Republicans considering ideological purity test for candidates - WTF?!!

[MattusMaximus]

Republicans considering ideological purity test for candidates (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20091124/pl_ynews/ynews_pl996)
Ten members of the Republican National Committee are proposing a resolution demanding candidates embrace at least eight of 10 conservative principles if they hope to receive financial support and an official endorsement from the RNC. The "Proposed RNC Resolution on Reagan's Unity Principle for Support of Candidates," is designed to force candidates to prove that they support "conservative principles" while opposing "Obama's socialist agenda," according to The New York Times' Caucus blog. The proposal highlights the ongoing tug-of-war for the ideological soul of the Republican party, and has been met with skepticism both inside and outside of the party.

Some are speculating that the move was inspired by the GOP’s recent loss in New York's 23rd House race, a seat the party had held since the 1800s. That contest saw Dede Scozzafava, a moderate Republican endorsed by the RNC, driven out of the race in favor of Doug Hoffman, a more conservative candidate backed by the likes of Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin. After Scozzafava dropped out of the race, the RNC endorsed Hoffman, who went on to lose to the Democratic candidate, Bill Owens. ...

Oh man, I see this as a really bad idea. It basically screams "moderates need not apply" and I think it will do nothing to really satisfy the Tea Party wingnuts. I see it as bad for the GOP and bad for the country as well. I would love to see moderates have more of a voice within Republican ranks, yet moves like this don't fill me with confidence in that regard.

:popcorn1

[korenyx]

According to the book Idiot America that's how McCain ended up with Palin. She passed those tests with flying colors.

[tyr_13]

Is it too early to Godwin the thread?

[gtc]

Is it too early to Godwin the thread?

You know who else insisted on ideological purity tests?

Nazis.

That's who.


Its an oddity of the American system that this is news. Candidates for most political parties around the world would have to agree to support the party platform. That doesn't mean its a good idea in this case, though.

[leftysergeant]

Given that the most far-right Republicans have had their heads handed to them when they run against a rational Democrat, I don't think hard right turns are a good idearight now, so I do encourage them to crank that sucker right and over the curb.

[hgc]

Why not let's post the 10-point purity test:

(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama's "stimulus" bill;

(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare;

(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;

(4) We support workers' right to secret ballot by opposing card check;

(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;

(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;

(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;

(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;

(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and

(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership;


This is like a crappy crib notes of the Contract with America. At least there's no call for prayer in public schools.

[Skeptic]

Newsflash.

Political organizations demands politicians support its politics before it receives the political organization's political backing.

Said political organization's politics do not actually fit the other side's political organization's politics.

Other side's politicians are shocked, SHOCKED.

[Tricky]

This reminds me a lot of the questionaires the the GOP sends me every so often because I used to be a registered Republican. They always contain leading questions like "Do you favor using your hard-earned tax dollars to support people who refuse to work?"

But the idea that there is a "litmus test" for Republicans is, IMO, a very bad idea. They are going to foster more infighting and hostility among their own ranks. Lots of Republicans don't have any problem with gay marriage, among other issues in that list. To force them to sign up or "fail the test" is just going to cause more defections.

[tyr_13]

This reminds me a lot of the questionaires the the GOP sends me every so often because I used to be a registered Republican. They always contain leading questions like "Do you favor using your hard-earned tax dollars to support people who refuse to work?"

But the idea that there is a "litmus test" for Republicans is, IMO, a very bad idea. They are going to foster more infighting and hostility among their own ranks. Lots of Republicans don't have any problem with gay marriage, among other issues in that list. To force them to sign up or "fail the test" is just going to cause more defections.

Exactly. Once your party gives you a test, and tells you that your score means that you're not a real Republican, you might realize that you're not a Republican and leave.

[hgc]

Lets visit point 1, as regards smaller national debt and smaller deficits.

Would every Republican member of Congress who voted for an unfunded Medicare Part D, 2 unfunded wars and trillions of dollars in tax cuts at the same time please explain exactly when debt and deficits became something of interest?

[sugarb]

There goes my shot at the Presidency...

What is interesting is that some Democrats would pass this test.

[SezMe]

Newsflash.

Political organizations demands politicians support its politics before it receives the political organization's political backing.
Newsflash.

Some newesflashes are wrong. Like the one above.

Both Dems and Reps have loyal members in good standing who have received their party's political backing and, at the same time, do NOT support its platform. Pro-choice Reps is an obvious example.

[Pvt. Stash]

Pro-choice Reps is an obvious example.




those aren't "real" republicans... (ie. RINO's, rep. in name only)

[Dr Adequate]

Let joy be unconfined.

[Leif Roar]

Why not let's post the 10-point purity test:

Are any of those a principle rather than a current issue, except no. 4? A couple of them strikes me as somewhat non sequitor too -- what's the link between "containment" and "action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat" and how does "opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants" help "support legal immigration and assimilation"?

On a general note, ideological "purity tests" are stupid. The world keeps changing, after all.

[Cain]

Is there anything wrong with the idea of a test? If you generally do not agree with the Republican Party platform, then you probably shouldn't run as a Republican, or expect the Republican party to assist your campaign. If anything this makes their process more transparent because the party label will actually mean something. The genuine fraud comes arises when we discuss what "true" conservatives actually end up doing -- growing government, beginning wars they cannot finance, running up the deficit (see hgc's post).

Republican politics are more ideological whereas Democrats are more transactional (look at the astonishing goodies demanded by your precious "moderates" for the health care bill). If anything the Democrats should be more like the Republicans rather than vice versa (not terms of policy positions, obviously, but when it comes party discipline). Force Democrats to get a political theory. Assign Theory of Justice and conduct seminars.

[Leif Roar]

Is there anything wrong with the idea of a test?

Perhaps not in theory, but I don't think you can simplify a modern political party's platform into ten yes/no questions without oversimplifying it to the point of uselessness.

[Corsair 115]

Would every Republican member of Congress who voted for an unfunded Medicare Part D, 2 unfunded wars and trillions of dollars in tax cuts at the same time please explain exactly when debt and deficits became something of interest?


At the exact moment they were no longer the party in power. Or so it seems at least.

[Cain]

Perhaps not in theory, but I don't think you can simplify a modern political party's platform into ten yes/no questions without oversimplifying it to the point of uselessness.

Why do you make a distinction for a "modern" political party? Is this to guard against a historical argument for a party that has one core issue, such as ending slavery? Political parties should not welcome everyone with open arms. As for these ten points -- well, they're shoddy at best. The first one is arguably inconsistent (and unarguably poorly worded, not unlike this parenthetical note). The third one is amusing: they "support market-based reforms by opposing cap and trade..." That just doesn't follow; indeed, it could arguably make more sense if it read "We encourage market-based reforms by supporting cap and trade legislation." But whatever; these things are usually written by idiots, and the people behind this list of ten are Republicans, and its done via committee, so that's three marks against their intelligence.

[fishbob]

Republicans considering ideological purity test for candidates


From: Dr. Strangelove or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb - just after General Ripper launches a nuclear strike.

General Jack D. Ripper: Mandrake, do you realize that in addition to fluoridating water, why, there are studies underway to fluoridate salt, flour, fruit juices, soup, sugar, milk... ice cream. Ice cream, Mandrake, children's ice cream.

Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: Lord, Jack.

General Ripper: You know when fluoridation first began?

Group Capt. Mandrake: I... no, no. I don't, Jack.

General Ripper: Nineteen hundred and forty-six. Nineteen forty-six, Mandrake. How does that coincide with your post-war Commie conspiracy, huh? It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core Commie works.

Group Capt. Mandrake: Uh, Jack, Jack, listen, tell me, tell me, Jack. When did you first... become... well, develop this theory?

General Ripper: Well, I, uh... I... I... first became aware of it, Mandrake, during the physical act of love.

Group Capt. Mandrake: Hmm.

General Ripper: Yes, a uh, a profound sense of fatigue... a feeling of emptiness followed. Luckily I... I was able to interpret these feelings correctly. Loss of essence.

Group Capt. Mandrake: Hmm.


So - the Republicans are concerned about Loss of Essence?
Hmmm.

PS: Purity of Essence - POE - was the recall code. It didn't work.

[KoihimeNakamura]

Neither party is really a 'party', they're more big tent organizations.

[quadraginta]

Neither party is really a 'party', they're more big tent organizations.


So this is an effort on the part of the RNC to address that problem?

[ponderingturtle]

Its an oddity of the American system that this is news. Candidates for most political parties around the world would have to agree to support the party platform. That doesn't mean its a good idea in this case, though.

Sure but most countries have a system that permits more than two functional parties, and often moves a lot of the focus from the individual to the party. You never vote for a party in the US only for individuals.

[ponderingturtle]

Why not let's post the 10-point purity test:




This is like a crappy crib notes of the Contract with America. At least there's no call for prayer in public schools.

Nice to see that they have things that are incompatable on there. I think 2 and 9 don't really go together. If they want a truely free market for health care then you can't go arround forcing people to treat the indigent for no pay as they want in 9.

But I am not really suprised. America should sue the party for contract violation from the last time.

[Oliver]

Sure but most countries have a system that permits more than two functional parties, and often moves a lot of the focus from the individual to the party. You never vote for a party in the US only for individuals.


Oh, I see. Two individuals to choose from, so to speak. :boggled:;):p:D

[ponderingturtle]

Exactly. Once your party gives you a test, and tells you that your score means that you're not a real Republican, you might realize that you're not a Republican and leave.

Sure, see Micheal Bloomberg.

[ponderingturtle]

So this is an effort on the part of the RNC to address that problem?

Yep, they have decided being a national party is a problem for them.

[quadraginta]

Yep, they have decided being a national party is a problem for them.


So it would seem.

[Alferd_Packer]

Am I the only one who is disturbed by this one?

(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;

[Alferd_Packer]

[quote}(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership; [/quote]

Yeah, Let's repeal restricitons on automatic weapons.

I really want to go out and buy a 1921 model Thompson Sub Machine Gun.

with a 50 round drum magazine.

[Mumbles]

Lets visit point 1, as regards smaller national debt and smaller deficits.

Would every Republican member of Congress who voted for an unfunded Medicare Part D, 2 unfunded wars and trillions of dollars in tax cuts at the same time please explain exactly when debt and deficits became something of interest?

For that matter, would any of them call for entitlement and military cuts needed to simultaneously lower taxes, lower debt, and shrink government? That's not something you can do by simply opposing the stimulus bill, especially since the stimulus included tax cuts. And of course, how do you manage that while sending more troops overseas and doing nothing to change medical entitlements?

Frankly, the list is just a collection of talking points. "Stop taking my money!", "Victory in Iraq!", "Hands off my Medicare!", "Guns! Guns!", "What about the babies!?" "Send the illegals back where they came from!", "Gays want to ruin marriage!" No wonder they end up messing things up, they have no actual plan in the first place.

[drkitten]

Is there anything wrong with the idea of a test? If you generally do not agree with the Republican Party platform, then you probably shouldn't run as a Republican, or expect the Republican party to assist your campaign.

