he isn't even an elected official? -----
I'm essentially like Mr. Squicky in that I used to be a registered Republican because I do think there are some important concepts in conservatism, but what I liked about the party was jettisoned when I came back to US in 2003. Until they get their platform wired tight and return to some actual principles I have no idea what I'm getting when I vote for one, and so my vote will never be theirs.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote: Proves what?
It proves that
quote: The litmus test for the Republican party won't be anything about policy or governance, it will be whether someone in the party can stand up and claim that Rush Limbaugh is not it's leader. And then not apologize for it the next day...
is false. Specter failed the litmus test for the Repulican party when he voted for the $3+trillion stimulus package.
I wasn't speaking about Specter, the litmus test for whether the Republican party can be a national party free of extremism is what I claim above. In other words, if the Republican wants to be useful and free of extremism, they have to exorcise Rush Limbaugh.
Ron Lambert:
quote: Rush "Red Herring" Limbaugh is in no way representative of the Republican party. He isn't a politician, for one thing. Is the New York Times (which is now in crisis mode because of declining readership) representative of Democrats?
See, I think this is absolutely true. So why don't you get the leaders of the party to say the same thing?
The problem is we have seen this type of party destruction before, when liberalism became too powerful in the democratic party in 1968 the Democratic Party suffered for over 20 years. It took many years for the Democrats to sleigh their demons and become a moderate party, and that's what I see happening with the Republican Party. In some sense, the tea bag protests mirror what happened to liberals and Democrats in Chicago in 1968, and if Republicans do not want to be lost in the wilderness for the next 20 years, then Republicans will stand up and defeat the extremism that is ruining both the party and the country.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I usually vote Republican, and my views tend toward the conservative. But I have never listened to a single broadcast by Rush Limbaugh. He is no leader of anything to me.
I voted for McCain, who is largely regarded as a moderate. Conservatives make up a large portion of the Republican party, but moderates are an even larger portion.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Now, whatever you think about Rush Limbaugh, or the GOP, or its leadership, certain facts remain.
1. Steele hears Limbaugh referred to as the leader of the GOP in an interview. 2. Steele denies that, asserts his own leadership, and goes on to criticize Limbaugh as incendiary, ugly, and points out that he is 'just an entertainer'. 3. Right-wing gets super-pissed 4. Less than two days later, Steele apologizes.
All of those things happened, DarkKnight, as sure as God made little apples and the sky is blue. Frankly you're just making yourself look silly suggesting it didn't or things were somehow 'spun'.
I think you are very mistaken here. The assertion was made by TomDavidson that Rush Limbaugh is a representative of the Republican party. If you carefully read your analysis you should be able to discern why people were upset at Steele's remarks. It was not that Steele said Rush is not the leader of the Republican party and that Steele is the leader. People, including Rush, were upset that the conservative viewpoint is incendiary, ugly, and disgusting. To say otherwise would swerve away from the left's mantra of Rush is just disgusting because he is a conservative and it is right and true to hate conservatives. They are all bigots anyway. DL Hughley said in the same interview that the Republican party literally looks like Nazi Germany but that isn't even worthy of a comment because Republicans all love Nazis. To make it more clear for you, your little apples, and the blue sky above. People were mad not because they think Rush is the leader of Republican party. People, including Rush, were mad that Steele sided with the inflammatory hate speech of Hughley instead of defending conversative ideals. I do understand you won't understand and that's fine.
quote: The party leadership (and Steele in particular) had every opportunity to do what they normally do in these situations, which is to call Toomey and firmly tell him not to pursue the challenge. Instead, they all but endorsed Toomey outright. In American party politics, that is virtually the definition of "forcing someone out of the party." The Democrats did the exact same thing to Lieberman back in aught six, and nobody had the audacity then to claim that they were doing anything but primarying him out of the party.
Was the news coverage the same for Lieberman as it is for Specter? Was it moderate Democrat Liberman sides with Bush? He was kicked out violently because you cannot go against the militant Democrat party. Specter could have gone independent like Liberman did but Specter switched parties because he knows he will not win an election as a Republican and will be soundly beaten as an Independant. He can only hope the Obama coattails can carry him along to possibly win the Democrat primary, and even that looks doubtful.
quote: I'm essentially like Mr. Squicky in that I used to be a registered Republican because I do think there are some important concepts in conservatism, but what I liked about the party was jettisoned when I came back to US in 2003. Until they get their platform wired tight and return to some actual principles I have no idea what I'm getting when I vote for one, and so my vote will never be theirs.
Such as? what was jettisoned and what needs to change about the platform for you to back a Republican? I keep hearing this but no one is being specific about what it is they want changed. I know I want Republicans to be more about smaller government, less taxes, much more fiscal discipline. They could back off of gay marriage as a wedge issue. Republicans should be out there speaking a much more clear point of view and pointing out the nightmare Obama is creating for the country.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Here is the real danger where Democrats are concerned. The majority of Republicans are moderates, while the majority of Democrats are liberal. Moderates among Democrats are treated with the disfavor of the party. Specter will probably be regarded as a moderate among Democrats, so he will not have much influence with them. Actually, I think it would be good for moderates to regain control of the Democratic party.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:To say otherwise would swerve away from the left's mantra of Rush is just disgusting because he is a conservative
Believe me, that is not why Rush is disgusting.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
Ron, the majority of Democrats are Moderate, including the majority of Democrats that participate in this forum. Not being able to recognize that invaladates your previous claim that you are a Moderate.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
It takes a special sort of person to respond to "300,000 PA Republicans switched to Democrats in the past 3 years" with "Democrats are not moderates."
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Besides, I think that the hard-core elements of the Republican Party believe that they *can* win general elections and build majorities by becoming more conservative and more exclusive. Politicians like Sarah Palin, Bobby Jindal, and Gov. Sanford are seen as the future of the Republican Party, whereas moderates like Charlie Crist, Colin Powell, and others are seen to be weak and out of touch. All of which means that I could see scenarios where Steele and other conservative groups attack Sens. Collins and Snowe in an attempt to defeat them, and I don't think it matters what the electorate looks like or what the reality of the situation is at the time.
Jindal isn't in the same camp as Palin. I'm not even sure Sanford is, but he's a LOT closer.
The future of the party is going to be a fight between Palin Republicans and Pawlenty Republicans. Pawlenty is more moderate, and at the very least, is a lot more inclusive in his language and is less fire breathing, like Charlie Crist and other moderates, but they aren't being touted by the party leadership right now, they're lying low, mostly because half of them want to run for president in three years. The soul of the party is going to be fought for in the next presidential election, when we see if Republican voters want a young moderate face like Pawlenty (or middle aged like Crist), or if they want to embrace Palin politics and go hard, hard right.
I think a lot of them realize this is coming.
I think a lot of them have no clue as to what's in store.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I don't see Gov Palin as the standard bearer for the hard right. She's more the leader of the "party of stupid" wing of the Republican party who are defined a lot more by what they are against and personal loyalty than what their principles are.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think she is, and I think the hard right and the "party of stupid" have a significant amount of overlap at the moment.
She's branded herself as the leader of the far right anti-gay pro-family (whatever the hell that means) bibles, bunting and apple pie "real America" Republican that make up the shock troops of the Republican party, and the troops are overwhelmingly responding to her. We saw it during the election when crowds came out to see her more than for McCain, who was relegated to side show attraction at combined campaign events, and we see it at the storm of overflowing events that she speaks at, and those events are far right issues.
If she isn't, who is? No one else is claiming the mantle, and no one else has the popularity she's attained from speaking to far right issues.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
"As long as you are constructively aganst, you don't have to be for anything" (Reed Benson)
Some things never change.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
The far right issues she represents and gets huge responses for are largely "anti-" issues or empty jingoism. I think that the hard right wing of the Republican party has more intellectual depth than Gov. Palin and her followers.
I'm not saying that there is a standard bearer for this group right now, but I think it is underestimating them to say that they are behind Gov Palin.
But, thinking about it, this might be due to differing definitions of who makes up the hard right. I mean, if you're talking about the Evangelical Christians, than, yeah, you're right, but for me, the Evangelical Christians, like say Ron, are primarily "party of the stupid" Republicans whereas a William Buckley would be what I would consider a hard right conservative.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think the Far Right, as the party exists currently and not 20 years ago, consists of those "anti" groups laced with jingoistic rhetoric. They don't get thousands of people fired up anymore talking about personal liberty and fiscal responsibility. They haven't been ruled by those people for a long time.
Frankly, at this point I'd call those conservatives moderates, compared to what the radicals of the party are espousing, they look downright tame. I think there are two parties in there. One of them really is about fiscal conservatism, personal freedoms and strong national defense, and then there's the party of personal control, that wants to tell you what you can and can't do, what religion and language we all have to be and speak, etc. I think that second group is the hard right, and I think they're an awful lot louder than the other group, and I think Palin is their standard bearer.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
I've read somewhere that there are three wings of the Republican party: the fundamentalist theocons, the wannabe-Machiavelli neocons, and the few business interests who profit from Republican policies. To a lesser extent there are paleocons, but they're almost completely marginalized -- the Republican party in no way stands for smaller government, state rights, or a more reserved foreign policy.
Palin is queen of the theocons, god bless their fat, dumb masses. Neocons certainly use them for votes, but are usually more secular (and Jewish) and aim the lumbering herd of fundamentalists at something they believe will support American global dominance -- Israel as a military outpost, or the Middle East domino theory. Unfortunately, they're also morons. This party's best represented by Rove, now that Rumsfeld and Cheney are more or less out of the politics game. Neocon leaders tend to be cunning, if not smart; neoconservative voters tend to have very small penises.
Given the complete economic collapse ushered in by dumb-as-rocks Republican free market advocates, I doubt many in the private sector can still justify backing Republicans. Unless they directly profit from Republican stupidity on certain issues -- for example, oil companies enjoy enormous profits by Republican denials of science and impositions on progressive energy policy -- I think the private sector would prefer not to have Republicans in charge.
Who's left in the party besides fundamentalists and neoconservative weenies?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think there are smaller government, semi-libertarian Republicans out there. I think many of them have no home since the party linked up with the "theocons" but have always voted republican. I think now is as good time as any for the Libertarians as a party to make a move.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:The soul of the party is going to be fought for in the next presidential election, when we see if Republican voters want a young moderate face like Pawlenty (or middle aged like Crist), or if they want to embrace Palin politics and go hard, hard right.
Perhaps in the 2016 presidential election. The 2012 presidential election will have a different tenor. Unless Obama becomes very unpopular by 2012 (which is possible but not likely), the republicans have little chance of winning the 2012 election. Remember that neither Clinton nor Bush were particularly popular going into their second election and yet they still won. The incumbent has a very strong advantage in the US system, that is at least in part why we have a 2 term limit for President, People will have to be very unhappy with Obama for the republican to have a reasonable chance of winning in 2012 and any candidate who is defeated in the 2012 presidential election is unlikely to get a second chance in 2016. That will be the end of his/her presidential aspirations. Savvy politicians will recognize this and likely stay out of the fray or drop out early in the primary season.
This could lead to some very weird internal politics in the republican party, particularly if there is a serious fight for ideological control of the party. The hard core right could throw their weight behind a moderate candidate with the hope that his/her resounding defeat would give leverage to the far right in the next election cycle (or vice versa). I could definitely see moderates supporting Sarah Palin in 2012 if they think Obama has it sewn up. This would have the double advantage of putting a death knell in her Presidential aspirations and provide strong leverage for a moderate candidate in 2016.
One thing I've learned from having lived in Utah, is that republican politics can be very strange.
At any rate, I don't see either the far right or the moderate wing of the republican party making any serious moves to take control of the party until the 2014 midterm elections. I could be wrong. It seems more and more like the far right wing of the republican part is so completely out of touch with reality that they may believe they can win the Presidency in 2012 even if the polls say Obama has a 90% popularity rating.
[ April 29, 2009, 05:23 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
I like the following Specter criticisms:
He got what he was coming by not bowing down to the masses and voting against the stimulus bill.
He is a bum for bowing down to the masses and changing parties.
When Rove left I thought we might see the end of Brutish Politics from the Republicans. That's where they keep their people in line by threatening revenge. Here they sought vengeance against Specter by backing his opponent, and come off being slapped around by his defection.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:The soul of the party is going to be fought for in the next presidential election, when we see if Republican voters want a young moderate face like Pawlenty (or middle aged like Crist), or if they want to embrace Palin politics and go hard, hard right.