But this is simply wrong.

"All politics is local." The national issues that define "the party" may be meaningless or active hindrances locally, which is where candidates are nominated and run. In a strongly "blue" area, you may not be able to find ANY electable candidate that will support all ten -- or even eight of the ten -- planks on that particular purity test. Even if that's the case, you'd be better off finding an electable candidate who supports six of them than insisting that the Republicans must run a candidate who can't help but lose to a zero of ten McGovern Democrat. If you do that, you end up with support for NONE of your ideas in congress, instead of only some of them.

This is the classic mistake of letting the achievable good become the enemy of the unachievable best.

[Sporanox]

I actually like the idea of the purity test. Republicans should be Republicans, instead of forcing people like Doug Hoffman to run an underfunded third party campaign in lieu of pouring 900,000 dollars into uber-RINO Scozzafava's pockets.

Seriously, people like Scozzafava should be independents. Full stop.

[Cleon]

Its an oddity of the American system that this is news. Candidates for most political parties around the world would have to agree to support the party platform. That doesn't mean its a good idea in this case, though.

The difference is that in most democracies there is at least a semblance of a multi-party system. There are at least four parties represented in the Australian parliament, IIRC. The United States has a two-party system, almost by law; ballot access laws and bureacratic state structural requirements make it prohibitively difficult for a third party to make any sort of national showing.

The result of this is that the two main parties are much more ideologically broad than those in multi-party systems; the Democrats have everything from conservatives (Zell Miller) to socialists (DSA), and the Republicans run the gamut from libertarians (Ron Paul) to virtual theocrats (Focus-on-the-Family types).

If one party starts applying a purity test, those who don't agree with every bullet point will start defecting to the one that doesn't. If both parties start applying a litmus test, it effectively disenfranchises everyone who doesn't toe one party line or the other.

[Thunder]

so if I support any restrictions on gun ownership, support the right of a woman to have an abortion during the 1st and 2nd trimester, and want gay marriage to be left to individual states, I can't run as a Republican and get RNC support?

nice. welcome to Nazi Germany. so much for freedom.

Republicans have NO room for varying views on social issues??????

I don't see Democrats wanting to kick out folks who are against funding abortions, against gun laws, and against Obama's ideas about Iraq.

let the Godwining begin!!!!!

[Newtons Bit]

so if I support any restrictions on gun ownership, support the right of a woman to have an abortion during the 1st and 2nd trimester, and want gay marriage to be left to individual states, I can't run as a Republican and get RNC support?

nice. welcome to Nazi Germany. so much for freedom.

Republicans have NO room for varying views on social issues??????

I don't see Democrats wanting to kick out folks who are against funding abortions, against gun laws, and against Obama's ideas about Iraq.

let the Godwining begin!!!!!

:boggled::boggled::boggled:

Are you really this upset that 5% of the RNC National Committee is proposing to restrict funding to members of their party who support less than 80% of the national platform?

Please excuse the Tu Quoque, but what's your stance on Joe Lieberman again? Didn't you call him a traitor and evil for stating that he would try to block the public-health-insurance-company option?

[Sporanox]

nice. welcome to Nazi Germany. so much for freedom.

Since when was the Republican Party a nation capable of denying freedom? :/

[Travis]

How can they reconcile points (1) and (6)? Troop surges cost money. Lots of it. Point (5) doesn't even make logical sense. Items (8) and (9) are barbaric and shameful.

[Achán hiNidráne]

This is like a crappy crib notes of the Contract with America. At least there's no call for prayer in public schools.

There is still homophobic and anti-abortion BS, and we all know where that usually comes from.

[ponderingturtle]

How can they reconcile points (1) and (6)? Troop surges cost money. Lots of it. Point (5) doesn't even make logical sense. Items (8) and (9) are barbaric and shameful.

Look we can borrow the million dollars it takes to send a soldier to afganistan from the chinese so financial responcibility isn't an issue.

[Achán hiNidráne]

I actually like the idea of the purity test. Republicans should be Republicans...

And just who get's to decide who is and who isn't a Republican? I smell a No-True-Scotsman lingering about.

[Thunder]

This is why I love Republicans. They never miss an opportunity to portray themselves as the party of extremism, intolerance, and non-compromise. Maybe they should start their own church.

[drkitten]

And just who get's to decide who is and who isn't a Republican?

Ultimately, the Republican National Committee. I should think that was their job.

Certainly, distributing RNC funds and RNC support is their job, and they're supposed to ride herd on the local republican party organizations.

If some nutcase local politician, in, say, Louisiana decided to run explicitly on a pro-KKK platform, the RNC would have a duty to protect their brand-identity and at least to keep that nutcase from running as a Republican. In the same way that if my local burger joint decided to create an unauthorized McE.Coli special, regional or national might have something to say about it and would eventually pull their franchise.

Nothing keeps that person in Louisiana from running as the Independent White Power candidate. Just like nothing would keep someone else in Ohio from running as candidate from the Conservative but In Touch With Reality party.

The real problem is what this says about the "brand identity" that the RNC wants to protect. Evidently "in touch with reality" is more scary than "white power."

[Brainster]

This is why I love Republicans. They never miss an opportunity to portray themselves as the party of extremism, intolerance, and non-compromise. Maybe they should start their own church.

Says the man who just last week was calling Joe Lieberman a traitor to the Democrats.

[Cain]

But this is simply wrong.

"All politics is local." The national issues that define "the party" may be meaningless or active hindrances locally, which is where candidates are nominated and run. In a strongly "blue" area, you may not be able to find ANY electable candidate that will support all ten -- or even eight of the ten -- planks on that particular purity test. Even if that's the case, you'd be better off finding an electable candidate who supports six of them than insisting that the Republicans must run a candidate who can't help but lose to a zero of ten McGovern Democrat. If you do that, you end up with support for NONE of your ideas in congress, instead of only some of them.

This is the classic mistake of letting the achievable good become the enemy of the unachievable best.

But you're not really making an argument against a test; you're just lowering the score for a passing grade from eight to six. There's no reason why eight is a magic number. States also have their own party platforms; Texas Republicans and Texas Democrats differ from the national party. Besides, many local races are non-partisan anyway; try getting elected the Mayor of Newark as anything but a Democrat.

[drkitten]

But you're not really making an argument against a test; you're just lowering the score for a passing grade from eight to six.

No, I'm making the argument against a test. The point is that any cutoff, especially one set nationally, will not reflect local concerns and considerations.

Indeed, I can see lots of situations where a candidate with a score of 10 is LESS electable than one with a score of 6. The idea of a "test" where the best grade is somewhere in the middle is kind of silly, isn't it?

The alternative is to have a test where the "passing grade" is set at whatever the locals want. Which is more or less the current state of affairs, and it's unsatisfactory because the locals aren't producing candidates of sufficient ideological purity.

[ponderingturtle]

Ultimately, the Republican National Committee. I should think that was their job.

Really? I thought it would fall to voters in the primaries.

If some nutcase local politician, in, say, Louisiana decided to run explicitly on a pro-KKK platform, the RNC would have a duty to protect their brand-identity and at least to keep that nutcase from running as a Republican. In the same way that if my local burger joint decided to create an unauthorized McE.Coli special, regional or national might have something to say about it and would eventually pull their franchise.

So they couldn't enter primaries and see if local republicans vote for them?

I guess this is the problem with the primary system.

[Thunder]

Says the man who just last week was calling Joe Lieberman a traitor to the Democrats.

there is nothing wrong with having values that differ from the mainstream of your party.

now, actively helping the opposition filibuster legislation? thats a whole different story.

Lieberman is more then welcome to vote against all the Obama-inspired legislation he likes. but i think it would be horribly wrong of him, or any other Democrat, to be the deciding vote in a filibuster against democratic legislation.

i can expect Republicans to feel the same say, if a moderate Republican decided to give the Democrats a filibuster against some of THEIR legislation.

can you imagine...can you comprehend...the reaction if a moderate Republican decided to give the Democrats a filibuster against Republican abortion legislation? they would call for his head on a stake on top of New London Bridge.

[Beerina]

Republicans considering ideological purity test for candidates (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20091124/pl_ynews/ynews_pl996)


Oh man, I see this as a really bad idea. It basically screams "moderates need not apply"

It also screams, "Here, Left, here is a softball we're lobbing for you to hit it out of the ballpark with in your rhetoric."

On the other hand, many of the individual issues are liked by most Americans. But, unlike the Contract With America, this is seen as being forced, rather than a list that candidates voluntarily flocked to for the boost it gave them. Why they aren't taking that successful approach (successful for getting elected in 1994, not in execution) I don't know. Well, yes I do. Stupidity.


:popcorn1

I concur. :popcorn1

[drkitten]

So they couldn't enter primaries and see if local republicans vote for them?

I guess this is the problem with the primary system.

They could, and it is. Or at least "a" problem. One of the things that local party organizations do is endorse candidates in the primary who best reflect what they consider to be the electable party line. There's a big difference in running in the primaries as an "endorsed Democrat" and a just a "Democrat," precisely because of the imprimatur the local party endorsement gives.

.... plus, of course, the help, both financial and organizational, of the party organization.

All of which tend to keep the candidates on the rails, as it were. It's much more difficult to win if you don't have the party itself on your side.

But it's a real issue, precisely because a charismatic nutcase could do serious damage to the party "brand."

[MattusMaximus]

At least there's no call for prayer in public schools.

Just wait... I'm sure once the Tea Party wingnuts have had a chance to hoot, holler, and stamp their feet the RNC will roll over and add that bit of lunacy to the list. That and something stating that "human life begins at conception" to appease the hardcore anti-abortion nuts.

Moderates need not apply...

[MattusMaximus]

But it's a real issue, precisely because a charismatic nutcase could do serious damage to the party "brand."

Read: "Sarah Palin" :)

[drkitten]

Read: "Sarah Palin" :)

Pre-CISE-ly.

[ponderingturtle]

They could, and it is. Or at least "a" problem. One of the things that local party organizations do is endorse candidates in the primary who best reflect what they consider to be the electable party line. There's a big difference in running in the primaries as an "endorsed Democrat" and a just a "Democrat," precisely because of the imprimatur the local party endorsement gives.

Sure but what happens when the wrong candidate wins the primary?

.... plus, of course, the help, both financial and organizational, of the party organization.

All of which tend to keep the candidates on the rails, as it were. It's much more difficult to win if you don't have the party itself on your side.

But it's a real issue, precisely because a charismatic nutcase could do serious damage to the party "brand."

Ah like Micheal Steele getting repremanded and then appoligising to Rush.

[Cain]

No, I'm making the argument against a test. The point is that any cutoff, especially one set nationally, will not reflect local concerns and considerations.

Any political party needs a set of unifying principles. It's inescapable. If anyone can be a Republican, then it reduces what it means to be a Republican. Suppose someone believes intelligent design, homeopathic treatments, 2012 destruction, Planet X, 9/11 conspiracy theories and so on. Would we still call her a skeptic? Would it be wise for a skeptics' organization to hire her as a spokesperson?

On a slight tangent, it's insane that a country as geographically varied and rich as the United States, one with a population of over 300 million people, has only two major parties.

Indeed, I can see lots of situations where a candidate with a score of 10 is LESS electable than one with a score of 6. The idea of a "test" where the best grade is somewhere in the middle is kind of silly, isn't it?

I think it's intuitively obvious a candidate scoring six is, generally speaking, more electable than a candidate scoring ten. This does not mean that a medianish score is "best," -- that's a value judgment. A candidate scoring six might is probably more representative; but the people are supposed to choose their representatives. Here's another crucial psychological difference between the parties: Democrats are more likely to fail to take a stand and lead. They moderate their stances to reflect changing public opinion rather than standing up for core principles.

[Thunder]

RNC new rule:

"Moderate people, who don't seek out scapegoats, and who don't want poor and sick people to die in the streets, need not apply. Gay lovers and folks who believe women have the right to decide the fate of their own bodies, need not apply"

[ponderingturtle]

Any political party needs a set of unifying principles. It's inescapable. If anyone can be a Republican, then it reduces what it means to be a Republican. Suppose someone believes intelligent design, homeopathic treatments, 2012 destruction, Planet X, 9/11 conspiracy theories and so on. Would we still call her a skeptic? Would it be wise for a skeptics' organization to hire her as a spokesperson?

Maybe, but the problem is that if someone agrees with you say 70% of the time you are kicking them out for the remaining 30%.

Well very few people agree with one parties platform 100% they just fit more with one party than the other. By having pass fail tests of ideological purity you are driving the moderates away. This will kill a party in the US, as you can't be a national major party with out many diverse groups supporting you.

For example the republican party is both the party of the religious and big business. Now is there any natural reason that these two groups would have the same goals? I can't think of any.

On a slight tangent, it's insane that a country as geographically varied and rich as the United States, one with a population of over 300 million people, has only two major parties.

No it is a result of how the american constitution was written. No one ever votes for a party they vote between a group of people running for a single office, the one with the most votes gets the office. This means that if you get 30% of the vote another party gets 20% of the vote the party that got 50% of the vote gets everything, and the two parties that split the vote get nothing.

That is why america is a two party system. What a third party does it means that it and the party closest ideologicaly to it will lose.

Is this unique in the modern world? Maybe. But that doesn't make it untrue.


I think it's intuitively obvious a candidate scoring six is, generally speaking, more electable than a candidate scoring ten.

Depends on the candidate. Candidates are often elected more on their personality than the positions they hold.

[willhaven]

Political parties are a bad idea for the reasons outlined in this 10 point list of insanity.

[MattusMaximus]

The only upside I see to this situation is that, in the long run, it could break the logjam of our two-party system. As a guy who voted Reform Party more than once, I wouldn't mind seeing something else on the table (if for no other reason, such as in the case of the TP nuts, to get some entertainment value out of it).

[Cain]

No it is a result of how the american constitution was written.

This doesn't follow from what I said. We could be living in the early 19th century and I'd point out how insane it is that blacks are counted as 3/5ths of a person. You could dig out your Constitution and point but it's rather meaningless in the context of my moral outrage.

No one ever votes for a party they vote between a group of people running for a single office, the one with the most votes gets the office. This means that if you get 30% of the vote another party gets 20% of the vote the party that got 50% of the vote gets everything, and the two parties that split the vote get nothing.

It seems that at least two cities have adopted preferential voting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote

Is this unique in the modern world? Maybe. But that doesn't make it untrue.

It's a rotten system. Our elections are ********** up all the way down the line. The Patrician anti-democratic Senate, the gerrymandered House (where politicians choose voters rather than voters choosing politicians), and the antiquated Electoral College. It's all crap.

[shadron]

Perhaps the party is only trying to save a few bucks on their national conventions by not having to spend a day writing a platform for their candidates to fulfill. Imagine: check in your credentials on Monday, vote on Tuesday, home by Wednesday evening.

[Thunder]

I will simply say that I fully support a 10 point ideology test for Republicans. This will likely lead to moderate Republicans bolting from the party and becoming independents, Democrats, or even (please God), form a new fiscally conservative/socially moderate-liberal political party!!!!!

[cwalner]

That is why america is a two party system. What a third party does it means that it and the party closest ideologicaly to it will lose.

Is this unique in the modern world? Maybe. But that doesn't make it untrue.


Paging Ralph Nader. Al Gore is on the line, he wants his election back.

[Thunder]

a 3 party system would indeed just focus power into the party that did not fall apart. now, if a fiscal conservative/social moderate party was formed out of the current GOP....AND a more leftist party was formed out of the current Democratic party..and we had 4 parties...that would be pretty interesting.

but Democratic unity is quite strong in that sense. we know how to NOT push people to the brink.

[Darth Rotor]

From: Dr. Strangelove or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb - just after General Ripper launches a nuclear strike.

You missed the chance for the joke based on Strangelove.

The OP deals with purity, be it party purity, or purity of essence. That set up begged for a response along these lines:

GOP wants party purity? Then only serve rainwater and pure grain alcohol at party functions. That will preserve and promote purity of essence.

Purity of essence. That is the joke, not "loss of essence."

This message brought to you by the out-of-work-comedy-writers'-guild.

@ Cain:

The party purity test that you addressed in your first response does indeed make sense, particularly if there are multiple parties to choose from. While there are more than the two majors, the numbers three to n are so small as to be nearly irrelevant. This condition forces the two majors to grasp for the "sorta excluded middle," a voter pool who need some courting to choose one way or the other. That courting might also result in repulsion, but that's the risk one takes when one asks the girl to the dance.

DR

[willhaven]

The only upside I see to this situation is that, in the long run, it could break the logjam of our two-party system. As a guy who voted Reform Party more than once, I wouldn't mind seeing something else on the table (if for no other reason, such as in the case of the TP nuts, to get some entertainment value out of it).It's been, what, 150 years since we've had a viable 3rd party? I wish there were one.

Better than two. None would be best of all.

[SezMe]

Political parties are a bad idea for the reasons outlined in this 10 point list of insanity.
That's illogical. That a some people in a party have a bad idea has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of the concept of political parties at all.

[SezMe]

Perhaps the party is only trying to save a few bucks on their national conventions by not having to spend a day writing a platform for their candidates to fulfill. Imagine: check in your credentials on Monday, vote on Tuesday, home by Wednesday evening.
Sorry, shadron, ain't gonna happen if for no other reason that it leaves out time for logrolling, deal making, fence mending, etc. But even those are minor compared to the time needed for open parties sponsored by some corporations, closed parties sponsored by others, exclusive parties sponsored by others and, finally, special, closed, exclusive parties sponsored by AIG.

[stevea]

Am I the only one who is disturbed by this one?

No !


[quote}(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership; [,quote]

Yeah, Let's repeal restricitons on automatic weapons.

I really want to go out and buy a 1921 model Thompson Sub Machine Gun.

with a 50 round drum magazine.

Why not ? I've known people who owned automatic weapons back in the 1980s. If you think a nutjob can't kill hundred w/o an automatic weapon you are fooling yourself.

so if I support any restrictions on gun ownership, support the right of a woman to have an abortion during the 1st and 2nd trimester, and want gay marriage to be left to individual states, I can't run as a Republican and get RNC support?

nice. welcome to Nazi Germany. so much for freedom.

Republicans have NO room for varying views on social issues??????

If you think you have some right to run as a republican despite your positions then you are indeed ignorant and foolish. Of course your descent to the Nazi metaphor leaves you in the sub-basement of rational thought here. And yes the Dems produce party platforms too.
http://www.democrats.org/a/party/platform.html
So what ? Parties have no obligation to accept candidates.

I don't see Democrats wanting to kick out folks who are against funding abortions, against gun laws, and against Obama's ideas about Iraq.

The Dems kicked Lieberman out for related reasons.

But this is simply wrong.
"All politics is local." The national issues that define "the party" may be meaningless or active hindrances locally, [...]

This is the classic mistake of letting the achievable good become the enemy of the unachievable best.

I agree with your positions pragmatics, but Catholics who don't believe in selling indugences are still called Lutherans; that is you can't have an organization that stands for nothing. More accurately you can, but there is no point. Would you attend the local meetings for a club for brown-eyed ppl ? Would you take interest or contribute to a national party that was the "anyone can run" party ? Of course not - it's pointless. If it takes no position no one would contribute.

=======

We all recognize that only parties carry any weight in DC, so even independents attempt to caucus with one party or the other. I think this is a core problem. I'd strongly prefer to see some 3rd party (even one I dislike) in DC, at least large enough so that all decisions would require a coalition of parties and some negotiation. The current scheme we often have periods, like the present where one party dominates and they "run the table" without any compromise. Of course when the pendulum swings the other way the opposing party feels obliged to do the opposite - more rape & plunder. It's a ridiculous system and it leads to unstable policies. The instability are detrimental both to business and to national interests.

I find that I can agree with perhaps five of the Republican rules. I find four totally objectionable. So clearly - like every past election I will still be forced to choose the least objectionable of the two 10 day old stinking fish.

It's not clear if the ten Republican "rules" will improve or decrease their support. My hunch is it could improve their support. I'd personally like to see the abortion issue shelved from national politics for a few decades; it's detrimental and corrosive. I'd prefer to hear that the Republicans would reject any of the religious/intelligent design morons, but this probably not gonna happen.

Steele is a very weak leader. Despite being a minority party they currently have a plethora of popular/populist points where they could readily attack the Dems, but they fail to do so. I don't understand it. I must conclude that their positions are not entirely in opposition to the Dem position.


One interesting approach get getting support from more of the population is to be intentionally vague and non-committal which seems to be the Dem policy at the last election. "Hope and Change" for example is trite and meaningless, yet appealing to the unthinking. The meaning is a Rorschach. Unfortunately to accomplish anything a party must act unequivocally, so they are then trapped with any consequences of their actions.

[Whiplash]

Personally, I'm starting to adhere to a policy that the more people on the left complain about something people on the right are doing, the more likely it is that the thing the right is doing is actually useful and accomplishing something of note.

Is anyone supposed to really buy the idea that Democrats are really trying to help Republicans? Out of the goodness of your hearts? You really have our best interests at heart? Really?

[SezMe]

The Dems kicked Lieberman out for related reasons.
I am sick and tired of this repeated false assertion. It is NOT true. Lieberman ran in a primary as a Democrat against another Democrat. He lost. Subsequently, he CHOSE of his own accord to leave the Democratic Party and run on a third party ticket (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_for_Lieberman). You can have all the opinions you want but you cannot rewrite reality.

[SezMe]

The current scheme we often have periods, like the present where one party dominates and they "run the table" without any compromise.
You have got to be kidding me. The most important issue on the table now is health care reform. Are you claiming the Dems have not made "any" compromise? Really?

It's a ridiculous system and it leads to unstable policies. The instability are detrimental both to business and to national interests.
Please specify two or more "unstable policies" and inform us as to how they are "unstable". Also, please enumerate the detrimental effects you cite and explain how these "unstable policies" lead to such effects.