Perhaps in the 2016 presidential election. The 2012 presidential election will have a different tenor. Unless Obama becomes very unpopular by 2012 (which is possible but not likely), the republicans have little chance of winning the 2012 election. Remember that neither Clinton nor Bush were particularly popular going into their second election and yet they still won. The incumbent has a very strong advantage in out system, that is at least in part why we have a 2 term limit for President, People will have to be very unhappy with Obama for the republican to have a reasonable chance of winning the 2012 election and any candidate who is defeated in the 2012 presidential election is unlikely to get a second chance in 2016. That will be the end of his/her presidential aspirations. Savvy politicians will recognize this and likely stay out of the fray or drop out early in the primary season.
This could lead to some very weird internal politics in the republican party, particularly if there is a serious fight for ideological control of the party. The hard core right could throw their weight behind a moderate candidate with the hope that his/her resounding defeat would give leverage to the far right in the next election cycle (or vice versa). One thing I've learned from having lived in Utah, is that republican politics can be very strange.
I think it's WAY too early to even begin to make that kind of analysis. If the Democrats had put up someone with a pulse in 2004, Bush would have lost. But regardless, so much can happen in the next three years that it'd be wild speculation to try and assume who will and won't run, but I think the big fight will be 2012, not 2016. They aren't going to wait 8 years to fight this out. Obama's popularity could wildly fluctuate. He's doing a lot of stuff right now, and the downside of doing so much so fast is that it has three years to incubate now, and Republicans will be on hand to evaluate how well it did or didn't work, and people don't really have long term thinking in place, unless Obama can manage to retrain the American people to think in the next three years (more power to him). 2012 is by no means assured for Obama, he still has a ton of obstacles to clear.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Here is the real danger where Democrats are concerned. The majority of Republicans are moderates, while the majority of Democrats are liberal.
Thanks for providing evidence to back my claim that the hard core right is seriously out of touch with reality.
[ April 29, 2009, 05:43 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I think it's WAY too early to even begin to make that kind of analysis.
Why? We have over 200 years of history demonstrating that the incumbent has a very strong advantage. I think that lesson is not lost on any savvy politician. Certainly that equation will be different if Obama is highly unpopular, I just don't think that is going to happen unless there is some water shed event that causes people to turn against him. So unless we have another hostage crisis or battle with double digit inflation, I think the strongest republican candidates won't want to risk their careers challenging Obama. The 2010 and 2014 elections are much more likely to be real battlegrounds for republican ideology than the 2012 election.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
It's quite the echo chamber since I've been absent. Specter switched back because he knew he was going to lose the Republican primary. Like many politicians, it's more about keeping power than standing for anything. Realizing he is going to lose as a Rep and knowing the power of one more vote for the Dems, giving them an unfillibusterable majority, he is leveraging his position for future power. He's a political hack, it's about power not representing the voters who sent him there. If he was representative of the R's who elected him, he wouldn't have anything to worry about. By switching sides, he'll get plenty of D campaign dollars and ear mark goodies.
Funny to hear people take the position that R's are the "anti" party. The other side is still playing the anit-Bush angle. The GOP has lost its way, the conservatives are not happy with Democrat light for a party. The GOP has simply become the better of two evils for conservatives. I held my nose and voted for McCain. Not very good at mobilizing the base.
Palin is not the figure head but the lib media would like her to be. No different than how they've tried to cast Limbaugh as the leader of the Republican party. The treatment of Palin was sexist and would never have been tolerated had she been a liberal. Right now the leader of the republican party is a conservative black man but the libs want you to look at Palin instead of Steele. Easier to marginalize.
I like how a CBS poll found Obama's disapproval rating among black to be 0%. What about Michael Steele or the conservative blacks I sit next to at work?
I absolutely agree that the majority of R's are moderate and D's liberal. JFK would be a right wing nut job today.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:The future of the party is going to be a fight between Palin Republicans and Pawlenty Republicans. Pawlenty is more moderate, and at the very least, is a lot more inclusive in his language and is less fire breathing, like Charlie Crist and other moderates, but they aren't being touted by the party leadership right now, they're lying low, mostly because half of them want to run for president in three years. The soul of the party is going to be fought for in the next presidential election, when we see if Republican voters want a young moderate face like Pawlenty (or middle aged like Crist), or if they want to embrace Palin politics and go hard, hard right.
Agreed. I think you touched on the divide that will define that election, the divide between Pawlenty and Palin and the parts of the Republican Party that they represent, but the greater divide will be between "real" America and European socialist America, the same divide that Republicans tried during the Great Depression. We really don't learn from our past do we...
quote:I think it's WAY too early to even begin to make that kind of analysis. If the Democrats had put up someone with a pulse in 2004, Bush would have lost. But regardless, so much can happen in the next three years that it'd be wild speculation to try and assume who will and won't run, but I think the big fight will be 2012, not 2016. They aren't going to wait 8 years to fight this out. Obama's popularity could wildly fluctuate. He's doing a lot of stuff right now, and the downside of doing so much so fast is that it has three years to incubate now, and Republicans will be on hand to evaluate how well it did or didn't work, and people don't really have long term thinking in place, unless Obama can manage to retrain the American people to think in the next three years (more power to him). 2012 is by no means assured for Obama, he still has a ton of obstacles to clear.
Actually, I think 2010 is much more important that 2012 or even 2016 (though I agree it is way to early for 2012) because if the Republicans find that they don't suffer losses by embracing extreme conservative ideas, then moderates like Pawlenty will have no shot against Sarah Palin, who will gleefully point to 2010 as proof that the answer to the conundrum is not to go moderate, but even more conservative. 2010 will be the election that defines the Republican party, I believe.
I think the thing you have to look at when defining the wings of the Republican party is the divide between those who are angry and those who aren't. There is a wing of the Republican party that is highly conservative, authoritative, and angry about the liberal elite media and the minority status they now enjoy. These are the conservatives that have no interest in compromise or negotiation, they hate liberals and have become fanatics about defeating liberal ideology and not helping America. This is the part of the party led by Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and to a lesser extent, Sarah Palin. The other two wings of the Republican party consist of either moderate conservatives or moderate Republicans, but I think that hatred from that extreme wing of the Republican party cannot be overlooked because I think it has come to define them. That's why I argued that the litmus test for a national Republican party will have to be whether they can banish Limbaugh and Hannity from their own party, without apologizing.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: If the Democrats had put up someone with a pulse in 2004, Bush would have lost.
Kerry was a fairly insipid candidate, no question about it. Still, he didn't lose by all that much. I think if he had had someone in his camp as smart as Carville or Rove to advise him on how to fight back against the Swift Boat ads, he might have prevailed.
Or if that stupid forged letter about Bush's military service hadn't been trotted out, making it dangerous to for anyone to raise any questions about the issue.
Or if Osama bin Laden hadn't released another message just before the election.
(sigh) Hindsight. Honestly, I'd much rather have Obama as president than Kerry, though.
I agree that it may be a little early to make big predictions about 2012. Bush I looked unassailable after Desert Storm, and then the economy came along and blindsided him. If things remain more or less in their current state- Obama remains popular, and largely seems to be handling new crises with aplomb- then the GOP would have to field one heck of a candidate, as an attack on a popular president is as likely to generate backlash as votes.
But a lot could happen. The world economy could continue to worsen, China could decide to re-engineer the financial model that's been issuing the United States credit, Iraq could tailspin in the wake of withdrawal, Pakistan and India could have another surge in hostilities. Three and a half years is a long time.
I'll admit that, at present, I don't see a lot of signs that the GOP won't continue to implode.
quote:Originally posted by Humean316: That's why I argued that the litmus test for a national Republican party will have to be whether they can banish Limbaugh and Hannity from their own party, without apologizing.
Thus far, no dice. Kind of sad.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:I think it's WAY too early to even begin to make that kind of analysis.
Why? We have over 200 years of history demonstrating that the incumbent has a very strong advantage. I think that lesson is not lost on any savvy politician. Certainly that equation will be different if Obama is highly unpopular, I just don't think that is going to happen unless there is some water shed event that causes people to turn against him. So unless we have another hostage crisis or battle with double digit inflation, I think the strongest republican candidates won't want to risk their careers challenging Obama. The 2010 and 2014 elections are much more likely to be real battlegrounds for republican ideology than the 2012 election.
History has shown that incumbents only have the advantage when they are popular.
My point, was that making estimations as to Obama's popularity after only three months is useless. So many things can happen, so many things WILL happen, that make any guess as to his popularity in three years meaningless. Who knows what mistakes he'll make? What world events will happen? What national events? What the stock market will do? What the economy will do? What legislation will and won't get passed and what the effects will be?
Too many variables. Too little time.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote: Proves what?
It proves that
quote: The litmus test for the Republican party won't be anything about policy or governance, it will be whether someone in the party can stand up and claim that Rush Limbaugh is not it's leader. And then not apologize for it the next day...
is false. Specter failed the litmus test for the Repulican party when he voted for the $3+trillion stimulus package.
I'm laughing a little bit, here.
Okay, just — just for a moment, observe this.
The idea that Specter "fails the litmus test for the Republican party" is like admitting how extremely to the right the GOP has shifted in terms of what it will tolerate.
It's actually exactly what I was talking about.
He votes for the war on Iraq, the Military Commissions Act, Patriot Act renewal, confirmation of virtually every controversial Bush appointee, retroactive telecom immunity, warrantless eavesdropping expansions, and Bush tax cuts (several times). As Glenn Greenwald noted, Specter stood with Republicans on the most controversial and consequential issues all through the Bush years.
Yet, in DarkKnight's eyes, he is waved away as being someone who cannot pass as a republican.
It's exactly the sort of mentality I noted is killing the GOP. A reactionary policy to mock, deride, disown, and kick out anyone who isn't an obsequious drone to a party line that's driven itself hard to the right.
This and the sinecure issue shows a GOP that has become ruled by intransigent minorities hellbent on preserving awful social policy to the point that they will eat their own and cede the moderate middle to the Democratic party before they ever really figure out what they're doing to themselves.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:History has shown that incumbents only have the advantage when they are popular.
Clinton and G.W. Bush were not particularly popular. In 2004, Bush was running about a bit below 50% approval rating.
In the past century, 4 incumbent Presidents have failed to win re-election. Herbert Hoover, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and G.H.W. Bush. There are several commonalities among the four including economic troubles as well as significant challenges from within their own parties. G.H.W Bush is some what unique in that the election outcome was likely influenced by third party candidate Ross Perot.
Certainly the incumbent advantage is insufficient to make up for being very unpopular (Herbert Hoover) but baring that kind of strong unpopularity, the advantage seems to exist even for presidents who are closer to neutral (Clinton and Bush).
I think its safe to say that unless there is some watershed event that turns people against Obama, he will be hard to beat in 2012. Such a watershed event isn't impossible but I think its highly unlikely that issue will be the economy, which makes it overall very unlikely. Obama has the advantage that the economy collapsed prior to his election and as much as the Republicans would like America to forget that it seems unlikely. The overwhelming majority of Americans think inadequate government regulation is largely responsible for the current economic crisis. Alan Greenspan even admitted this. So even if the economy shows no improvement over the next 4 years, the republican platform of letting the market regulate itself will be very hard to sell.
It's also worth noting that as evidenced in the recent elections, the incumbent advantage is something of a self fulfilling prophecy. Strong candidates have often opted out of the race because they know they have little chance of winning their parties nomination a second time if they loose one general election. Savvy politicians consider running against an even marginally popular incumbent it too big a gamble and prefer to wait for an open race.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
The fate of the United States now rests in the hands... of Al Franken.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: The fate of the United States now rests in the hands... of Al Franken.
Why does that seem to warrant a slow motion "Noooooooooo...", possibly with a leap in front of a fireball?
Actually, I like Franklin. He's smart, he's willing to do research, and he seems to have examined his beliefs to come out where he is. My big concerns about him are a) his lack of experience (of course) and b) that some of the numbers he's come up with in his books regarding Social Security seem to be a little fudged. I'm not saying he did so intentionally; I'm just saying the Baby Boom retirement is a big thing to overlook in a long-term prognosis.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
You can thank Jon Stewart Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
People, including Rush, were upset that the conservative viewpoint is incendiary, ugly, and disgusting. To say otherwise would swerve away from the left's mantra of Rush is just disgusting because he is a conservative and it is right and true to hate conservatives.
More accurately, people, including Rush, were upset that Rush's specific style of broadcasting is incendiary, ugly, and disgusting. Steele never criticized conservatism, not once. You don't get to start from Rush = conservatism and then base your statements on that.
The treatment of Palin was sexist and would never have been tolerated had she been a liberal.