[SezMe]

Personally, I'm starting to adhere to a policy that the more people on the left complain about something people on the right are doing, the more likely it is that the thing the right is doing is actually useful and accomplishing something of note.
Excellent example of critical thinking. Ignore facts and count whines. Go for it.

Is anyone supposed to really buy the idea that Democrats are really trying to help Republicans? Out of the goodness of your hearts? You really have our best interests at heart? Really?
Is anyone supposed to really buy the idea that Democrats Republicans are really trying to help Republicans Democrats? Out of the goodness of your hearts? You really have our best interests at heart? Really?

See how easy the cheap shot is?

[willhaven]

That's illogical. That a some people in a party have a bad idea has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of the concept of political parties at all.
Parties exist to group like-minded people together. As with most group think, they often try to coerce members to believe the same thing. I'm not a fan of that.

[Tricky]

Says the man who just last week was calling Joe Lieberman a traitor to the Democrats.
Good example. Glad you brought that up. Joe Lieberman has a different ideology than many Democrats. But that was mostly okay. He might have gotten yelled at some times and indeed he ticked off so many of his own Democratic constituancy that he was voted off their local ticket. But in the national scheme, he was okay to be different. Heck, he was nominated for Vice President at one point. In no way was he kicked out of the party.

However, when he chose, on his own, to leave the party and run against them, you might justifiable say that he was a traitor to the party which had helped him rise to national prominence and power in the Senate. I'm not a party fanatic, so I have no problem, other than some loss of respect, with him doing it. But I can certainly see how people who are deeply embedded in the party might feel otherwise.

Lieberman left. The GOP is talking about kicking people out (by withdrawing support). I believe anyone can see the difference.

[Upchurch]

Personally, I'm starting to adhere to a policy that the more people on the left complain about something people on the right are doing, the more likely it is that the thing the right is doing is actually useful and accomplishing something of note.
Interesting "logic". How'd you reach that conclusion?

Is anyone supposed to really buy the idea that Democrats are really trying to help Republicans? Out of the goodness of your hearts? You really have our best interests at heart? Really?
Absolutely not. That's why, although not a Democrat per se, I fully endorse the GOP using this insane, small-tent, hard-line, black-and-white, and trendy test to weed out anyone who is vaguely electable in a general election.

Do it, Whiplash. Email and/or call your local GOP party representative and tell them that you support the use of this purity test for their potential candidates at every level of government. I will do the same. This can only be for the betterment of our country and a LOAD of entertainment value for me personally.

[Ausmerican]

Is anyone supposed to really buy the idea that Democrats are really trying to help Republicans? Out of the goodness of your hearts? You really have our best interests at heart? Really?

Totally agree. I mean even if you think that country that the Repubs live in is much better of with a balance of power and at least two parties why the hell would Democrats care what happens to that country? Why would they offer any advice to Republicans that they think may be good for that country, even if happened to be good for the Republican Party as well? What an insane idea!

[drkitten]

Any political party needs a set of unifying principles.

Absolutely.

But if the set of unifying principles includes anything other than "we want to win elections," then it detracts from the primary purpose of a political party, which is to win elections.


I think it's intuitively obvious a candidate scoring six is, generally speaking, more electable than a candidate scoring ten.

But not to the idiots in the RNC who value ideological purity over the ability to win elections. If you want a group of unelectable wing-nuts, the Libertarian party is over there.

This does not mean that a medianish score is "best,"

... unless you want to win elections, in which case I'm afraid it does.

[Newtons Bit]

Good example. Glad you brought that up. Joe Lieberman has a different ideology than many Democrats. But that was mostly okay. He might have gotten yelled at some times and indeed he ticked off so many of his own Democratic constituancy that he was voted off their local ticket. But in the national scheme, he was okay to be different. Heck, he was nominated for Vice President at one point. In no way was he kicked out of the party.

However, when he chose, on his own, to leave the party and run against them, you might justifiable say that he was a traitor to the party which had helped him rise to national prominence and power in the Senate. I'm not a party fanatic, so I have no problem, other than some loss of respect, with him doing it. But I can certainly see how people who are deeply embedded in the party might feel otherwise.

Lieberman left. The GOP is talking about kicking people out (by withdrawing support). I believe anyone can see the difference.

1/3rd of the state committee voted against him (a senior incumbent!) during the nominations process forcing a primary run off. The democrats voted him out in the primary. He didn't leave voluntarily, they forced him out. That's not leaving. That's being told "you're not wanted". If that's not kicking him off the ticket, what is?

Edit: ffs, that's the ONLY way for a party to remove an incumbent.

[Morrigan]

Personally, I'm starting to adhere to a policy that the more people on the left complain about something people on the right are doing, the more likely it is that the thing the right is doing is actually useful and accomplishing something of note.
Persecution fallacy, what a surprise.

[SezMe]

Edit: ffs, that's the ONLY way for a party to remove an incumbent.
Yes, from his OFFICE. Not from the party. The two are not synonymous.

Joe could well have chosen to remain in the party and support whatshisname or he could have sat out the election and run for another office as a Dem or he could have run in the next primary. All options which allowed him to stay in the party.

He CHOSE not to exercise those options. He left the party and chose to run on a new ticket.

[Tricky]

1/3rd of the state committee voted against him (a senior incumbent!) during the nominations process forcing a primary run off. The democrats voted him out in the primary. He didn't leave voluntarily, they forced him out. That's not leaving. That's being told "you're not wanted". If that's not kicking him off the ticket, what is?
It's called "losing a primary". Lots of people lose primaries without quitting the party. Some even run again on the same ticket.

Note, by the way, that when Lieberman got elected anyway, the Dems let him keep his powerful committee chairmanship. Those vindictive SOBs.

[Newtons Bit]

It's called "losing a primary". Lots of people lose primaries without quitting the party. Some even run again on the same ticket.

Note, by the way, that when Lieberman got elected anyway, the Dems let him keep his powerful committee chairmanship. Those vindictive SOBs.

They gave him his chairmanship because they needed him to get 51 members in their caucus. Without him, the Republicans would have held the majority in the Senate.

[Cain]

Absolutely.

But if the set of unifying principles includes anything other than "we want to win elections," then it detracts from the primary purpose of a political party, which is to win elections.

I hope not. Elections are a means to an end. Republicans could adopt centrist/Democratic ideas and win elections, but for what? ****, that's what Democrats do, and so now we have Obama: gays still can't serve in the military (nor can prominent Dems openly support discrimination-free marriage), warrantless wiretapping shall continue, the climate bill is a mess, Gitmo has not been closed down, we'll surge in Afghanistan, oh, and he's not even trying for universal health care.

But not to the idiots in the RNC who value ideological purity over the ability to win elections. If you want a group of unelectable wing-nuts, the Libertarian party is over there
... unless you want to win elections, in which case I'm afraid it does.

Barry Goldwater's campaign failed, but his ideas proved more successful in the longer, ideological struggle. Just the other day I saw a poll that said less than half respondents think we should ban assault weapons. In the mid-90s more than 3/4 said we should ban such weapons. Public opinion is not static. Moreover, conservatives don't need to be popular to win as they enjoy so many institutional advantages: the undemocratic Senate is like affirmative action for small states; the Electoral College inflates their influence as well. Also, the classic thinking is that a higher voter turnout helps Democrats; Republicans are more tribal, more unified, and more committed. We have almost never had more Republicans than Democrats (I think I heard it reported that the GOP claimed more registrants shortly after 9/11, but that's since gone away).

Yes, Republicans are in danger of becoming a southern party. As Tricky says, it's in everyone's interests to have competitive elections (otherwise you get the kind of Democrats we have in Sacramento), but it's not like these ten points will put Republicans out. If unemployment continues to rise, Afghanistan continues to worsen, Republicans can continue denying evolution, global warming, and everything else, it won't matter. The advice Democrats in this thread are giving Republicans is not unlike the advice Republicans were giving Democrats six years ago.

DR writes:
The party purity test that you addressed in your first response does indeed make sense, particularly if there are multiple parties to choose from. While there are more than the two majors, the numbers three to n are so small as to be nearly irrelevant. This condition forces the two majors to grasp for the "sorta excluded middle," a voter pool who need some courting to choose one way or the other. That courting might also result in repulsion, but that's the risk one takes when one asks the girl to the dance.

In keeping with my above post, the Republican strategy has long been to use wedge issues to appeal to single-minded voters: abortion, teh gays, affirmative action, illegal immigration, gun control.

[Piggy]

Is there anything wrong with the idea of a test? If you generally do not agree with the Republican Party platform, then you probably shouldn't run as a Republican, or expect the Republican party to assist your campaign.

Yeah, there's a helluva lot wrong with it.

This "test" is nothing more or less than a power-grab by the wingnuts.

In the USA -- a country of some 300 million people, spanning a continent -- you cannot be a viable party unless you form coalitions.

This "test" effectively blocks any potential coalition-building efforts within the party. Which means it's a death sentence for the GOP.

This is NOT the platform. This is an attempt to hijack the platform.

[Sporanox]

In the USA -- a country of some 300 million people, spanning a continent -- you cannot be a viable party unless you form coalitions.


Why would you want to form coalitions if they can't get anything done?

[Piggy]

Ultimately, the Republican National Committee. I should think that was their job.

No, that is not their job. Their job should be -- in part, as it relates to this sector of activity -- to coordinate the disparate local efforts in such a way as to maximize representation nationwide.


Certainly, distributing RNC funds and RNC support is their job, and they're supposed to ride herd on the local republican party organizations.

Ride herd? No. Not in that way, at least.

If some nutcase local politician, in, say, Louisiana decided to run explicitly on a pro-KKK platform, the RNC would have a duty to protect their brand-identity and at least to keep that nutcase from running as a Republican.

Obviously, you've never heard of Louisiana's David Duke. As far as I know, there was never any effort (or at least any successful effort) to block his candidacy for national office as a Republican, even though he's an unapologetic Klansman.

Thankfully, he hasn't managed to make the jump from state to national politics, but I'm not aware of any effort to kick him out of the party.

I don't think he's a Republican now, but that seems to be the result of his unsuccessful bids as a national Republican candidate. In other words, it was his choice.

And hey, the man who just marked a milestone as the longest serving member of the US Senate -- a Democrat, and a Klansman.

[Piggy]

Any political party needs a set of unifying principles. It's inescapable.

Wrong again.

I invite you to go read the party platforms. You'll find they're a list of platitudes.

In the USA, the last thing you want is unifying principles, because that's limiting.

What you want are vague talking points, emotion-based slogans, and a platform that's loose enough to allow disparate (even opposed) factions to get under the tent.

The movement toward a genuine set of unifying principles is a serious threat to the Republican party.

[Piggy]

Why would you want to form coalitions if they can't get anything done?

I don't understand you.

The purpose of a party is not to get anything done. It's to get people elected.

[Piggy]

I am sick and tired of this repeated false assertion. It is NOT true. Lieberman ran in a primary as a Democrat against another Democrat. He lost. Subsequently, he CHOSE of his own accord to leave the Democratic Party and run on a third party ticket (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_for_Lieberman). You can have all the opinions you want but you cannot rewrite reality.

The Dems haven't even kicked out Zell Miller. And he's openly affiliated with the GOP. For the life of me, I can't understand why they don't boot him.

[Sporanox]

I don't understand you.

The purpose of a party is not to get anything done. It's to get people elected.

What is the purpose of getting people elected? (to earn them lifetime job security; okay, the other reason) To get things done.

Somebody will be elected no matter what, but if the RNC spends considerable resources electing someone that votes with them only half the time, they've misspent funds that could have been allocated to an electable conservative somewhere else.

[Dr Adequate]

Somebody will be elected no matter what, but if the RNC spends considerable resources electing someone that votes with them only half the time, they've misspent funds that could have been allocated to an electable conservative somewhere else. I really don't think you've thought this one through ...

[Sporanox]

I really don't think you've thought this one through ...

Yes, you'd much rather prefer a party of RINOs competing for who can fall to the liberal tide first.

Of course I know the term "RINO" can easily fall into a No True Scotsman pit. But I know Snowe and Scozzafava are both its representatives. Thank goodness the latter didn't get voted in. I'd prefer a Democrat to a squishy Republican.

[cwalner]

Yes, you'd much rather prefer a party of RINOs competing for who can fall to the liberal tide first.

Of course I know the term "RINO" can easily fall into a No True Scotsman pit. But I know Snowe and Scozzafava are both its representatives. Thank goodness the latter didn't get voted in. I'd prefer a Democrat to a squishy Republican.

That's all well and good, but the registered Republicans in her district don't seem to agree with you, as evidenced by the fact that she won the primary, and was running as the Republican in the general election.

Because the CP fielded a candidate against her, they split the conservative vote, giving the Democrats a win in a district they have not held for over 100 years.

How can this be explained away as something positive for the Republican party or conservatism. Regardless of political ideology, this instance is an example of the harm being caused to the Republican party due to this infighting.

[hgc]

They gave him his chairmanship because they needed him to get 51 members in their caucus. Without him, the Republicans would have held the majority in the Senate.


That was after the 2006 election. After the 2008 election, where he campaigned for McCain and Palin, after he spoke at the Rep convention and repeatedly attacked Obama and the agenda of the Democratic party, they gave him his chairmanship AGAIN.

A chairmanship is a leadership position in the caucus. I know of no Republican Congressional leader, or member for that matter, who supported Obama in the 2008 election.

[Dr Adequate]

Yes, you'd much rather prefer a party of RINOs competing for who can fall to the liberal tide first. No, I'd prefer a party of unelectable ideologues. The puzzling thing is that you apparently agree with me.

[Piggy]

What is the purpose of getting people elected? (to earn them lifetime job security; okay, the other reason) To get things done.

Somebody will be elected no matter what, but if the RNC spends considerable resources electing someone that votes with them only half the time, they've misspent funds that could have been allocated to an electable conservative somewhere else.

You're missing the point.

"Vote with them"?

As I've said, you can only maintain power in a country this large by forming coalitions, and there are always contradictions in those coalitions.

The far right wing of the GOP is attempting to define what it means to "vote with" the GOP along their particular ideological framework.

That's a death sentence for the party b/c it must necessarily result in permanent minority status.

If the GOP wants to regain lost ground, they will have to give up on any strict definition of what it means to "vote with" the party.

[Thunder]

If the GOP wants to regain lost ground, they will have to give up on any strict definition of what it means to "vote with" the party.

indeed. Republicans, if they want to win anything in the next 20 years, will have to learn to accept that some Republicans may want to be social moderates or even liberals, or some Republicans may want to be fiscal moderates.

if they can't accept this, then..well...they will have to be satisfied with being a smaller, more unified, and powerless group for a long time.

[XBoxWarrior]

they need to add the ultimate test...

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=100&pictureid=1946

Must be Orange!11111!11

[Corsair 115]

What is the purpose of getting people elected? (to earn them lifetime job security; okay, the other reason) To get things done.


A cynic will argue the pupose of getting elected is to get the things the lobbyists want done.

[SezMe]

Yes, you'd much rather prefer a party of RINOs competing for who can fall to the liberal tide first.
Let me take that from the other side. Yep, I'd rather have a party with a bunch of Blue Dogs screwing up my agenda than not. Why? Because the party in power has, well, lots of power. Chairmanships. Setting the calendar. Determining what even comes to the floor. Allowing what hearings occur and who can testify. And yes, other things such as more lobbyist gravy, more media attention, etc.

In short, enjoy your minority status and I'll enjoy my majority status. Hey, we're both happy. :)

[Thunder]

Yes, you'd much rather prefer a party of RINOs competing for who can fall to the liberal tide first. .

i think RINO has become synonymous with "Republicans who are not religious or social extremists"

[Upchurch]

In short, enjoy your minority status and I'll enjoy my majority status. Hey, we're both happy. :)
And every four to eight years (+/- 30 years) everything switches and we get to enjoy that too.

Yay, Democracy!

[Sporanox]

That's all well and good, but the registered Republicans in her district don't seem to agree with you, as evidenced by the fact that she won the primary, and was running as the Republican in the general election.

Because the CP fielded a candidate against her, they split the conservative vote, giving the Democrats a win in a district they have not held for over 100 years.

How can this be explained away as something positive for the Republican party or conservatism. Regardless of political ideology, this instance is an example of the harm being caused to the Republican party due to this infighting.

Two things wrong with your post - first, the Republican was chosen in a smoke-filled room, and second, the Democratic win wasn't that big of a deal. A glance at the history of the seat will tell you. Thus, the point you are trying to make is rendered invalid.

As I've said, you can only maintain power in a country this large by forming coalitions, and there are always contradictions in those coalitions.


Then, let's form coalitions with the newly minted independents Snowe, Collins, and Specter (provided that dinosaur will still be around in the Senate) when they agree with us. Otherwise, don't. Not too worried about the presidential election, either, because an independent candidate could theoretically steal votes from either side.

Let me take that from the other side. Yep, I'd rather have a party with a bunch of Blue Dogs screwing up my agenda than not. Why? Because the party in power has, well, lots of power. Chairmanships. Setting the calendar. Determining what even comes to the floor. Allowing what hearings occur and who can testify. And yes, other things such as more lobbyist gravy, more media attention, etc.

In short, enjoy your minority status and I'll enjoy my majority status. Hey, we're both happy. :)

See, here's the problem - every single time a major party has come to power in Congress, they've screwed up. Lost their purity of ideology to yellow-bellied waffling or simple corruption.

Actually having a party that would stand for firm principles would change that status quo. If that would mean Republicans don't win a couple of elections going forward, I still might be for it. The Democrats can't last much longer the way they're going in the first place.


A cynic will argue the pupose of getting elected is to get the things the lobbyists want done.

Heh. ><

[Thunder]

i honestly believe, that if the GOP continues down the extremist route, they will break the trend, and NOT recapture Congress or the White House in 2012 or 2016.

[Upchurch]

i think RINO has become synonymous with "Republicans who are not religious or social extremists"

I think it is more "Republicans who do not subscribe to my particular flavor of Republicanism." But let us not forget that the term DINO also exists in our political vocabulary.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that we here TPINO next.

[Sporanox]

i honestly believe, that if the GOP continues down the extremist route, they will break the trend, and NOT recapture Congress or the White House in 2012 or 2016.

Is believing in...

1: Small, nonintrusive government

2: Fiscal conservatism (in other words, not racking up debt)

3: A strong national defense

...so insane?

[Thunder]

Is believing in...

1: Small, nonintrusive government

2: Fiscal conservatism (in other words, not racking up debt)

3: A strong national defense

...so insane?

who said anything about sanity? and have you seen the 10 points of the GOP litmus test?

what does abortions and gay marriage have to do with your above three topics?

do you realize how much national debt the Iraq and Afghanistan wars has created?

[Upchurch]

what does abortions and gay marriage have to do with your above three topics?

I think they are specifically contrary to Sporanox's first point.

Of course, experience has shown that Sporanox's second and third points are mutually exclusive to one another.

[Sporanox]

who said anything about sanity? and have you seen the 10 points of the GOP litmus test?

what does abortions and gay marriage have to do with your above three topics?

do you realize how much national debt the Iraq and Afghanistan wars has created?

An argument could be made to ban abortion on nonreligious terms. For example, murder of a pregnant woman is a double homicide. You don't have to crab about the soul to realize that. (I don't believe in the discrete, personalized existence of a soul.) Second, you can refuse gay marriage and still pass the test.

Finally, the wars have created debt (though not anywhere as much as recent initiatives...funny the way that is). But there are ways to balance that debt that a realistic conservative would have to accept.

[Achán hiNidráne]

Paging Ralph Nader. Al Gore is on the line, he wants his election back.

I think the right-wing would be even crazier than they already are if Gore had won.

[Thunder]

Finally, the wars have created debt (though not anywhere as much as recent initiatives...funny the way that is). But there are ways to balance that debt that a realistic conservative would have to accept.

George W. Bush inherited a budget surplus.

Um..how high was our budget deficit just before the sub-prime crisis began?

fiscal conservatives huh? right.

[Dr Adequate]

Every constituency is different.

I live in the great state of Nevada. Now, we only have two senators, two representatives, and four electoral college votes, so we wouldn't count until ... until we counted as much as one corner of Florida ...

Nonetheless. Nevada was a "red state" for Bush. It went blue for Obama. It could go red again.

But when Republicans scheme about how to turn it red, they need to think about the following subjects:

(1) We have a large Hispanic community. Good luck with that.

(2) We have a 0% state income tax. You can't make that better unless you start paying us all a stipend. Like Alaska.

(3) The income of the state, and the reason that our citizens have 0% state income tax, is based on the fact that we provide vices that horrify Christian conservatives.

---

So, we're not likely to choose a conservative ideologue. A Republican, perhaps. Indeed, frequently. But the idealist ideologue who scores a 10 on the purity test, never.

Now, I admit, Nevada is not a large or significant state. But it all adds up. And Nevada is not a typical state. But no state is a typical state. So they all add up one by one.

[Thunder]

George W. Bush inherited a budget surplus.

Um..how high was our budget deficit just before the sub-prime crisis began?

fiscal conservatives huh? right.

wow, will you look at this? look at all those budget deficits for EVERY year of the Bush regime. wow. fiscal conservatives huh?

http://photos-e.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs094.snc3/16145_1203425659820_1653977305_500205_7885050_n.jp g

[Piggy]

And every four to eight years (+/- 30 years) everything switches and we get to enjoy that too.

Yay, Democracy!

<tangent>

Cute kid, Upchurch. Hadn't seen a pic of the spawn yet.

Must take after mom. :D

</tangent>

[Piggy]

Then, let's form coalitions with the newly minted independents Snowe, Collins, and Specter (provided that dinosaur will still be around in the Senate) when they agree with us. Otherwise, don't. Not too worried about the presidential election, either, because an independent candidate could theoretically steal votes from either side.