The treatment of Palin was because she was plainly unqualified for the job. Dan Quayle received far more ridicule (deservedly) than she ever did. Then again, she's still in office so she still has a chance to catch up.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
The Republican Party litmus tests these days seem to be gay marriage, abortion, Christianity, less taxes for the rich, immigration, torture, and voting down anything Obama does. (I say "seems to" because those are the only issues that ever get air time. Most Republicans I know are not terribly concerned about most of these, and they come down on the wrong side on others according to right-wing talk radio)
I suggest that the GOP look back to Reagan for some tips on bringing those litmus tests back to previous conservative concerns:
quote:We should emphasize the things that unite us and make these the only 'litmus test' of what constitutes a Republican: our belief in restraining government spending, pro-growth policies, tax reduction, sound national defense, and maximum individual liberty. As to the other issues that draw on the deep springs of morality and emotion, let us decide that we can disagree among ourselves as Republicans and tolerate the disagreement.
(Quoted by Olympia Snowe in her op-ed on Spectre's jump.)
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Specter switched, malanthrop, cuz the RepublicanNationalCommittee targeted him for removal by sending in tons of out-of-state money and political organizers to his opponent. This is not the first time that the national party has kamikazeed one of their own for failure to goosestep along with the cadre. Well before Jeffords, they launched a vicious smear campaign against LowellWeicker during the primary, lost, then heavily backed JoeLieberman's successful bid to unseat him in the general election. Which is why Lieberman has always been a lapdog for his Republican masters.
BTW: Democrat Spectre voted against the budget along with three other Democratic senators, plus two more who deliberately failed to vote in favor. So much for the nonsense about a filibuster-proof Democratic majority.
[ April 30, 2009, 10:53 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Believe me, that is not why Rush is disgusting.
Since I am sure you are a daily listener to Rush and not just a blog reader, please tell me why he is disgusting
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: It's exactly the sort of mentality I noted is killing the GOP. A reactionary policy to mock, deride, disown, and kick out anyone who isn't an obsequious drone to a party line that's driven itself hard to the right.
Oh, Samp you are just the cutest thing aren't you? I guess the same holds true for those big tent Democrats who expelled Liberman? Please tell me where I have mocked or derded Specter. You can't. As far as disowning or kicking out, are you implying that to vote for someone other than the incumbent is wrong? Of course you must be doing that since you are a mindless Obama loving drone and Democrat hack. Please note that the preceding sentence was just to illustrate how silly your statements are and not what I actually believe. There are better candidates than Specter to be Senator and I would vote for them.
quote: He votes for the war on Iraq, the Military Commissions Act, Patriot Act renewal, confirmation of virtually every controversial Bush appointee, retroactive telecom immunity, warrantless eavesdropping expansions, and Bush tax cuts (several times). As Glenn Greenwald noted, Specter stood with Republicans on the most controversial and consequential issues all through the Bush years.
You may want to take a peek at his voting record before you keep chortling to yourself. He was against the surge. Remember his rhetoric against the wiretap program? Employee Free Choice? His conduct over the US Attorney provision in the Patriot Act? Embryonic stem cell vote? Gun Lock requirement?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Lalo, you are an idiot. Small penises indeed. I voted for Omaba DESPITE people like you supporting him, and you are no more mainstream (or intelligent) than the neocons you mock.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote: Believe me, that is not why Rush is disgusting.
Since I am sure you are a daily listener to Rush and not just a blog reader, please tell me why he is disgusting
He caters to the LCD of listeners, and makes vicious personal attacks against people who believe differently than he does. He rarely fact-checks anything he talks about, and has consistently been one of the worst broadcasters on the air.
Not to mention he is highly hypocritical.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Delayed reaction?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Since I am sure you are a daily listener to Rush and not just a blog reader, please tell me why he is disgusting
Because every time I have listened to him, or read something by him, I haven't gone more than a few paragraphs or a few minutes without him making a deeply personal and insulting attack. Not uncommonly with racial, misogynistic, or religious undertones. Also because he is incredibly smug, but to be fair my distaste for that is fueled in part because I disagree with him.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Actually, I think it would be good for moderates to regain control of the Democratic party.
Ron...here is something you probably thought I'd never say.
I agree with you. At least to a point.
I dislike the far extreme of both parties. At least they tend to counter-balance each other, and cancel each other out at times.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote: It's exactly the sort of mentality I noted is killing the GOP. A reactionary policy to mock, deride, disown, and kick out anyone who isn't an obsequious drone to a party line that's driven itself hard to the right.
Oh, Samp you are just the cutest thing aren't you? I guess the same holds true for those big tent Democrats who expelled Liberman?
Who would that be, exactly, who expelled Sen. Lieberman? And could you define "expelled" for us, please? Despite enthusiastically campaigning against the Democratic candidate for president, Sen. Lieberman still caucuses with the Democrats and retained his chairmanship of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Since I am sure you are a daily listener to Rush and not just a blog reader, please tell me why he is disgusting
I wouldn't use "disgusting," myself. Distasteful. Insulting. Condescending. Bilious.
Like Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity and Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter and Glenn Beck (and Michael Moore, for that matter), he's a firebrand. He has to be in front of the angry mob at all times, and if there isn't one he'll make one. His ratings rely on invoking fresh outrage or new controversies every day, so he will always find something to be outraged about.
It's the morning radio shock-jock program as applied to politics, and it works. Especially when he can reach into a complex issue with shades of gray and pull out a single harsh, illogical, black and white statement that his angry fans can easily rally behind. His rating will soar during the Obama administration.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
If moderates dominate the Democratic party, then why do they keep choosing extreme super-leftist candidates (judged by their voting records in Congress) as their party nominees, such as John Kerry and Barack Obama? And don't forget George McGovern. And how is it that Howling Mad Howard Dean was Party Chairman for so long?
The only actual conservative candidate Republicans have nominated in the past 50 years was Barry Goldwater.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Ron...
Left and right is a spectrum. It is totally arbitrary. But lets say it goes from 1 being Karl Marx and 100 being some Monarchist wanting to bring back the strict rule of a God chosen king.
You sound as if you see numbers 60-70 as moderate. 71-90 as conservative, and 91-150 as right wing. The Radical Left is everything from 1 to 59 since you don't seem to see much difference between liberal, socialist, communist, and non-conservative.
Most others see numbers 35-50 as moderate. Left/liberal is 25-35. Far left is anything below 25, while conservative is 50-65, Reactionary is 65-80, and dangerous is anything over 80.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Don't trust anyone over 30. Oh, wait a minute--
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Because when it comes to politicking, Dems aren't any smarter than Republicans. There's no other excuse for Nancy Pelosi.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:If moderates dominate the Democratic party, then why do they keep choosing extreme super-leftist candidates (judged by their voting records in Congress) as their party nominees, such as John Kerry and Barack Obama? And don't forget George McGovern. And how is it that Howling Mad Howard Dean was Party Chairman for so long?
Neither Obama (nor Kerry, for that matter) are or were 'extreme super-leftists', Ron. I doubt you'll agree, but ask yourself this: how many people who aren't themselves pretty far to the right think they're 'extreme-super-leftists'?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Personally, I suspect most true moderates are Independents...
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
A classification scheme that classifies Obama and Kerry as "extreme super-leftist" could be amusing through.
You could have classifications such as "mega-extreme super-leftist" for the Canadian liberals, "mega-extreme super-leftist Z" for the Canadian NDP, "mega-extreme ultra super-leftist X" for French political parties, and Communists ... well, what do you call it when Transformers or some other mechanical warriors merge into a gigantic fighting machine?
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: Personally, I suspect most true moderates are Independents...
Then so are liberals. If the US didn't have a two-party system, there's no way I'd vote for these spineless weenies. Obviously moderates also vote Democratic, as recent elections show, even if they have as little respect for them as I do. If moderates are independents, then we're all independents. The Democratic party doesn't have slavishly adoring worshipers like the Republican party does.
I wish the US had a liberal party.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Of course they do. Every human group has its extreme members.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lalo:
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: Personally, I suspect most true moderates are Independents...
Then so are liberals. If the US didn't have a two-party system, there's no way I'd vote for these spineless weenies. Obviously moderates also vote Democratic, as recent elections show, even if they have as little respect for them as I do. If moderates are independents, then we're all independents. The Democratic party doesn't have slavishly adoring worshipers like the Republican party does.
I wish the US had a liberal party.
"The Democratic party doesn't have slavishly adoring worshipers like the Republican party does." are you kidding me? Obama may as well be the messiah for the left.
Who wins has a lot to do with circumstances. During economic crisis, a lot of people want the security the nanny state promises to provide. If the stock market hadn't tanked in September08 McCain would likely have won. We get attacked again by terrorists and Obama will lose reelection.
Obama learned from Bill Clinton how to package himself as a moderate while being far to the left. The majority of voters believed that Obama was more likely to cut their taxes than McCain. I'm enjoying my $15 a pay day tax cut but cap and trade will cost much much more than that rebate. The American voter is about as understanding as the kid who'd accept a trade of three ones for a five.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
As I noted earlier, the far right wing in the US is completely out of touch with reality. They are so far out of touch with reality that they think staunch conservatives are moderate, ordinary conservatives are left leaning, moderates are leftists and anyone who shows even a slight progressive tendency as an extreme super liberal.
Ron and Mal provide excellent examples of what I'm talking about. I think if you went back through the last year and a half of Ron's posts here you would see that time has convincingly proven him wrong on every point he's made, yet he continues on with exactly the same arguments with out any recognition that reality contradicts his every claim. Its like he's living in a parallel Universe where all the facts are different.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: If the stock market hadn't tanked in September08 McCain would likely have won.
This is an interesting hypothetical, but it's completely false and you don't know what you're talking about.
McCain was well on the way to defeat before the economic crisis. 538's aggregates showed that Obama was quickly approaching the minimum requisite number of electoral votes contained within entirely safe states (polled at or over 10% + for Obama)
So, good job making up things? Have fun keeping that up.
quote:Ron and Mal provide excellent examples of what I'm talking about. I think if you went back through the last year and a half of Ron's posts here you would see that time has convincingly proven him wrong on every point he's made, yet he continues on with exactly the same arguments with out any recognition that reality contradicts his every claim. Its like he's living in a parallel Universe where all the facts are different.
Over the course of time that I have been here, Ron Lambert has consistently made glib dismissals of Democratic Party viability and has made scores of comments where he would say something to the effect of "And now that this has happened, the Democrats don't stand a chance" and talk at length about why it was now obvious that the Republicans were sailing a smooth sea to massive victory.
Malanthrop hasn't been here very long but if he stays around to rant obliquely about politics one could bet he'll be in much the same boat.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: Because when it comes to politicking, Dems aren't any smarter than Republicans. There's no other excuse for Nancy Pelosi.
The smartest decision the Democrats could make right now would be to oust Reid and Pelosi and replace them both with someone halfway competent.
Or at least someone with a backbone.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: We get attacked again by terrorists and Obama will lose reelection.
As an aside, why does the right wing think they're competent when it comes to national security? Serious question. I have no idea how that assumption's survived as long as it has.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: The smartest decision the Democrats could make right now would be to oust Reid and Pelosi and replace them both with someone halfway competent.
Or at least someone with a backbone.
God. I wish.
In response to Chris, no, I can confidently say that there are no fanatical Democrats. You will never see a Ron Lambert equivalent parroting the party line no matter what reality dictates. There are fanatical Obama supporters and people who staunchly oppose further Republican rule, but Democratic politicians are just pathetic. They stand for nothing but half-hearted self-loathing efforts to prove that they're Republican lite but weaker. I hate them with all my heart.
Republicans are at least straightforward about being corrupt and stupid. Everyone else votes Democratic in an effort to protect the country, and these limp-wristed morons can't work up the self-esteem to follow through. I wish to god there were a liberal third party.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: The American voter is about as understanding as the kid who'd accept a trade of three ones for a five.
It's kind of funny, how we go from the enlightened wisdom of the American electorate and their ability to see through the sham promises of manipulative politicians when our guy is in power, and rapidly degenerate to the blind whim of the heedless mob when the other guy is in power.
Or how Bush winning by three million votes is a mandate, but Obama winning by nine-and-a-half million is not.
In any case, if we're really only voting for whoever promises us the biggest tax break, we're all up a creek anyway. But I don't think that's what happened- at least, not all that happened- and no one who did more than than the most facile analysis would, either.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
My point is that the Democratic party is much better at marketing and packaging. True concservatives have remained true to their namesake, they stick to the ideals and principles that have made this country great. Progressives also stick to their name sake, they continually progress the country to the left. Funny how the people that have remained in place idealogically are the extremists now. They have not changed but the left has "progressed" more to the left. Who then is the extremist? The "moderate" dems of today would be far left thirty years ago. The left wing extreme becomes the left norm. The "far" right is only far away because left continually shifts further to the left. I'm still waiting for someone to contest that JFK would be considered a right winger today, but I digress. "Progressive" sounds good. The packaging of liberalism has shifted from "progressive" to "liberal" several times as the preferred title but it is the same product. Branding as "progressive" was Woodrow Wilson's packaging. "Liberal" replaced it and now "progressive" is coming back into favor. Semantics and packaging, same old left. The left is good at manipulating the language. Overseas contingency operations, man-made catastrophies, undocumented workers, whatever. Make it sound better but it doesn't change the reality: War on terror, terrorist acts and illegal aliens.