You are still not understanding this....

You're defining "us" -- by which I assume you mean the GOP -- in terms of one faction of the party.

You're starting out by assuming that the extreme right is the True Israel and everyone else in the party doesn't belong.

Fact is, the failed strategies of the extreme right have managed to decimate our party when their anti-reality stance got its ass kicked by reality (e.g., military quagmires, financial collapse, and denial of environmental truths which even "big business" now generally accepts) and as a result the large majority of those who are still left happen to be from dead-ender districts and therefore are beholden to folks who persist in their fantasies of a workable unregulated market and other such pipe dreams.

If we're going to recover, we're not going to do it by kicking even more people out and circling the wagons around policies that appeal to the least informed, most gullible segments of the population.

In order to get back in power, we've got to find a way to bring our old allies back into the fold, including (and especially) the mainstream business constituency who were rightly appalled by the rank-and-file GOP non-response to what was very nearly a global economic freeze which could have pitched us into a worldwide depression.

In other words, "us" is not the radical right. "Us" is the entire party, the whole spectrum.

And if we don't broaden the spectrum, eventually someone else will figure out a way to organize the big unaffiliated middle -- which is now the overwhelming majority -- into a new party that could send the GOP the way of the Whigs.

[Piggy]

See, here's the problem - every single time a major party has come to power in Congress, they've screwed up. Lost their purity of ideology to yellow-bellied waffling or simple corruption.

Actually having a party that would stand for firm principles would change that status quo.

Where did you get that idea?

(I suspect datum ex rectum.)

There are many reasons for shifts in party power, but losing ideological purity ain't one of them.

[Newtons Bit]

wow, will you look at this? look at all those budget deficits for EVERY year of the Bush regime. wow. fiscal conservatives huh?

http://photos-e.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs094.snc3/16145_1203425659820_1653977305_500205_7885050_n.jp g

Which is one of the reasons why people like myself no longer trust the Republicans to do anything fiscally responsible. They used to, as a party, promote that ideal. Now they're all "INO's" as far as being fiscally responsible goes. They want to spend much just like the Democrats. The only difference is what they want to spend it on.

[SezMe]

You are still not understanding this....<snipity>
Well said, Piggy.

ETA: I mean the whole post, not just the quoted part. :)

[NobleXenon54]

At least you can be pro-choice and in favor of marriage equality at the same time. Though I don't see many Republicans supporting that. I'll wait for the other fifty commandments that will kill social liberalism...

[ponderingturtle]

The only upside I see to this situation is that, in the long run, it could break the logjam of our two-party system. As a guy who voted Reform Party more than once, I wouldn't mind seeing something else on the table (if for no other reason, such as in the case of the TP nuts, to get some entertainment value out of it).

Not going to happen. It could be that a party will die and be replaced but no political group is going to rewrite the constitution to limit their own power. With out the backing of one party at least there is no way to get the constitution changed to permit multiple parties.

[ponderingturtle]

This doesn't follow from what I said. We could be living in the early 19th century and I'd point out how insane it is that blacks are counted as 3/5ths of a person. You could dig out your Constitution and point but it's rather meaningless in the context of my moral outrage.

And moral outrage is pointless here. Unless you are proposing violent revolution things are the way they are.


It seems that at least two cities have adopted preferential voting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote

And it means squat nationally.



It's a rotten system. Our elections are ********** up all the way down the line. The Patrician anti-democratic Senate, the gerrymandered House (where politicians choose voters rather than voters choosing politicians), and the antiquated Electoral College. It's all crap.

Sure so is anything you care to name. Trial by jury, income tax...

[ponderingturtle]

Paging Ralph Nader. Al Gore is on the line, he wants his election back.

Or George Bush and Ross Perot, Or Teddy Roosevelt and Taft.

And then there are all the local elections.

Two parties is the stable solution to American voting procedures.

[ponderingturtle]

It's been, what, 150 years since we've had a viable 3rd party? I wish there were one.

Better than two. None would be best of all.

The US never really had a viable 3rd party. Three parties are unstable, hence why they do show up on occasion they don't last. They can supplant a major party but three parties is not tenable in the long term.

[ponderingturtle]

Is believing in...

1: Small, nonintrusive government

2: Fiscal conservatism (in other words, not racking up debt)

3: A strong national defense

...so insane?

Only if you think you have a political party that represents you.

Remember republicans know that the best time for increasing the debt is when the economy is doing well. That way when there are problems you can use the debt to hammer your opponents. This is fiscal conservative in the US.

[Cain]

Re: unifying principles:
Wrong again.

I invite you to go read the party platforms. You'll find they're a list of platitudes.

This isn't much of an argument. A political party is ostensibly organized around a set of ideas. We can call them principles, or if we're less charitable we can call them "platitudes" but they represent ideas that animate party adherents.

In the USA, the last thing you want is unifying principles, because that's limiting.

What you want are vague talking points, emotion-based slogans, and a platform that's loose enough to allow disparate (even opposed) factions to get under the tent.

The movement toward a genuine set of unifying principles is a serious threat to the Republican party.

It's amusing how people almost seem to think the Republican Party must, for the good of the country, attempt to broaden its base of support. If the GOP marginalizes itself, then a new party can arise, one that appeals to center-right voters.

In any event, the greater concern, what's in far more need of reform, are the anti-representative, anti-democratic institutions by which the public (supposedly) expresses its will.

[Sporanox]

Fact is, the failed strategies of the extreme right have managed to decimate our party when their anti-reality stance got its ass kicked by reality (e.g., military quagmires, financial collapse, and denial of environmental truths which even "big business" now generally accepts) and as a result the large majority of those who are still left happen to be from dead-ender districts and therefore are beholden to folks who persist in their fantasies of a workable unregulated market and other such pipe dreams.


I listed the three primary Republican principles above. A number of things done by Republicans in the past decade or so have actually been contrary to our stated objectives. You need not look far to see what I mean. This is why we have failed.

Where did you get that idea?

(I suspect datum ex rectum.)

There are many reasons for shifts in party power, but losing ideological purity ain't one of them.

Remember Gingrich's Contract with America? Remember when Republican legislators had at least one backbone among them? Thought so.

[SezMe]

With out the backing of one party at least there is no way to get the constitution changed to permit multiple parties.
There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution about political parties.

[SezMe]

Remember Gingrich's Contract with America? Remember when Republican legislators had at least one backbone among them? Thought so.
Yep, I do. According to Wiki:
On the first day of their majority, the Republicans promised to hold floor votes on eight reforms of government operations:

* require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply to Congress;
* select a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse;
* cut the number of House committees, and cut committee staff by one-third;
* limit the terms of all committee chairs;
* ban the casting of proxy votes in committee;
* require committee meetings to be open to the public;
* require a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase;
* and implement a zero base-line budgeting process for the annual Federal Budget.
Did that happen. Nope. Newt's contract was electioneering pablum, nothing more. Just like this latest litmus test.

BTW, looking at the other side, I heard a funny comment about Dems the other day. Paraphrasing: "The Dems have one major accomplishment. They've learned to walk upright without a spine."

[Whiplash]

Only if you think you have a political party that represents you.

Remember republicans know that the best time for increasing the debt is when the economy is doing well. That way when there are problems you can use the debt to hammer your opponents. This is fiscal conservative in the US.


This is simply your opinion, and very cynical.

A vast number of Republican's were unhappy with the spending that went on during Bush.

I'm tempted to make an ivory towers type comment because the fact that so many people insist that they never saw that sort of thing doesn't prove it didn't happen. I was still listening to Rush for the first few years of Bush's presidency. And he was lambasting the moderate Republicans constantly. And he started out very apprehensively with regards to Bush. We all did, his record was that of someone who was very moderate ("reaching across the isle" and "bringing both parties together in Texas"). It's funny how he turned out to be Hitler incarnate.

There are some Republican's who do believe in some of the social engineering that many others do not. And some of them are simply pandering to special interests and other voting blocks in the same manner so many politicians on the left also do. These are not the core of the party. These people do not stand up for the true conservative values. There is a reason they are referred to as RINO's (Republican's In Name Only). But sadly, many on the left want to just believe that we are all one big block and that we all stood by without any negative comments or unhappiness in the Bush years whatsoever. It's pure ********.

If some of you would expand your horizons a bit you'd see that was the case.

[KoihimeNakamura]

There are some Republican's who do believe in some of the social engineering that many others do not. And some of them are simply pandering to special interests and other voting blocks in the same manner so many politicians on the left also do. These are not the core of the party. These people do not stand up for the true conservative values. There is a reason they are referred to as RINO's (Republican's In Name Only). But sadly, many on the left want to just believe that we are all one big block and that we all stood by without any negative comments or unhappiness in the Bush years whatsoever. It's pure ********. .

This is sorta the problem: If you adopt this, you WILL be one big block. Incidentally, good No True Scotsman.

[ponderingturtle]

An argument could be made to ban abortion on nonreligious terms. For example, murder of a pregnant woman is a double homicide. You don't have to crab about the soul to realize that. (I don't believe in the discrete, personalized existence of a soul.) Second, you can refuse gay marriage and still pass the test.

I get it. You don't want government screwing around in your life, but screwing around in the lives of others is fine with you.

[ponderingturtle]

George W. Bush inherited a budget surplus.

Um..how high was our budget deficit just before the sub-prime crisis began?

fiscal conservatives huh? right.

Don't forget Regan as well.

[ponderingturtle]

Remember Gingrich's Contract with America? Remember when Republican legislators had at least one backbone among them? Thought so.

How is that a mark of backbone? How much of the contract with america did they even make an effort to get passed into law?

It was great propaganda but pretty meaningless in terms of legislation.

[ponderingturtle]

There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution about political parties.

So you think you can have lots of politicians with out them forming power blocks of people with similar beliefs? A two party system is the result of the constitution, it doesn't have to mention parties it is a logical consequence of the electoral system it does describe.

[ponderingturtle]

This is simply your opinion, and very cynical.

A vast number of Republican's were unhappy with the spending that went on during Bush.

Not enough to actually say do anything about it or not tow the party line. Just enough to make quips now and then to make it seem like they have the balls to do anything.

I'm tempted to make an ivory towers type comment because the fact that so many people insist that they never saw that sort of thing doesn't prove it didn't happen. I was still listening to Rush for the first few years of Bush's presidency. And he was lambasting the moderate Republicans constantly. And he started out very apprehensively with regards to Bush. We all did, his record was that of someone who was very moderate ("reaching across the isle" and "bringing both parties together in Texas"). It's funny how he turned out to be Hitler incarnate.

Nice godwin there.

[Piggy]

This isn't much of an argument. A political party is ostensibly organized around a set of ideas. We can call them principles, or if we're less charitable we can call them "platitudes" but they represent ideas that animate party adherents.

So you still haven't read the platforms, eh? Well, ok.

[Piggy]

It's amusing how people almost seem to think the Republican Party must, for the good of the country, attempt to broaden its base of support. If the GOP marginalizes itself, then a new party can arise, one that appeals to center-right voters.