Progressive sounds good, you must be more advanced mentally and idealogically, right?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:They have not changed but the left has "progressed" more to the left.
Dude, you realize that at one point the Socialist Party actually had viable candidates?
quote: I'm still waiting for someone to contest that JFK would be considered a right winger today...
Hey, I'm all for a 70% tax rate on the rich. You think that's a good idea?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
OK, malanthrop. I'm in.
JFK did some bold (and a few misguided) military moves, and he approved Hoover's wiretapping. But he also founded the Peace Corp. He fought against nuclear proliferation, and asked the countries of the world to work together. He proposed more funding for education, medical care for the elderly, full civil rights for African Americans, immigration reform, and his sex scandals were with women. He was a Democrat.
"Progressive" is being used more because the right, through constant scornful repetition, has successfully turned "liberal" into an insult.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
I listened to the head of the Republican Party doing an interview on NPR. The question came up, "Is the big tent of the Republicans smaller now."
The first answer was a well rehearsed sound bite about how everyone is welcome.
After some further questioning he explained why there was room for everyone in the party, but not for Specter and others.
"If you are invited over to someone's home for dinner, you don't complain about the menu."
In a nut shell, that's what he said. You are all invited into the Republican Party, but don't complain about the Menu. Its rude.
What I want to know is:
1) Who gets to decide whats on the menu? It sounded like he knows what's best for Republicans, and if you disagree, you'll not be invited back to dinner.
2) If fewer folks are RSVP'ing to the dinner invite, could it be that someone should change that menu?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I heard that interview as well. The only remarkable thing about it, to me, is that Steele got pinned pretty effectively (IMO) on that question...I hardly think the answer could have been (substantively) much different if asked of, say, Kaine.
Posted by Saephon (Member # 9623) on :
What amazes me most is that I used to think politicians were often cunning, and would do anything to get in power...And instead, here we have the Republican party, scratching their heads, wondering why the rest of the world is so wrong on all the issues.
"Don't they understand that we know what's best for them?"
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Guys, the gloating is both unseemly and premature. It's in everyone's best interest for the Republican Party to come back to decent health sooner rather than later.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Yeah, though it depends on how they come back and what they look like when they do.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I don't know; have we really come to a point in history where a new party can no longer emerge? Are the sides that entrenched, with their bases and their candidates and their PAC treasuries?
I could welcome a healthy Republican party, but I find it very difficult to welcome a return of this Republican party to health. It feels like such a thing could only come of a welcoming of the view that dissent from their view is the equivalent of treason, their departure from power is the stage for insurrection, and no good has ever come or ever shall come from the opposition.
I could welcome an opposition that took matters issue by issue and genuinely wanted to rein in excesses, not just oppose virtually every matter because of its source. What's in the forefront now is something that cooler heads would want to keep in the closet as a guilty secret. And nearly as bad, it invites similar behavior in its opposite.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
Well there's the Whigs as a replacement. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: I don't know; have we really come to a point in history where a new party can no longer emerge? Are the sides that entrenched, with their bases and their candidates and their PAC treasuries?
I could welcome a healthy Republican party, but I find it very difficult to welcome a return of this Republican party to health. It feels like such a thing could only come of a welcoming of the view that dissent from their view is the equivalent of treason, their departure from power is the stage for insurrection, and no good has ever come or ever shall come from the opposition.
I could welcome an opposition that took matters issue by issue and genuinely wanted to rein in excesses, not just oppose virtually every matter because of its source. What's in the forefront now is something that cooler heads would want to keep in the closet as a guilty secret. And nearly as bad, it invites similar behavior in its opposite.
There hasn't been a serious third party challenge for the presidency since Teddy Roosevelt tried it under the Bull Moose Progressive ticket in what, like 1912? And it only even came close to working because he was a massively popular national figure of importance who had been a president before, but even then all he really did was split the Republican party down the middle. The Progressive ticket in that sense doesn't even really count as a third party bid. It was for president, and I don't think even elected any Congressmen.
The Populist Party of the late 1880s and 1890s on the other hand actually elected a number of senators, governors and congressmen over a decade time span, but they were a single issue party that were largely absorbed by the Democrats, who shared a very similar platform post 1892, and when a farming boom eliminated most of their complaints.
The only long term, successful third party bid in the political history of the country, if you skip the mix of parties that resulted in Democrats and Whigs in the first couple decades of the nation, was the Republican party that emerged in the 1850s, and they were so wildly successful that they decimated the Whigs.
So, can a new party come about? I guess, but it hasn't happened in a hundred years, and when it did, it was either because it unified behind an incredibly popular individual (and failed) or because of a very important set of issues that were being ignored by both parties (and then failed when those parties co-opted that issue).
I just don't see it happening anytime soon, which is ironic, because the technology we have right now makes it easier and cheaper than ever to organize a political party at the grassroots level, but no one is doing it with any real success. It got Ron Paul national attention, but Paul was never a viable candidate. If such an effort got behind a heavyweight, we might have ourselves a ballgame.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:There hasn't been a serious third party challenge for the presidency since Teddy Roosevelt tried it under the Bull Moose Progressive ticket in what, like 1912? And it only even came close to working because he was a massively popular national figure of importance who had been a president before, but even then all he really did was split the Republican party down the middle. The Progressive ticket in that sense doesn't even really count as a third party bid. It was for president, and I don't think even elected any Congressmen.
Well, it was 1912 for Teddy Roosevelt, but in 1992, Ross Perot ran on the reform ticket and got 19% of the vote, and at one point in the summer of that year, he even led in a few polls. In fact, if he had not dropped out that summer and then come back into the race, he may have won the election.
quote:Yeah, though it depends on how they come back and what they look like when they do.
As I said, I think the Republican party we will see will depend on whether they can banish Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity from their party. If they can't, then the Republican Party will be dominated by the extreme right-wing and Libertarians who must like the menu if they want to eat at the restaurant, according to Michael Steele anyway. But I do believe that the best thing for America is for a principled, disciplined, and strong Republican party to stand up and work on the problems we face, instead of simply saying no to everything because it comes from Obama.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't think Perot counts for the sake of this argument. I'm not even sure Roosevelt would, but he at least entered under a party ticket. Perot was an independent. The question was whether or not a third party could come into being, but Perot had no party. One might have formed around him, but there's no evidence to suggest it was headed in that direction.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: "Progressive" sounds good. The packaging of liberalism has shifted from "progressive" to "liberal" several times as the preferred title but it is the same product. Branding as "progressive" was Woodrow Wilson's packaging. "Liberal" replaced it and now "progressive" is coming back into favor. Semantics and packaging, same old left.
An excellent piece of very, very stupid theorycrafting that manages to entirely discount the fact that the switch to 'progressive' in recent years was motivated largely by a successful attempt to give the word 'liberal' a derogatory connotation.
I wonder what piece of "factual" "information"* you'll think of next! Keep the hits coming!
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Lyrhawn, Perot himself ran as an independent in '92, but his organization coalesced into the Reform Party. I'm not sure when it became a party, but it was certainly around by '96, when Perot took his second shot at the presidency as that party's candidate. Now, I don't think that the Reform Party is really going to go anywhere, but still.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I don't know; have we really come to a point in history where a new party can no longer emerge? Are the sides that entrenched, with their bases and their candidates and their PAC treasuries?
'Never' is a word too long even for ents to say:)
----
I have to admit, hearing 'War on Terror' being discussed as one of those firmly established, obvious as the nose on your face words, alongside of 'terrorism' and 'illegal aliens' is pretty strange.
President Bush basically created the phrase himself less than a decade ago.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I believe the Obama administration renamed "Global War on Terror" to something alot more of a mouthful.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
JFK also preached that you tax more whatever you want less of, and tax less whatever you want more of. Then he actually cut taxes on everyone, and the increase in general prosperity resulted in greater tax revenues. This is now the foundation plank of all conservative Republican economic theory. Reaqan quoted Kennedy, and repeated what Kennedy did, and got the same results--an unprecedented 12 straight years of economic growth, something Democrat economists had always sworn was impossible. The first president Bush was rejected by the electorate in his bid for re-election when he reneged on his promise not to introduce new taxes. Republican presidential candidates since then have referred to Reagan AND Kennedy as if they were American saints. The recent candidates at least pay lip service to cutting taxes. Even Barack Obama pretends to believe in cutting taxes ("on all but the most wealthy"). But Kennedy is long gone, and no Democrat today can be believed if he ever talks about cutting taxes.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:JFK also preached that you tax more whatever you want less of, and tax less whatever you want more of. Then he actually cut taxes on everyone, and the increase in general prosperity resulted in greater tax revenues. This is now the foundation plank of all conservative Republican economic theory.
But what you and most of the right wing seem to be missing is that Kennedy cut taxes from 90% to 70%. In fact, Reagan set the top tax bracket at 50%. By today's standards, does that make Reagan a flaming liberal?
The highest tax rates now, even with Obama's proposed increases, are half what they were after the Kennedy tax cuts and less than what they were after the Reagan tax cuts. Clearly there is some point at which taxes are so high that they stifle economic activity. I think everyone both liberal and conservative agrees on that. But there is also a point at which tax rates are too low and so do not provide adequate resources for the government to do its job.
But it doesn't matter what the tax rate is anymore, the right wing keeps calling for tax cuts and claiming that tax cuts will increase revenue. That's just silly. If you take that argument to its logical conclusion, the government could increase tax income by dropping the tax rate to zero.
Unless you think there should be not taxes at all, then clearly their must be some best level for taxes and cutting taxes below that level is bad for the country.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
When they claim to cut "taxes" on the people they aren't really lying. I was the recipient of a $15 tax cut but cap and trade and rolling back tax cuts on the "wealthy" will far outrsrip the $15 tax break when I go to pay my bills. It's word games, what is the definitions of "is"? PC language manipulation where a socialist is progressive and a janitor is an engineer. The current Democratic party is about marketing themselves as moderate and ruling as liberal. If Obama had campaigned on what he has done in his first 100 days, he would've had great difficulty getting elected. If he came right out and said, "I'm going to expand government and create a 1 trillion dollar a year deficit" he would've lost. He promised hope and change. I wanted change as well but not his type of change.
On one hand they admit that raising taxes reduces a certain activity, IE smoking and on the other they deny that reducing taxes increases that activity, IE capital gains, investement. They are very good at talking out of both sides of their mouths. I found it amusing that the stimulus checks sent out under Bush to families($600-$1200) were universally accepted by democrat and republican as stimulative. In this situation even Pelosi believed returning tax dollars to the people would stimulate the economy but the next day rejects the same concept of reducing taxes to stimulate the economy.
Again, I'm not defending the R's but I view them as the lesser of two evils. Both parties are going down the same road, one is going there faster. I'm a fiscal conservative first. Clinton was more fiscally conservative than Bush and Obama is the biggest spender in the history or our country and he campaigned on "tax cuts for 95% of Americans". He didn't lie, necessarilly. The masses get an income tax cut while the cost of everything soars. Inflation is an insidius tax caused by monetizing the debt, (printing money). Tax the rich business owner and the prices go up as well. The spending power of the 95% who got tax cuts will be reduced but he'll run for reelection on his tax cuts.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:JFK also preached that you tax more whatever you want less of, and tax less whatever you want more of. Then he actually cut taxes on everyone, and the increase in general prosperity resulted in greater tax revenues. This is now the foundation plank of all conservative Republican economic theory.
But what you and most of the right wing seem to be missing is that Kennedy cut taxes from 90% to 70%. In fact, Reagan set the top tax bracket at 50%. By today's standards, does that make Reagan a flaming liberal?
The highest tax rates now, even with Obama's proposed increases, are half what they were after the Kennedy tax cuts and less than what they were after the Reagan tax cuts. Clearly there is some point at which taxes are so high that they stifle economic activity. I think everyone both liberal and conservative agrees on that. But there is also a point at which tax rates are too low and so do not provide adequate resources for the government to do its job.
But it doesn't matter what the tax rate is anymore, the right wing keeps calling for tax cuts and claiming that tax cuts will increase revenue. That's just silly. If you take that argument to its logical conclusion, the government could increase tax income by dropping the tax rate to zero.
Unless you think there should be not taxes at all, then clearly their must be some best level for taxes and cutting taxes below that level is bad for the country.
It's obvious you don't understand ECON 101. If you raise the price of your product too high, you lose revenue because people will not purchase it. Of course you can't give away your widgets but selling them at a lower per unit profit margin makes up for it in quantity. Why do you think Wal Mart is so successful? Reduce capital gains tax and capital investments will increase. Taxing the exchange of dollars reduces the exchange of those dollars. The most profitable investment firms are the ones that have the lowest fees and loads for the investors. The cost of moving money is a serious factor for any prudent investor. You don't sell your house until you can cover the closing costs and hopefully make a profit. Reducing capital gains taxes incentivizes cashing out previous gains to reinvest in other things. Putting more money in the hands of the consumer increases consumption. Increasing land lord taxes increases tenent rent. It feels good to tax the evil rich but the consumer pays for everything.
[ May 01, 2009, 01:54 PM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: Lyrhawn, Perot himself ran as an independent in '92, but his organization coalesced into the Reform Party. I'm not sure when it became a party, but it was certainly around by '96, when Perot took his second shot at the presidency as that party's candidate. Now, I don't think that the Reform Party is really going to go anywhere, but still.
Ah thanks, I wasn't aware it was that much of a movement. I wasn't really paying close attention to politics in my pre-teen days, though I do remember voting for I think Clinton at my elementary school in a mock election. Though in fairness, that may have been because his box was blue and that was my favorite color.
I guess Perot would go into the same category as Roosevelt then as far as failed bids go, but even at that I don't think either of them count. They never got ANYONE elected, to the best of my knowledge. So the last successful third party bid is still the Populist party just over a hundred years ago. They failed to get William Jennings Bryan elected, but they got a lot of people into the government.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
The Green's got their candidate Dubya elected to the Presidency.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Perot's vote siphoned off enough conservatives to get Clinton elected.
I prefer libertarian but voting for them is equivalent to voting for the other side, for now.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:It's obvious you don't understand ECON 101.
Well actually, I was first of 200+ students when I took econ 101. I was offered a scholarship to major in economics, but since I already had a better scholarship it wasn't much of an enticement. My guess is you got a C, unless you attended in the past 15 years in which case grade inflation might have brought you up to B. If you attend a two bit community college you might even have received an A but whatever your grade may have been, you don't seem to have grasped the concept of an optimum.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Oh snap!
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:It's obvious you don't understand ECON 101.
Well actually, I was first of 200+ students when I took econ 101. I was offered a scholarship to major in economics, but since I already had a better scholarship it wasn't much of an enticement. My guess is you got a C, unless you attended in the past 15 years in which case grade inflation might have brought you up to B. If you attend a two bit community college you might even have received an A but whatever your grade may have been, you don't seem to have grasped the concept of an optimum.
But Rabbit! Getting an A in econ 101 was EZ sauce before the great depression. Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:Perot's vote siphoned off enough conservatives to get Clinton elected.
Actually, in exit polls taken in 1992, Ross Perot took 38% from Clinton, 38% from Bush, and the rest would have stayed home had Perot not been on the ballot. So that is incorrect.
Exit polls in 2000 had Gore winning over Bush.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Exit polls in 2000 had Gore winning over Bush.
Which just goes to show you that exit polls are, for the most part, accurate.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
<i>"True conservatives have remained true to their namesake, they stick to the ideals and principles that have made this country great"</i>
Supposed "conservatives" are the ones who currently advocate the idea of a king-president who can order torture on anyone he wants. They're the ones advocating the abolition of habeas corpus. They're also the ones saying that "freedom of religion" doesn't truly include Islam, because the founding fathers of America couldn't have really known what terrorism would be like.
Are these the ideal and principle that made your country great?
So-called "conservatives" aren't conservatives. They're reactionaries that want to move the clock several centuries back.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: It's obvious you don't understand ECON 101. If you raise the price of your product too high, you lose revenue because people will not purchase it. Of course you can't give away your widgets but selling them at a lower per unit profit margin makes up for it in quantity.
When you were trying to talk down to rabbit about 'not understanding econ 101,' it was prescient in the sense that concepts like price inelasticity probably weren't covered in your econ 101 and you don't, in any real sense, understand them.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:It's obvious you don't understand ECON 101.
Well actually, I was first of 200+ students when I took econ 101. I was offered a scholarship to major in economics, but since I already had a better scholarship it wasn't much of an enticement. My guess is you got a C, unless you attended in the past 15 years in which case grade inflation might have brought you up to B. If you attend a two bit community college you might even have received an A but whatever your grade may have been, you don't seem to have grasped the concept of an optimum.
Actually, I only got one B in college, the rest were A's and it was a division 1 university. I initally majored in Accounting and switched to mathematics. I went well beyond econ 101. Must be really impressive to get a scholarship offer for a freshmen level course, or did you take 101 while still in high school? You use the extremes as your example, ie cutting taxes to zero percent to prove that tax cuts do not increase revenues. Taken to the extreme, even mathematics and physics break down. Maybe you should retort the facts.
Wether cutting taxes increases revenue is depatable but it cannot be denied that tax cuts stimulate the economy. Obviously this administration doesn't care about revenue, it just prints and borrows a trillion dollars a year. They are more concerned with an excuse to push a social agenda than actually stimulating the economy. If they wanted to stimulate the economy, they would cut taxes.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: If they wanted to stimulate the economy, they would cut taxes.
Keynesians > Supply Siders
welcome to the dustbin of economic theory, malanthrop.
Posted by nik (Member # 2114) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: True concservatives have remained true to their namesake, they stick to the ideals and principles that have made this country great. Progressives also stick to their name sake, they continually progress the country to the left. Funny how the people that have remained in place idealogically are the extremists now. They have not changed but the left has "progressed" more to the left. Who then is the extremist? The left is good at manipulating the language. Progressive sounds good, you must be more advanced mentally and idealogically, right?
Everyone is good at manipulating language, it's called politics. I don't suppose you think that "pro-life" isn't just a manipulative way of saying "We're stripping women of their rights", but I think it is.
I suppose you think that the spanish inquisition (and other like atrocities) were of great ideals and principles, and when such actions were criticized that it was all those "silly liberals" that wanted to end it, right? In the middle east, many muslim "extremists" believe they are interpreting their religious texts in the true, intended way. It doesn't change the fact that they are now considered extremists. Probably by even your standards.
The far right is going to keep moving in that direction. As a public, people are slowly becoming more educated and are throwing away the silly ideological chastity-belts that have gripped human-kind from "progressing" for centuries. So of course the left is going to shift to the middle to fill the gap. Bad ideas usually get bumped eventually. Get used to it.
Other thoughts:
Sometimes I think it's unfortunate what's happening to conservatism in this country, as sometimes I can tend to think in conservative ways. I'm conservative when I budget my own funds, when I salt my meals. I'm conservative when considering my drinking limit for the evening. In many ways, it's very applicable to use conservatism (as it is represented in the dictionary) in many places.
Unfortunately, conservatism in politics today seems to more "We like the way of old, we don't want to try new things". This is where I differ and consider myself a "progressive". I want to try new things. I consider "trying new things, finding what works better, and learning from mistakes" to be MUCH more mentally advanced concepts then "doing the same old thing over and over". Most, I think, would agree with me. There's a familiar quote that comes to mind:
"If by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal." -President John F. Kennedy
If we didn't progress we would still think the sun revolved around the earth. If we are not constantly questioning our beliefs and ideals, if we are not constantly reconsidering how we act, how we present ourselves, and how we respect our fellow man, how can we grow as a people? That is what it means to be progressive, something that I can't imagine, malanthrop, that you could ever understand.
But, I digress.
Posted by nik (Member # 2114) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Whether cutting taxes increases revenue is depatable but it cannot be denied that tax cuts stimulate the economy. If they wanted to stimulate the economy, they would cut taxes.
Yes, they stimulate the economy. If you give people money, they will spend it. Of course, it stimulates the economy the same way a 4 year old who is still suckling will continue to stimulate milk production in a mother's breast: just because it can be done, doesn't mean you should completely disregard the consequences.
Tax cuts are not long term solutions. They attract voters, help the poor, and put more money in the pockets of CEO's who won't be reinvesting in their companies but collecting it in severance packages instead. That's just about all they are good for.
For your information, this administration has applied a tax cut, for the middle and lower classes, the only place tax cuts could ever belong.
The companies that got too used to the bush-era tax cuts need to get a grip (or a pacifier for that matter). It's time for the babies to grow up; it's quite obvious from this recession that the tit is officially dry.
[ May 01, 2009, 08:59 PM: Message edited by: nik ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote: You use the extremes as your example, ie cutting taxes to zero percent to prove that tax cuts do not increase revenues. Taken to the extreme, even mathematics and physics break down. Maybe you should retort the facts.
You still aren't grasping the concept of an optimum which makes me sincerely doubt that you majored in mathematics and got A's.
Let me just put it this way. The income tax rate could be set at any value between 0% and 100%. That a 100% tax rate would be too high and a 0% tax rate would be too low to provide adequate government. Since you claim to have studied math in college, it should be obvious that since 0% is too low and 100% is too high, some value in between the two must be just right and will result in maximum revenue. If your tax rate is above that optimum value, decreasing the tax rate will increase revenue but if your tax rate is below that optimum value, decreasing the tax rate will decrease revenue. The claim that since decreasing the top tax rate from 90% to 70% increased revenue proves further decreases will always lead to further increase in revenue is just foolishness. That all depends on whether we are above or below the optimum value.
There are many reasons to believe that the current tax rate is now below the optimum for revenue generation. Under Clinton, the increases in the tax rates increased tax revenue. The Bush tax cuts have decreased revenues. That all suggest that the optimum is at a higher rate so increasing tax will lead to more revenue.
But clearly, since you majored in Math, that's obvious to you.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Rabbit: of course, optimal revenue generation is not really the goal of government. Now, not taxing so much that revenues are past the point of optimality is pretty much completely bad, but taxing under optimal revenue generation could be better than taxing at optimal revenue generation. Malanthrop's "arguments" on the topic are mostly spewing random statements and blaise assertions that aren't actually founded on any theory to speak of, though.
And if anyone's wondering, I have some graduate coursework in economics. If malanthrop would actually read the economic literature, he would see that tax cuts have generally no effect on the duration of most recessions, because the time they take to have any effect typically goes past the point where the recession needs stimulating, instead being procyclical (when the economic literature, including some notable recent examples, is firmly for countercyclical policy). And if malanthrop read the political science and political economy literature, he would see that tax cuts in recessions are typically analyzed to be political opportunism -- buying votes by using the excuse.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
I hear the Conservatives saying, "Don't count us out. The losing party always comes back. Its the cycle."
This from the same group who 6 years ago were planning the "Permanent Conservative Majority."
What I worry about is not that Liberals and Democrats are assuming that the Republicans are gone, but that the Reactionary element in the Republican party, the Christian States/Libertarian members, are assuming they will bounce back like always, and believe that by positioning themselves into places of power in the party, they can make the comeback ultra-conservative.
That will be what could kill the party.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: If they wanted to stimulate the economy, they would cut taxes.
If it were that simple, it would be the Democrats out on their ass in the cold and not the Republicans, because the economy would never not be stimulated, and everyone would be happy.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The excuse for that is that the hardliner conservatives say "It was working, but the Democrats are better at media/image manipulation and they halted it to further their terrible ends, and undid all this progress and actually CAUSED all these problems, and if you just let the laffer curve work everything woulda been hunky dory etc etc etc"
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote: It's exactly the sort of mentality I noted is killing the GOP. A reactionary policy to mock, deride, disown, and kick out anyone who isn't an obsequious drone to a party line that's driven itself hard to the right.
Oh, Samp you are just the cutest thing aren't you? I guess the same holds true for those big tent Democrats who expelled Liberman? Please tell me where I have mocked or derded Specter. You can't.
The mentality you are exercising that I noted to be presently killing the GOP includes, if you will note my words, the "disowning" of moderates.
And I was quoting that very part by you. Where you literally say that he fails the litmus test to be regarded a Republican. I can't write lines that good. I'm glad you find this cute, since anything else is cold comfort.
In other words: carry right on with your present logic. Carry right on, boldly into further losses. Mentalities such as yours and Ron's are exactly what I'm talking about, and it's why the Republicans will erode further in 2010. =)
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: I hear the Conservatives saying, "Don't count us out. The losing party always comes back. Its the cycle."
This from the same group who 6 years ago were planning the "Permanent Conservative Majority."
What I worry about is not that Liberals and Democrats are assuming that the Republicans are gone, but that the Reactionary element in the Republican party, the Christian States/Libertarian members, are assuming they will bounce back like always, and believe that by positioning themselves into places of power in the party, they can make the comeback ultra-conservative.
That will be what could kill the party.