So you're saying that people don't actually think this, they don't even seem to think it, but they almost seem to think it? :confused:

Actually, I agree that the GOP needs to broaden its base of support for the good of the country (because if they don't, we'll have single-party rule by the Democrats, which will invite groupthink and corruption) but the topic at hand is what the party needs to do for its own good, and if it continues down the path of ideological purity it will find itself at a dead end.

[Piggy]

I listed the three primary Republican principles above. A number of things done by Republicans in the past decade or so have actually been contrary to our stated objectives. You need not look far to see what I mean. This is why we have failed.

And what makes you think ideological purity is going to put us in any position to have enough muscle to push your ideals?

Remember Gingrich's Contract with America? Remember when Republican legislators had at least one backbone among them? Thought so.

Oh, yeah. Nice piece of marketing thought up by Frank Luntz.

It wasn't backbone, it was public relations.

Let's not confuse campaign rhetoric with the process of governing.

[Piggy]

There is a reason they are referred to as RINO's (Republican's In Name Only).

Well, the primary reason for the term RINO is that it helped radio personalities whip up their audiences, and therefore sell more advertisements, which makes them rich.

[Piggy]

I get it. You don't want government screwing around in your life, but screwing around in the lives of others is fine with you.

That has always been the stance of the far left and right wings.

[Piggy]

So you think you can have lots of politicians with out them forming power blocks of people with similar beliefs? A two party system is the result of the constitution, it doesn't have to mention parties it is a logical consequence of the electoral system it does describe.

:confused:

I don't believe the US Constitution inevitably leads to a 2 party system. That's what we have, though, and it's hard to shake once you have it. But I don't see that there's anything in the Constitution that would naturally prohibit a mutli-party system with de-facto coalition governments.

[Thunder]

so, what is the status of this Republican Aryan...I mean litmus test?

[Sporanox]

I get it. You don't want government screwing around in your life, but screwing around in the lives of others is fine with you.

Submit platitudes, and you shall receive: You don't want government screwing around in your life women's lives, but screwing around in the lives of others babies is fine with you.

How is that a mark of backbone? How much of the contract with america did they even make an effort to get passed into law?

It was great propaganda but pretty meaningless in terms of legislation.

That's the point. Once they got into office, Republicans forgot about their principles. Their legislative dominance was, from then on, as much of a liability as an asset.

And what makes you think ideological purity is going to put us in any position to have enough muscle to push your ideals?

I concede that there is a possibility that Americans might decide they don't like the basic Republican principles. But the GOP hasn't been pushing basic Republican principles over the past decade, so there's no reason to keep the status quo.

See, that's the problem: those who want to keep the GOP the way it is don't consider that doing so will not really succeed in passing any true Republican solutions. There must be some room for disagreement, of course, but less than there has been in the past. If that leads to a new centrist party springing up, then that's fine with me.


By the way, why make four separate posts in a row? Same goes to ponderingturtle...

[SezMe]

So you think you can have lots of politicians with out them forming power blocks of people with similar beliefs?
Of course not. But you've been talking about needing to amend the Constitution to allow more parties. Right now, numerous parties run presidential candidates such as the Greens. That they don't get many votes does not mean they don't exist.



A two party system is the result of the constitution, it doesn't have to mention parties it is a logical consequence of the electoral system it does describe.
Again, we do NOT have a two party system. We have a multi-party system dominated by the two largest parties.

[Piggy]

I concede that there is a possibility that Americans might decide they don't like the basic Republican principles. But the GOP hasn't been pushing basic Republican principles over the past decade, so there's no reason to keep the status quo.

See, that's the problem: those who want to keep the GOP the way it is don't consider that doing so will not really succeed in passing any true Republican solutions. There must be some room for disagreement, of course, but less than there has been in the past. If that leads to a new centrist party springing up, then that's fine with me.


By the way, why make four separate posts in a row? Same goes to ponderingturtle...

Re the split posts, I find them easier to read. I hate slogging through epic posts on a dozen different points, and prefer it if folks split up the points and deal with them separately. Just my style.

As for what you consider "basic Republican principles", seems to me you're merely pointing out that the campaign rhetoric is just that.

But perhaps the problem is with the campaign rhetoric. I mean, look where it's gotten us... beholden to the Palinistas and Beck-heads.

To say that we actually need to follow through on a radical reduction of government (a decidedly non-conservative way to go about things, btw) in order to make things match up just doesn't make sense to me.

First of all, consider what would happen if we really did that, throwing thousands of people out of work, cutting many tax-funded programs that are working fine (which would have to be done) and further reducing regulatory oversight while constricting the social safety net. There'd be outrage.

People like the idea of small government, but they're not too hot about the reality of small government.

Also consider that we just got trounced by a campaign that did not use that tack, and that the most adored Republican icon is a textbook 20th-century big-government Republican, Ronald Reagan, who ballooned both the size of government and federal deficits.

No, I just don't see any reason to believe that attempting to follow thru on the talking points would work at all.

Like him or not, Obama was right when he said that a choice between "big government" and "small government" is not the issue. The question is how much government we need to do the things we want government to do.

And when you consider that this is a nation of 300 million people, encompassing 50 states, and spanning an entire continent, the very notion that a shoestring government could effectively administer the country is dubious at best.

That's probably why the notion of small government is more popular among talk show hosts and campaign managers than it is on Pennsylvania Avenue.

[Thunder]

Now, what happens if the Democrats offer to let in those Republicans who fail the litmus test, or decide they cannot be a member of a party that has a litmus test?

[Piggy]

Now, what happens if the Democrats offer to let in those Republicans who fail the litmus test, or decide they cannot be a member of a party that has a litmus test?

Then they form a coalition with the Blue Dogs and take the party away from the traditional liberals. Which means that such an offer is not forthcoming.

[Sporanox]

Re the split posts, I find them easier to read. I hate slogging through epic posts on a dozen different points, and prefer it if folks split up the points and deal with them separately. Just my style.

Ah, gotcha.


As for what you consider "basic Republican principles", seems to me you're merely pointing out that the campaign rhetoric is just that.

But perhaps the problem is with the campaign rhetoric. I mean, look where it's gotten us... beholden to the Palinistas and Beck-heads.

(I'll address the point about rhetoric later.) First, Palin and Beck aren't (currently) running for office, so they aren't running us aground directly. Second, are we really beholden to them? Given how eclectic the mix of Tea Partiers is, I don't buy that they all take marching orders from either. That is simply a stereotype read into the news by liberals. Third, are they actually following through with basic conservatism in their proposals? (this is not a rhetorical question, just something I would like to hear your opinion on.) And fourth, if they are, is that a bad thing?


To say that we actually need to follow through on a radical reduction of government (a decidedly non-conservative way to go about things, btw) in order to make things match up just doesn't make sense to me.

First of all, consider what would happen if we really did that, throwing thousands of people out of work, cutting many tax-funded programs that are working fine (which would have to be done) and further reducing regulatory oversight while constricting the social safety net. There'd be outrage.

People like the idea of small government, but they're not too hot about the reality of small government.

Hold up: you're saying that one way to move in the direction of small government is too drastic and unwarranted. Perhaps it is. But would it be too much to ask that those who proclaim themselves Republicans would avoid big-government solutions and actually try to come up with conservative answers?

We can argue about whether reducing our dependency on social help/handouts is a bad thing or not. Perhaps it is - perhaps our society has been incorrigibly altered. But it doesn't seem like such a bad idea to me to run with intelligent small-government proposals, instead of going "moderate" (read: deficit spending). We've had plenty of examples of that in the past decade.

To give you an idea of how I believe Republican principles can work in practice, I'll give some examples:

1: Small, nonintrusive government. We get government out of people's sexual preferences wrt gay marriage (by legalizing it or getting out of marriage altogether) and submit to the rights of private American citizens in regards to wiretapping by making sure we do it legally.

2: Fiscal conservatism. We stop signing costly boondoggles like Medicare Part D and the bailouts into law. We let capitalism take its course, e.g. allowing firms to fail. We actually move to balance the budget.

3: Strong national defense. We avoid overexerting the U.S. Army by modeling it for a conventional war it wasn't meant to fight; we recognize changes on the ground and respond to them when appropriate (the surge was too long in coming); and we actually PLAN RESPONSIBLY for war.

I don't think those proposals are too far from the mainstream.

[Thunder]

Then they form a coalition with the Blue Dogs and take the party away from the traditional liberals. Which means that such an offer is not forthcoming.

well, if social liberal/fiscal conservatives are no longer welcome in the RNC, and the Democrats won't have them, then new party we shall see!!

:D

or, they could stay Republican, but vote with the Democrats. boy..would that sting.

[Thunder]

3: Strong national defense. We avoid overexerting the U.S. Army by modeling it for a conventional war it wasn't meant to fight; we recognize changes on the ground and respond to them when appropriate (the surge was too long in coming); and we actually PLAN RESPONSIBLY for war.


and how about, getting American troops out of Europe and Japan? that might save us a good $100 billion a year.

or do you think we still need to protect the Europeans from the USSR, and the Japanese from Mao?

[Cain]

Cain: This doesn't follow from what I said.

And moral outrage is pointless here.

And yet, your original argument still doesn't follow. I'm just putting my words in a context.

Unless you are proposing violent revolution things are the way they are.

How is a violent revolution even implied?

And it means squat nationally.

You were talking about unspecified elections. Local level politics is subject to institutional reform; such reforms have to start somewhere and then work their way up.

Sure so is anything you care to name. Trial by jury, income tax...

Now you're just ********ting. There are varying degrees of **********-up-ness. Moreover, there's also a huge chasm between where people are today philosophically -- "my vote for president should count, all votes should count equally" -- and the way institutions actually function. Voting is also, um, sort of important, because it's how we change everything else -- provided you do want to avoid violent revolution.

[Sporanox]

and how about, getting American troops out of Europe and Japan? that might save us a good $100 billion a year.

or do you think we still need to protect the Europeans from the USSR, and the Japanese from Mao?

I believe the reality is a little more complicated. For example, Poland and other Eastern European countries threw a fit when we appeared to withdraw the missile shield...because of Russian aggression. Ahem.

Also, those bases allow us to respond flexibly to threats that occur anywhere in the world, and they provide a convenient midpoint for both supplies and wounded troops.

[Thunder]

I believe the reality is a little more complicated. For example, Poland and other Eastern European countries threw a fit when we appeared to withdraw the missile shield...because of Russian aggression. Ahem.

Russian aggression..against whom??

since when does our national security decisions depend on the temporary political needs of Poland and the Czech Republic?

[Sporanox]

Russian aggression..against whom??

since when does our national security decisions depend on the temporary political needs of Poland and the Czech Republic?

Don't take it from me. (http://freemediaonline.org/freemediaonlineblog/2009/07/18/an-open-letter-to-the-obama-administration-from-central-and-eastern-europe-calls-for-resisting-russias-threatening-power/)

[Thunder]

Don't take it from me. (http://freemediaonline.org/freemediaonlineblog/2009/07/18/an-open-letter-to-the-obama-administration-from-central-and-eastern-europe-calls-for-resisting-russias-threatening-power/)

Right....Czar Nicholas is gonna send his troops into neighboring Poland, Czech republic, Slovakia, Romania, Hungary, and Bulgaria.

uh huh.