This would be wonderful. If the fundamentalists and neocons solidify into a small, unpleasant mass, then the scientists and innovators and businessmen currently stuck with the tepid Democratic party might finally be able to break loose and start their own party, competing primarily with the remainder of the Democratic Party while Republicans wallow in their hate and stupidity in the corner.
Dreams...
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
What the current administration is doing is not a new idea. Conservatism is the "new idea" for society. Capitalism and liberty are the new ideas of society, in a historical perspective. America is a very young country and became the leader of wealth and innovation due to the new idea of individual liberty and a small centralized government. Powerful centralized governments have demonstrated their failure repeatedly. Socialist nations have generally had a lower standard of living and higher unemployment. Look at Eastern Europe after the fall of the Soviet Union, which nations are on the road to prosperity?
The liberal/conservative pendulum swings in this country. Obama is over reaching, just as Clinton and Carter did. Obama will lose the congress just as Clinton did and if he isn't careful he'll lose reelection just as Carter did. It's not a roaring back of conservatism, rather the realization of the people that we cannot afford his promises. Inflation is coming and your $8 a week tax cut isn't going to make up for it. The green initiatives financed by cap and trade will kill the common man at the pump, when he pays his utilitities or buys anything produced or shipped. There's your semantics, cap and trade = universal carbon tax.
Fugu, I agree tax cuts take time to stimulate the economy and raising taxes take time to depress it. Clinton benefitted hugely from previous tax cuts made years earlier, he raised taxes and only near the end of his administration did the recession come. Bush inherited the Clinton recession, cut taxes and we had a period of huge economic growth. The housing crisis came and wiped it out.
Concerning taxes I believe we are mixing points. I don't care about government revenue, rather the prosperity of the people. The success of this nation isn't based upon the amount of money the federal government rakes in. Increasing taxes on the rich will not improve the lives of the poor. Not willing to dispute that taxing the rich raises the prices on the poor? You've fallen victim to class warfare. I'm sure you would support a windfall profits tax on the oil companies while touting your deep understanding of economics. As if taxes aren't a cost of business that impact prices. You are absolutely right, 95% got an $8 a week tax cut but how far does your dollar a day go and how far will it go next year?
[ May 02, 2009, 03:17 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote: Bush inherited the Clinton recession, cut taxes and we had a period of huge economic growth.
This is completely false. The recovery from the early 2000s recession was completely lackluster, even using the statistics put out by the OMB, and those statistics were fudged at the behest of the Bush administration to look better than they were.
The other 'stories' you have told about tax cuts are also not consistent with the data. If you look at an actual analysis, you'll find the story is a lot more complicated, and that tax cuts are only thought to play a minor role.
Not only that, but you seem to have not noticed the comment about procyclical vs countercyclical. Stimulating growth is not always a good thing. Stimulating growth during expansions makes recessions worse.
(edit: these last two points are especially true when tax cuts are not accompanied by cuts in spending, and cause large deficits. Then there has not been an actual tax cut, just a tax shift from current people to future people, using debt. Reagan made several important tax cuts and tax simplifications. Bush made a few, too, but then went far beyond that and decided to raise taxes on Americans in the future).
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
While on the whole I'm entirely not neutral on the issue, it's been shown consistently for some time that Laffer economics absolutely did not pan out as promised.
This is of paramount concern for those who seek to placate the supply-siders by engineering our economic policy around supply side economics, since, well, Laffernomics not working has bad implications for risking it in times of economic peril. Or, for that matter, ever going back to supply-side economics.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Also Mal, as President Bush ran for election he proposed Tax Cuts during the downturn in the economy.
After he was elected the economy began improving. We had a surplus.
And he proposed a Tax Cut as the necessity for upturns in the economy.
No matter which way the economy turned, his response was the same--cut taxes, cut taxes, and cut taxes.
So the message I received was not that Tax Cuts were fitting for specific economic conditions, but that President Bush and other Republicans were spinning all economic conditions to promote Tax Cuts. This greatly devalued the reliability of their, and your, continued arguments that "This economic condition specifically requires Tax Cuts."
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:The liberal/conservative pendulum swings in this country. Obama is over reaching, just as Clinton and Carter did. Obama will lose the congress just as Clinton did and if he isn't careful he'll lose reelection just as Carter did.
One of the only hard rules in Political Science regarding American politics is that if the presidency is of one party, the congress will certainly fall into the hands of the other. The American people do not typically like the executive and legislative branches being dominated by the same party regardless of which party it is. The Democrats might hold onto congress by midterm elections, but I will be very surprised if Obama wins reelection and the congress does not swing towards the Republicans.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:One of the only hard rules in Political Science regarding American politics is that if the presidency is of one party, the congress will certainly fall into the hands of the other.
That is a terrible thing to call a "hard rule." And I am not just saying that because of the abuse of the word 'certainly.' :/
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:The liberal/conservative pendulum swings in this country. Obama is over reaching, just as Clinton and Carter did. Obama will lose the congress just as Clinton did and if he isn't careful he'll lose reelection just as Carter did.
One of the only hard rules in Political Science regarding American politics is that if the presidency is of one party, the congress will certainly fall into the hands of the other. The American people do not typically like the executive and legislative branches being dominated by the same party regardless of which party it is. The Democrats might hold onto congress by midterm elections, but I will be very surprised if Obama wins reelection and the congress does not swing towards the Republicans.
It doesn't usually work like that. Well, generally the midterms are bad for the president's party, but the actual general election usually IS good if the president wins reelection due to the coattail effect.
From the looks of things, Republicans might stand to gain some House seats, but the Senate situation is not favorable to them. Things could still change dramatically in the next year and a half or so, but as things stand right now, it's not looking very likely that the GOP will retake Congress.
Also, I don't think that is at all a hard rule. It depends on a lot of things, and there are so many exceptions that I don't think you can call it a "hard rule."
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: From the looks of things, Republicans might stand to gain some House seats, but the Senate situation is not favorable to them. Things could still change dramatically in the next year and a half or so, but as things stand right now, it's not looking very likely that the GOP will retake Congress.
Polling right now is actually so grim for conservatism that already you can sum up the 2010 election by saying that it cannot be won by the Republicans, it can only be lost by the Democrats. What Nate Silver discussed in The Republican Death Spiral has been happening with remarkable speed ever since the Inauguration. If my analysis of the current polling data is correct, unless the Democrats deliver a series of remarkable scandals and failures in the run-up to the 2010 election, there is nothing the GOP can do to avoid ceding more ground, especially given that the lines that the GOP has drawn in the sand — especially those relating to homosexuals, abortion, and healthcare — pit the majority of the newly eligible generations of voters against their tent.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: If my analysis of the current polling data is correct, unless the Democrats deliver a series of remarkable scandals and failures in the run-up to the 2010 election...
The only thing that makes me partially skeptical of the 'Republican Death Spiral's' duration and damage is that, the weaker they get, the more likely scandals and failures will accrue among Democrats. Just because lack of competition makes one sloppy, and shall we say I'm dubious of the Democratic leadership's ability to keep everyone toeing the necessary lines while the Republicans continue to wither.
quote:especially those relating to homosexuals, abortion, and healthcare — pit the majority of the newly eligible generations of voters against their tent.
This, though, I agree with. Every passing year draws closer the time when Republican voter-drawing issues become first less decisive for them, and eventually actually decisive for Democrats.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
If the democrats have proved anything though, it is that they are very, very good at losing elections.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Rakeesh: The only thing that makes me partially skeptical of the 'Republican Death Spiral's' duration and damage is that, the weaker they get, the more likely scandals and failures will accrue among Democrats. Just because lack of competition makes one sloppy, and shall we say I'm dubious of the Democratic leadership's ability to keep everyone toeing the necessary lines while the Republicans continue to wither.
You're only dubious? Wow. I'm 100% positive that Democratic leadership is absolutely incapable of the necessary discipline to keep the party both in line, scandal free and toeing the necessary lines. They're going to gaffe and misstep their way through power that has been handed to them more by the mistakes of their opposition than by their own excellence. They didn't know how to get hold of it, I doubt they know how to keep it either.
quote:Rakeesh: This, though, I agree with. Every passing year draws closer the time when Republican voter-drawing issues become first less decisive for them, and eventually actually decisive for Democrats.
I agree too. That's the problem with most of your real wedge issues being social/moral issues in a country where those things (gay marriage, abortion, etc) are more and more acceptable to more and more people. We're growing more socially liberally and with more and more religious drift (not necessarily decay).
quote:From scholarette: If the democrats have proved anything though, it is that they are very, very good at losing elections.
That's certainly not what they proved this past November. If Obama decides not to cede party leadership to Pelosi and Reid, and he starts cracking the whip, I think you could see the rise of an extremely well disciplined Democratic party, and given the machine like efficiency of Obama's presidential run, it's proof that Democrats certainly know how to win an election.
We've yet to see how the behind the scenes wrangling is going to play out. It's way too early to see.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:That's certainly not what they proved this past November.
It would have taken a truly heroic series of feats of incompetence for them to have lost more than they won, referring to elections across the board.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: The only thing that makes me partially skeptical of the 'Republican Death Spiral's' duration and damage is that, the weaker they get, the more likely scandals and failures will accrue among Democrats. Just because lack of competition makes one sloppy, and shall we say I'm dubious of the Democratic leadership's ability to keep everyone toeing the necessary lines while the Republicans continue to wither.
Normally I would give you full agreement with this, an understanding that lack of competition and the associated indolence would cause the pendulum to swing back to the Democratic Party's default state of bloated incompetence and stupidity!
But, for the time being (and this includes 2010) the Democratic party is being run by some canny operators in the white house, who have (rightfully) usurped a leadership role nominally held by the likes of .. say, Nancy Pelosi.
It's only when the party idles back to the Nancy Pelosis that you get a pendulum effect.
Yet at the same time we have to be careful to assume that because things have worked certain ways in the past that it will determine the power balance in the future. 2000-2008 changed politics a little dramatically in the United States.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:That's certainly not what they proved this past November.
It would have taken a truly heroic series of feats of incompetence for them to have lost more than they won, referring to elections across the board.
Not necessarily. I think if Kerry had been running in 2008, he not only would have lost to McCain, but he would have taken a lot of Congressional Democrats down with him. I think they still would have been in control, but it wouldn't have been as commanding as it is now.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Not necessarily. I think if Kerry had been running in 2008, he not only would have lost to McCain, but he would have taken a lot of Congressional Democrats down with him. I think they still would have been in control, but it wouldn't have been as commanding as it is now.
Well, I qualify putting Kerry on the ticket as a pretty heroic feat of incompetence in and of itself, just as my personal opinion.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:One of the only hard rules in Political Science regarding American politics is that if the presidency is of one party, the congress will certainly fall into the hands of the other.
That is a terrible thing to call a "hard rule." And I am not just saying that because of the abuse of the word 'certainly.' :/
Then why are you saying it? Historically it has virtually always been the case that when the president is of one party, congress shifts towards the other because voters do not like power consolidated into one party. It's one of the only reliable principles in political science.
---- Lyrhawn: My use of "hard" was relativistic. As far as political science is concerned 98% of it can't be said with absolute certainty. Of course there are things that could happen that would allow a president to win election, win reelection, and all the while his party gains seats in congress. But generally speaking, that is not the case. At least, that hasn't been the case since "the era of good feeling" came to an end.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Rabbit: of course, optimal revenue generation is not really the goal of government.
I never claimed it was. I was simply trying to explain the ridiculousness of the claim that tax cuts will always result in increased revenue.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
who should be Speaker of the House?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
In the upper echelons of Democratic House leadership? Rahm Emmanuel would have been a much better choice, but he was far too junior for the job.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Then why are you saying it? Historically it has virtually always been the case that when the president is of one party, congress shifts towards the other because voters do not like power consolidated into one party. It's one of the only reliable principles in political science.
---- Lyrhawn: My use of "hard" was relativistic. As far as political science is concerned 98% of it can't be said with absolute certainty. Of course there are things that could happen that would allow a president to win election, win reelection, and all the while his party gains seats in congress. But generally speaking, that is not the case. At least, that hasn't been the case since "the era of good feeling" came to an end.
I just checked the data BB and I don't think it supports your case. Since 1899, the President and the House Majority Leader have been from the same party 62.5% of the time. Prior to Eisenhower, the President and the House Majority Leader were of the same party 82.7% of the time. That just doesn't support the contention that Americans have a strong desire to prevent one party rule, in fact one party rule appears to be the rule and not the exception.
The only trend I could see was that when the house switched parties in a midterm election year, the party which won the midterm election always won the following presidential election. But that was only true when there was a switch in the midterm elections.
[ May 04, 2009, 11:37 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I just checked and the Senate data looks nearly the same. Since 1921, the President and the Senate Majority Leader have been from the same party 62% of the time. The house, senate, and presidency have all been held by the same part 53% of the time.
Your rule not only doesn't seem to be hard rule, it's just plane wrong. For more than half of the last century, we've had one party rule.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:One of the only hard rules in Political Science regarding American politics is that if the presidency is of one party, the congress will certainly fall into the hands of the other.
That is a terrible thing to call a "hard rule." And I am not just saying that because of the abuse of the word 'certainly.' :/
Then why are you saying it? Historically it has virtually always been the case that when the president is of one party, congress shifts towards the other because voters do not like power consolidated into one party. It's one of the only reliable principles in political science.
Why am I saying it? Because what you are asserting historically is as untrue as what you are asserting logically.
But discounting the historical element AND the use of your absolutes ('certainly') rendering this completely wrong for the moment, this is absolutely nothing that should be considered a 'hard rule' in terms of deductive logic. It's not even a rule of inference.
It is not a sound principle, when analyzed.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I just checked and the Senate data looks nearly the same. Since 1921, the President and the Senate Majority Leader have been from the same party 62% of the time. The house, senate, and presidency have all been held by the same part 53% of the time.
Your rule not only doesn't seem to be hard rule, it's just plane wrong. For more than half of the last century, we've had one party rule.
OK, but length of time is not as important as when they were the same. I was not saying that voters go into the booth and say, "I won't vote for the same party for the presidency and my senator, and congressman/woman" indeed most voters do the opposite and vote mostly for the same party even if they call themselves moderates. What would be more telling is after a specific party wins the presidency, looking at the next midterm and reelection elections to see if the opposition party gains or loses seats.
What resources are you using Rabbit, I no longer have access to my university's resources, (No more JSTOR for me) I'd like to do some crunching myself instead of asking you to do it.
Also I think you meant "plain wrong" not "plane wrong."
edit: While studying the last few semester I heard the following statistic stated numerous times without contest, "In the latter half of the Twentieth Century, the presidency and both houses of Congress were under single-party control in only 16 of the 50 years (1953-54; 1961-68; 1977-80; and 1991-92)"
Now my original statement was "since the era of good feeling..." so I might have to revise that.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
even if we were to use that statistic and turn it into a "hard rule" given, the "hard rule" did not apply universally, and that statement does not indicate whether it is because of the "hard rule" asserted or due to other factors that are mostly unrelated to who controls what, such as just dropping the ball on an effective candidate for the presidency two years later.
But what I've given in this analysis isn't even given, soooooo
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Samp: I confess I'm not quite sure what you are saying. To me, you said that I was wrong, and then in a very eloquent manner proceeded to call my idea wrong again.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
On the most basic level you can't call something like that a "hard rule" because it isn't a rule at all! Even if it is a semi-reliable observed trend in one part of a modern century of this particular nation there is absolutely no reason why it will necessarily continue! The use of the word 'certainly' is entirely unwarranted because we have no such guarantee and it is a bad habit in terms of logic because it is an indefensible absolute that tries to suggest that it is a certain outcome due to a 'rule' much as if political makeups of the country run like a mathematical equation.
No such rule exists, so it can't be used as evidence that congress will 'certainly' fall into the hands of the Republicans. Nothing you are saying is valid! It is a fallacious assertion!
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
So you're upset that I misused the word 'certainly?' I'm still convinced that the presidency belonging to one party is a major influence on moving the congress in the other direction. It's not an unstoppable force which I admit the word certainly tends towards, but it is a strong current.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:So you're upset that I misused the word 'certainly?'
Among other things that you are saying which are logically fallacious, you have abused a statement of absolutes which is one of the reasons but not all of the reasons why you are being silly when you speak of this "hard rule" and — more important — why it does not back up your conclusions.
It simply does not have the testable explanatory power you assume it to!
Do you understand that at all?
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Hey there's no hard and fast rule about what a hard rule is.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ]OK, but length of time is not as important as when they were the same. I was not saying that voters go into the booth and say, "I won't vote for the same party for the presidency and my senator, and congressman/woman" indeed most voters do the opposite and vote mostly for the same party even if they call themselves moderates. What would be more telling is after a specific party wins the presidency, looking at the next midterm and reelection elections to see if the opposition party gains or loses seats.
What resources are you using Rabbit, I no longer have access to my university's resources, (No more JSTOR for me) I'd like to do some crunching myself instead of asking you to do it.
Also I think you meant "plain wrong" not "plane wrong."
edit: While studying the last few semester I heard the following statistic stated numerous times without contest, "In the latter half of the Twentieth Century, the presidency and both houses of Congress were under single-party control in only 16 of the 50 years (1953-54; 1961-68; 1977-80; and 1991-92)"
Now my original statement was "since the era of good feeling..." so I might have to revise that.
BB, I simply used wikipedia to find the house and senate majority leaders and the Presidents over the time period in question. I didn't find data that gave the partisan break down of the house and senate over time so I really couldn't tell whether parties gained or lost seats in a particular election unless it actually changed which party had the majority.
I think the problem with looking at the last half of the 20th century (1950 - 2000) is that you have a limited data set that is dominated by other factors and you've picked rather arbitrary starting and ending points. 1950 and 2000 were not watershed time points politically.
You have to consider that the democrats controlled both houses of the legislature from 1933 - through 1981 with the exception of two years under Truman and the first 2 years of Eisenhower's presidency. When Reagan took office, the republicans were able to win a narrow majority in the senate which they held for 6 years but they were not able to win a majority in the legislature until 1995.
Saying that the two houses and the Presidency were only held by the same party for 12 of the 50 years is a bit misleading. You get a very different answer if you go from 1930 to 1990, or from 1953 to 2007. It would be more revealing to note that from 1959 to 1995, both houses and the Presidency were held by the same party whenever there was a democratic President.
I think analyzing the last half of the 20th century says more revealing things about the differences between Presidential electoral politics and legislative electoral politics than it does about peoples concern with single party rule.
I do however think that there is currently a perception that having the legislature and Presidency controlled by the same party is a bad thing and that because it has been relatively rare over the past 50 years, many people consider it exceptional.
I also never really heard anyone all that worked up about it until the republicans took control of both branches which may be because the republicans were able to act with far greater unity than the democrats ever were. For some reason, the republicans are able to leverage party loyalty much better than the democrats. I have a couple of theories that might explain that and I'm not sure which if either if true.
The democrats held a majority in congress for nearly 60 years. During that time the republicans maximized their influence when they acted as a unified block and so I think a republican culture of unity grew out of that time period.
I've also noted that conservatives in general tend to be more oriented towards respect for and deference to authority, whereas liberals are more apt to question authority. I think that liberal tendency to question authority makes it more difficult to unite democrats in general. I can personally vouch for the fact that the far left is almost impossible to keep organized because people are so strongly against deference to any sort of central authority.
[ May 04, 2009, 04:32 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: I've also noted that conservatives in general tend to be more oriented towards respect for and deference to authority, whereas liberals are more apt to question authority.
In my experience this is much more issues-oriented than anything else.
On security issues, for example, I agree that conservatives are often more likely to defer to authority, liberals less. Taxation, though? Not so much.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
also the rest of the world also preferred American 1 Party rule as that way foreign policy stayed consistent and wasn't skitsophrenic.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Ha ha ha! Is anyone still naive enough to think there could be such a thing?
Everyone here is interested in getting reelected. Our politicians will support whatever the polls support about the time they need to win a vote. Since we've got our Senate staggered, we have someone up for reelection every two years. Start campaigning about a year ahead, and we're looking at a third of the Senate beholden to popular whim annually.
There's no way to have any sort of consistent policy on anything under those circumstances.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
I should hope not. "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results." The one thing that can be said about US foreign policy is that it is consistent... ...until well after the rest of the world* considers it to be insane.
* Including most informed Americans.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
it was brutal i think in the 1800's where every 2 years American foreign policy was derailed, it annoyed the hell out of the Great Powers.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
The best that could be said about the GreatPowers of that era would be "all brawn and no sane". Gotta be nimble when you're dealing with a buncha nutcases.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote: I've also noted that conservatives in general tend to be more oriented towards respect for and deference to authority, whereas liberals are more apt to question authority.
In my experience this is much more issues-oriented than anything else.
On security issues, for example, I agree that conservatives are often more likely to defer to authority, liberals less. Taxation, though? Not so much.
I should clarify. By "authority" I did not mean experts in the field. What I meant by "authority" was a figure with political power. Conservatives are much more likely to show deference to their leader than are liberals. When placed on a team, conservatives are more likely to vest decision making authority in the team leader and then to follow that leader. Liberal teams are more likely to work based on consensus and expect a team leader to build consensus rather than give orders.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I should clarify. By "authority" I did not mean experts in the field. What I meant by "authority" was a figure with political power. Conservatives are much more likely to show deference to their leader than are liberals. When placed on a team, conservatives are more likely to vest decision making authority in the team leader and then to follow that leader. Liberal teams are more likely to work based on consensus and expect a team leader to build consensus rather than give orders.
I understood what you meant, but I still stand by my statement.
On security issues, conservatives are in my experience more likely to show deference to their leaders than are liberals. However, this is not the case across the board in my experience. Taxation being an excellent examples. Conservatives aren't very likely at all to show 'deference' to a political leader on issues of taxation, even when they agree with the tax structure and spending.
I believe it's more an issue-related trust in authority, and if in a liberal team there existed a dynamic, charismatic, and capable figure who was also liberal? Deference will be given to him or her as well.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
If that is true, the fact that we didn't see "teabagging" parties and Fox News tantrums during the administration of President Bush is a bit curious.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:On security issues, conservatives are in my experience more likely to show deference to their leaders than are liberals. However, this is not the case across the board in my experience. Taxation being an excellent examples. Conservatives aren't very likely at all to show 'deference' to a political leader on issues of taxation, even when they agree with the tax structure and spending.
Well then we disagree. Look at how the republicans voted in block against Obama's stimulus package with nearly everyone standing behind their leaders. It's true that they didn't unite behind Bush's stimulus proposals, but at this point they'd pretty much rejected Bush as their leader and were doing their best to distance themselves from him.
Clinton was very charismatic. He had most of the world eating out of his hand but he couldn't get his own party to back him on just about anything. Obama is unquestionably charismatic and he is still having to work very hard to get democrats to follow his lead. In comparison, the republicans seemed to gulp down any and everything G.W. Bush proposed for the first 5 or 6 years of his term. And G.W. Bush isn't even particularly charismatic.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:If that is true, the fact that we didn't see "teabagging" parties and Fox News tantrums during the administration of President Bush is a bit curious.
Actually there was quite a bit of bitching during the Bush Administration, at least from the conservatives I know. But for most of the Bush Administration, the economy wasn't really a substantial issue for voters on either side. It was doing either well or at least well enough. Security and social issues were the biggies.
quote:Well then we disagree. Look at how the republicans voted in block against Obama's stimulus package with nearly everyone standing behind their leaders. It's true that they didn't unite behind Bush's stimulus proposals, but at this point they'd pretty much rejected Bush as their leader and were doing their best to distance themselves from him.
It wasn't especially hard for Republicans to 'vote in block' against Obama's stimulus package, because that stimulus package is at the least pretty contrary to Republican ideals. President Obama's stimulus package is extraordinary in many ways.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Actually there was quite a bit of bitching during the Bush Administration, at least from the conservatives I know.
I'm not talking about bitching, complaining is cheap. I'm talking about votes, most specifically about votes in congress and how easily the majority party is able to maintain control without crossing the aisle. The question raised was about single party rule and the influence it has on checks and balances. My observation is that single party rule is more worrisome to me when the single party is republican because republicans seem to be able to better enforce conformity to the aims of the party leaders.
When did G.W. Bush ever have a serious opposition to his budget proposals from within his own party? When did republicans in the house or senate fail to back his tax agenda? When did republicans in the senate question his choice of appointees? When did the republicans in congress oppose his environmental proposals?
The only item I can think of that the republican congress didn't simply rubber stamp for G.W. Bush was his proposal for Social Security reform and that was largely because Bush couldn't get the AARP on board and they are too important as part of the republican base for anyone to ignore.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote: I've also noted that conservatives in general tend to be more oriented towards respect for and deference to authority, whereas liberals are more apt to question authority.
In my experience this is much more issues-oriented than anything else.
On security issues, for example, I agree that conservatives are often more likely to defer to authority, liberals less. Taxation, though? Not so much.
Good point.
-Bok
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: When did G.W. Bush ever have a serious opposition to his budget proposals from within his own party? When did republicans in the house or senate fail to back his tax agenda? When did republicans in the senate question his choice of appointees? When did the republicans in congress oppose his environmental proposals?
As far as the tax agenda goes, yes, the GOP was the party of small government until bush pointed the herd in the other direction, and the new 'conservatism' was engaged upon largely without question.
In terms of the choice of appointees thing went, the serious conservatives and archconservatives joined the rest of the country in expressing massive rejection of his attempt to appoint harriet meiers.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: When did G.W. Bush ever have a serious opposition to his budget proposals from within his own party? When did republicans in the house or senate fail to back his tax agenda? When did republicans in the senate question his choice of appointees? When did the republicans in congress oppose his environmental proposals?
My personal opinion is that had we not been in the 'War on Terror' throughout most of Dubya's presidency, there would've been many fewer toes on the party line. It ties into what I said earlier about conservatives and security issues.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:In terms of the choice of appointees thing went, the serious conservatives and archconservatives joined the rest of the country in expressing massive rejection of his attempt to appoint harriet meiers.
Yes she was definitely exceptional in that regard. Of course she was both unqualified from a scholarly view point and unqualified from the far right ideological view point making her a truly exceptionally bad candidate.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Yeah I guess it doesn't make much of a counterargument against Conservative deference because she was clearly an outlier example, with nearly universal inapplicability to the post. GWB may just as well have tried to appoint Elmo. Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Sam, I can't tell whether you are being sarcastic or not.
I'm sure there are plenty of valid examples where conservative have bucked the party leadership, but I never intended to claim there weren't. My point wasn't that conservatives always defer to their leader and liberals never defer to the leader. It was solely that conservatives are generally more likely to defer to their leaders than liberals.
Perhaps I see it that way because I've spent too much time in Utah and Utah republicans are overwhelmingly LDS and Mormons have a very strong respect for and deference to appointed leaders.
On the far left spectrum, I've done a lot of work with greens, socialist and anarchists and they have exactly the opposite problem. Far left groups are so strongly biased against central leadership that they are constantly tearing themselves apart.
I picked the ends of the spectrum I'm familiar with and interpolated between the two and concluded that there is a general tendency for conservatives to give more respect to authority figures. Perhaps this is something that doesn't exist e except among Mormon conservatives but I don't think Mormons are that much of an outlier among conservatives in general. Perhaps the far left groups aren't really part of a liberal spectrum they just attract a lot of people with anti-social tendencies. Its possible I picked two outlier groups data points, but I don't really think so. My experience watching national politics does suggest that although there are certainly exceptions conservatives generally have more respect for authority figures than liberals.
[ May 06, 2009, 04:33 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Sam, I can't tell whether you are being sarcastic or not.
No sarcasm. I'm saying straight up that my use of harriet meiers as a counterargument against conservative deference doesn't work because it's an outlier example.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, looks like Senator Specter is getting screwed by the Democratic leadership. According to a voice vote yesterday, he's lost his seniority. He's claiming he was promised he'd keep it, Reid's spokesman denies.
I guess if the Democratic leadership sticks to that, it might not be a very painful decision. He can hardly go back to the Republicans now, after his talk of big-tent politics and whatnot.
Though as my father was saying, savvy Republicans could turn this into a coup if they approached him and invited him back, no harm no foul (publicly), and with promises to take it easy in the primaries.
That actually would be a pretty decent gesture of 'big tent' politics.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Would never happen. Pat Toomey will be a primary challenger regardless of what Steele or McConnell say.
They can offer not to give any funds to Toomey, or to support Specter in the primary, but he'll still be there, and I think regardless he's going to have his hands full.
Frankly I think Specter is going to face a primary fight from Democrat Joe Sestak as well, so regardless of what he does he's going to be in trouble, and his chances of making it to the general and then winning the general aren't guaranteed regardless of party.
The GOP could invite him back, but to what end? He'll still vote the same way, so they don't really get any legislative power back, and he'd have to face Toomey in the primary. Regardless of his position in the Democratic party, he was never going to be Chairman anyway with another Democrat above him, and he likely only has one more term in him anyway.
He'll stay where he is, though he'll be less likely to bend to whatever Reid asks of him as a result.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Would never happen. Pat Toomey will be a primary challenger regardless of what Steele or McConnell say.
Well, if the GOP decides to quash or at least not lend support to Toomey, that certainly changes the status quo.
quote: The GOP could invite him back, but to what end? He'll still vote the same way, so they don't really get any legislative power back, and he'd have to face Toomey in the primary. Regardless of his position in the Democratic party, he was never going to be Chairman anyway with another Democrat above him, and he likely only has one more term in him anyway.
Note that I'm not suggesting it's likely, however the benefit I was speculating on was PR.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The republicans WANT specter in the democratic party, though.
Any democratic candidate who can at least stand up straight and possess at least a 300 word vocabulary will beat Toomey. With Specter there, at least Toomey is losing to a "Democrat," as opposed to a Democrat.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Colin Powell becomes the next prominent Republican to take a shot at Limbaugh.
Please please please don't apologize for your remarks Mr. Powell!
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Specter never intended to vote with the majority on any substantive matter anyways. He proved that by voting with the Republicans on the budget. And after he spat in their faces, Senate Democrats paid him back by unanimously voting to make him a junior member.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Specter never intended to vote with the majority on any substantive matter anyways. He proved that by voting with the Republicans on the budget. And after he spat in their faces, Senate Democrats paid him back by unanimously voting to strip him of his seniority.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
I wonder why Democrats and the rest of the media are so obessed with making sure everyone hates Limbaugh? Why don't the have the same obession with someone like Maddow? or Olbermann? Rall? Jesse Jackson? or even following the gaffe machine Biden?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Maybe it's because Limbaugh is the top of the pile of political jackasses in the United States?
Seriously. He's got the ratings to prove it.
quote:And after he spat in their faces, Senate Democrats paid him back by unanimously voting to make him a junior member.
In what way did he 'spit in their faces'? Weighing in on that Minnesota race?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: I wonder why Democrats and the rest of the media are so obessed with making sure everyone hates Limbaugh? Why don't the have the same obession with someone like Maddow? or Olbermann? Rall? Jesse Jackson? or even following the gaffe machine Biden?
Except that they do. I've heard Olbermann specifically criticized for having too many "I just can't hold this in anymore" moments. Jesse Jackson was recognized as a poor spokesman for liberalism a long time ago, and the press has no problem pointing out Biden's gaffes.
What really bothers people like me is that Limbaugh is objectively a poor spokesman for conservatism. He's an excessively angry, thrice divorced, addicted to pain killers, corpulent, sexist, who deigns to talk about social values. Republicans keep balking at calling a spade a spade. A Republican party that tells Limbaugh he is not wanted or desired is a Republican party that can get its' moorings back. But every time they manage to summon the courage to call some of his remarks, "inflammatory" or "rude" Rush blasts them for not being "real Republicans" and then they lose their integrity by apologizing.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: He's an excessively angry, thrice divorced, addicted to pain killers, corpulent, sexist, who deigns to talk about social values.
This is the best brief description of Rush Limbaugh I can recall reading, BB.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote: He's an excessively angry, thrice divorced, addicted to pain killers, corpulent, sexist, who deigns to talk about social values.
This is the best brief description of Rush Limbaugh I can recall reading, BB.
Amen.
I liked Powell's statement.
quote:"I think what Rush does as an entertainer diminishes the party and intrudes or inserts into our public life a kind of nastiness that we would be better to do without," Powell said.
quote:"Is this really the kind of party that we want to be when these kinds of spokespersons seem to appeal to our lesser instincts rather than our better instincts?"
Certainly Rush is not the only nasty voice out their appealling to people's lesser instincts, but he is certainly the most widely heard and one of the loudest. By all reports, his show draws a minimum of 13 million listeners every week. He has an enormous fan club, he sells T-shirts promoting water boarding. If you add all the followers of everyone on DK's list together I can't imagine they add up to half as many followers as Rush has. Evidently hate mongering pays and Limbaugh is simply better at it than the others.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ... He's an excessively angry, thrice divorced, addicted to pain killers, corpulent, sexist, who deigns to talk about social values.
He sounds like an evil hypocritical House! Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Rakeesh: Thanks, I debated whether to add 'racist' and 'college dropout' to the list but I'm not certain he's a racist, and dropping out of college is not categorically bad.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
My brother has the most awesome artwork ever but I can't show it due to copyright issues basically its Spongbob squarepants acting all googily eyed and happy when squidward is waterboarding him as spongebob is restrained to a table.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Colin Powell becomes the next prominent Republican to take a shot at Limbaugh.
Please please please don't apologize for your remarks Mr. Powell!
Heh. Colin Powell is nearly as much persona non grata in today's Republican Party as Specter is. He endorsed Obama, remember?
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I think Powell could come back into public life pretty easily if he wanted to. I really don't get the sense that at this point in his life he covets the limelight. Given the kind of people who are getting the limelight these days, especially on the right, one can hardly blame him.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Rakeesh: Thanks, I debated whether to add 'racist' and 'college dropout' to the list but I'm not certain he's a racist, and dropping out of college is not categorically bad.
Well, I can't say I'm certain...but if I could read his mind, let's just say I'd be flabbergasted if it turned out he wasn't a racist.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Rakeesh: Thanks, I debated whether to add 'racist' and 'college dropout' to the list but I'm not certain he's a racist, and dropping out of college is not categorically bad.
Well, I can't say I'm certain...but if I could read his mind, let's just say I'd be flabbergasted if it turned out he wasn't a racist.
Ditto
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Rabbit's a Ditto-head.
(Sorry for the insult, I couldn't resist)
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Pun intended.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
quote: Evidently hate mongering pays and Limbaugh is simply better at it than the others.
Unless he is better at it because he doesn't use hate-mongering. Rush's show is more about being positive and doing things yourself and not what the government should be doing for you. It's easy to take 15 hours of programming a week, pull out maybe 20 seconds, to make a claim of hate mongering.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Rush's show is more about being positive...
*laugh* Oh, yeah. He's like Oprah for NASCAR dads, I'm sure.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: *laugh* Oh, yeah. He's like Oprah for NASCAR dads, I'm sure.
What a clever line...I wonder where you read it? You don't listen so you don't know. Not that you would do something to go against your already unchanging unfailing intellect, but try listening for awhile (that means more than 2 minutes) and see if you think Rush is a hate mongering negative person or if his show is about something else. I await your snarky post in return. I can't wait for the terrific tidbit of condescension, it's all you ever do! (Note how I can reduce you to something you are not by utilizing the same techniques you use to characterize Rush)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
How many minutes do I have to listen to Rush before I'm allowed to form an opinion of whether he's positive or not? Is there a particularly positive bit I should be tuning in for, maybe at the 1:07 mark? Let me know when he's giving away the free cars.
quote:Note how I can reduce you to something you are not by utilizing the same techniques you use to characterize Rush
Ah, dude. Somehow you still manage to completely miss the point. But keep on truckin'.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
DarkKnight, I have listened to Limbaugh, and hell, I voted for Dubya twice. So my credibility as a non-hater-of-conservatives, I think, has to be at least a little valid.
And I think he's a hate-monger. It's true, not every hour of his show is filled with frothing invective. But then, it doesn't have to be for him to still be an angry hate-monger.
Here's what I remember hearing from the Rush Limbaugh show on all the occasions I've listened: lots of preaching to the choir (that's the majority), slightly less but still lots of major condescension (a close second), frequent personal insult, straw men, and slippery slope reasoning, punctuated by both feel-good stories and the hate-filled invective.
What makes Limbaugh a hate-monger is that he embraces, in a whopping big hearty bear hug, all the hateful things he says. He cops to his personal insults with all their hints of racism and sexism with a big sh@#-eating grin.
He's a stain on conservative politics, who tragically isn't going away anytime soon. Which is strange (some might say hypocritical) given his stance on crime.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: My brother has the most awesome artwork ever but I can't show it due to copyright issues basically its Spongbob squarepants acting all googily eyed and happy when squidward is waterboarding him as spongebob is restrained to a table.
Um, given the quantity of deviantArt that's just a rehash of pop culture characters, I think you are perfectly safe showing someone a work that clearly counts as parody.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote: *laugh* Oh, yeah. He's like Oprah for NASCAR dads, I'm sure.
What a clever line...I wonder where you read it? You don't listen so you don't know. Not that you would do something to go against your already unchanging unfailing intellect, but try listening for awhile (that means more than 2 minutes) and see if you think Rush is a hate mongering negative person or if his show is about something else. I await your snarky post in return.
I listened to rush every broadcast day for seven months in a row. His business strategy and his mode of punditry is to seed hate. More importantly, he pontificates through mockery, ignorant disdain, disregard for the facts, and mammoth self-righteousness.
Any more tricks besides the 'listen to him first' line?
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
. I think I just made a new friend in Tatiana.![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
I'd like to do some crunching myself instead of asking you to do it.![[Wink]](wink.gif)