[Sporanox]

Right....Czar Nicholas is gonna send his troops into neighboring Poland, Czech republic, Slovakia, Romania, Hungary, and Bulgaria.

uh huh.

It's more complicated than that, parky. Although I do notice your need to reduce everything to a caricature of Palin's thought process.

[Thunder]

It's more complicated than that, parky. Although I do notice your need to reduce everything to a caricature of Palin's thought process.

funny...i didn't even think of that.

[Piggy]

First, Palin and Beck aren't (currently) running for office, so they aren't running us aground directly. Second, are we really beholden to them? Given how eclectic the mix of Tea Partiers is, I don't buy that they all take marching orders from either. That is simply a stereotype read into the news by liberals. Third, are they actually following through with basic conservatism in their proposals? (this is not a rhetorical question, just something I would like to hear your opinion on.) And fourth, if they are, is that a bad thing?

I'm not saying that Beck and Palin in particular are calling any shots.

When I say that the party is beholden to the Palinistas and Beck-heads, I mean that most Republicans in office now cannot continue to hold their seats if they lose the support of the kind of people who are the core audience for folks like Beck and Palin -- that is, people who buy into conspiracy theories and extreme rhetoric, and don't have any clear grasp of political, economic, environmental, and cultural realities.

That's who we've wound up in bed with. And now we find that there's no one else to shack up with, so most Republican office-holders dare not risk getting kicked out of that flea-infested bed for fear of being left out in the cold altogether.

Do I consider Beck and Palin to be core conservatives? Hell no! They're radicals. And disengagement from reality, which is the hallmark of their agenda, is decidedly not a basic conservative tenet. It's mere populist nuttery wrapping itself in the conservative banner.

[Piggy]

Hold up: you're saying that one way to move in the direction of small government is too drastic and unwarranted. Perhaps it is. But would it be too much to ask that those who proclaim themselves Republicans would avoid big-government solutions and actually try to come up with conservative answers?

Where did you get this idea that the core of conservative governance is a devotion to abandoning the responsibility to govern at all?

[Piggy]

We can argue about whether reducing our dependency on social help/handouts is a bad thing or not. Perhaps it is - perhaps our society has been incorrigibly altered. But it doesn't seem like such a bad idea to me to run with intelligent small-government proposals, instead of going "moderate" (read: deficit spending). We've had plenty of examples of that in the past decade.

There is a time for deficit spending. Wartime, for example. And during periods of extreme financial crisis which threaten the very fundamentals of economic operation.

This notion that deficit spending is an inherent evil above all others is rather bizarre.

In response to the recent financial freeze, Congressional Republicans churned out an alternate proposal which consisted entirely of tax cuts! It was totally insane.

That's what adherence to ideology will get you.

I'm not saying that the response we got wasn't flawed. It certainly was, and is. But at least it fended off a global meltdown, which the Republican proposal would not have.

That's the problem with ideological purity in a nutshell. You get one tool to fix all problems. And that never works.

Look, to be viable again, we have to engage with the real world, plain and simple, and that includes dealing with a wide variety of constituencies and making pragmatic compromises.

If we don't do that, we're dead.

[Piggy]

To give you an idea of how I believe Republican principles can work in practice, I'll give some examples:

1: Small, nonintrusive government. We get government out of people's sexual preferences wrt gay marriage (by legalizing it or getting out of marriage altogether) and submit to the rights of private American citizens in regards to wiretapping by making sure we do it legally.

I agree with you on those points.

Leave marriage to the churches, temples, and mosques, and allow civil unions for pretty much any pair of consenting adults who wants one.

No more BS wiretaps, and no more lying about it. FISA already allowed retroactive warrants, so all the smoke and mirrors about responsiveness was just a bunch of baloney.

However, we still need sufficient apparatus to actually govern this huge nation and not get steamrolled internationally.

2: Fiscal conservatism. We stop signing costly boondoggles like Medicare Part D and the bailouts into law. We let capitalism take its course, e.g. allowing firms to fail. We actually move to balance the budget.

The first part of that proposal is, I have to say, nothing but fantasy.

The "invisible hand" theory has long been debunked. There is no magic in benign-neglect capitalism. It leads to boom-and-bust cycles, economy-wrecking bubbles, and rampant corruption.

As for the bailouts, we learned our lesson with Lehman. Allowing those big firms to fail would be like throwing mutineers off a ship while they're shackled by the leg to the rest of the crew. Satisfying for a split second, but quickly resulting in the loss of the ship.

Were the bailouts distasteful? Absolutely. Were they bungled? In many ways, yes. But that said, there's no doubt that some form of financial infusion was 100% necessary.

And if we don't pick up the reins, and instead allow things to go back the way they were, with shadow markets and lax oversight -- or, worse, if we deregulate even further -- there is no doubt we'll soon come right back to where we were. Only this time, we won't be able to swing the bailout, and we'll all sink.

Balanced budget? I'm all for it, as soon as it can be responsibly done.

3: Strong national defense. We avoid overexerting the U.S. Army by modeling it for a conventional war it wasn't meant to fight; we recognize changes on the ground and respond to them when appropriate (the surge was too long in coming); and we actually PLAN RESPONSIBLY for war.

Yeah, I'm agreed there. And I think most in Washington are on board with that. I believe the Bush administration was an abberation on that count.

Because Bush was so weak when it came to anything military, his cabinet was key.

Unfortunately, with a few notable exception, his advisors consisted primarily of the extremists left over from his father's administration -- men like Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz, who had outlandish ideas that quite rightly had been blocked by cooler heads under Bush Sr., but who in Jr's administration were given free rein to implement these half-baked notions, with the results we have seen.

If you want a horrific example of why pragmatism is better than ideological purity, you have to look no further than the Iraq war.

[ponderingturtle]

:confused:

I don't believe the US Constitution inevitably leads to a 2 party system. That's what we have, though, and it's hard to shake once you have it. But I don't see that there's anything in the Constitution that would naturally prohibit a mutli-party system with de-facto coalition governments.

Sure, but you have to come up with some way to prevent the problem of splitting the vote. So how do you remove the split the vote issue in the American electorial system?

[ponderingturtle]

Submit platitudes, and you shall receive: You don't want government screwing around in your life women's lives, but screwing around in the lives of others babies is fine with you.

If you really want to debate that fine, but this isn't the thread for yet another abortion debate. OF course it isn't exactly goverment doing anything, rather not banning something.


That's the point. Once they got into office, Republicans forgot about their principles. Their legislative dominance was, from then on, as much of a liability as an asset.

No they never had them to begin with. It was all propaganda.


I concede that there is a possibility that Americans might decide they don't like the basic Republican principles. But the GOP hasn't been pushing basic Republican principles over the past decade, so there's no reason to keep the status quo.

See, that's the problem: those who want to keep the GOP the way it is don't consider that doing so will not really succeed in passing any true Republican solutions. There must be some room for disagreement, of course, but less than there has been in the past. If that leads to a new centrist party springing up, then that's fine with me.

Nice true scottsman fallacy right there. There is no difference between true republicans and actual republicans. You want the democratic party to be the only national party in the US.

[ponderingturtle]

Of course not. But you've been talking about needing to amend the Constitution to allow more parties. Right now, numerous parties run presidential candidates such as the Greens. That they don't get many votes does not mean they don't exist.

But look at what happens every time you get three major parties, the two that are the most similar lose. That is why there never have been and never will be three major parties in the US for any length of time. Three parties are unstable, one will disolve and some of its platform will be taken up by at least one of the other parties.


Again, we do NOT have a two party system. We have a multi-party system dominated by the two largest parties.

We have an electorial system that has a two party solution as the stable solution to it.

[ponderingturtle]

Cain: This doesn't follow from what I said.



And yet, your original argument still doesn't follow. I'm just putting my words in a context.


And your context is like trying to get people to change water from being wet.

How is a violent revolution even implied?

Only way to attain your goals.


You were talking about unspecified elections. Local level politics is subject to institutional reform; such reforms have to start somewhere and then work their way up.

And then they hit the state level and die there.


Now you're just ********ting. There are varying degrees of **********-up-ness. Moreover, there's also a huge chasm between where people are today philosophically -- "my vote for president should count, all votes should count equally" -- and the way institutions actually function. Voting is also, um, sort of important, because it's how we change everything else -- provided you do want to avoid violent revolution.

Sure, but nothing is going to happen.

[ponderingturtle]

In response to the recent financial freeze, Congressional Republicans churned out an alternate proposal which consisted entirely of tax cuts! It was totally insane.

You forgot that they also blame it on regulation and so want to reduce regulation. I mean it is clear that everything would be much better now if they didn't have to limit themselves to a mere 35-1 leveraging, but could go 80-1 or more.

[drkitten]

I don't believe the US Constitution inevitably leads to a 2 party system. That's what we have, though, and it's hard to shake once you have it. But I don't see that there's anything in the Constitution that would naturally prohibit a mutli-party system with de-facto coalition governments.

The "winner-take-all" system is what does it; that's actually a mathematical theorem (coalitions are unstable in a winner take all system, so the stable equilibrium is a set of two parties). You can find a non-mathematical explanation here (http://www.duke.edu/web/poli/classes/proprep/withouttext.htm) if you like.

[ponderingturtle]

The "winner-take-all" system is what does it; that's actually a mathematical theorem (coalitions are unstable in a winner take all system, so the stable equilibrium is a set of two parties). You can find a non-mathematical explanation here (http://www.duke.edu/web/poli/classes/proprep/withouttext.htm) if you like.

I thought game theory proved it but was not entirely confident in making that assertion.

[Piggy]

Sure, but you have to come up with some way to prevent the problem of splitting the vote. So how do you remove the split the vote issue in the American electorial system?

I don't think that's the problem.

It seems to me that either a third party withers on the vine or starts gaining steam.

If it gets any momentum, the other 2 parties simply incorporate the most attractive bits of their platform into their platforms (or one of them does) and draws away enough support so that they become non-viable.

[Piggy]

The "winner-take-all" system is what does it; that's actually a mathematical theorem (coalitions are unstable in a winner take all system, so the stable equilibrium is a set of two parties). You can find a non-mathematical explanation here (http://www.duke.edu/web/poli/classes/proprep/withouttext.htm) if you like.

Kewl. Hadn't seen that before. Interesting. Thanks.

[ponderingturtle]

I don't think that's the problem.

It seems to me that either a third party withers on the vine or starts gaining steam.

If it gets any momentum, the other 2 parties simply incorporate the most attractive bits of their platform into their platforms (or one of them does) and draws away enough support so that they become non-viable.

Or they replace a major party. The point is that there will always be and can only be two major parties in the US for any length of time.

[Darth Rotor]

He CHOSE not to exercise those options. He left the party and chose to run on a new ticket.
You and Tricky are right about Lieberman, but Lieberman was also right: in order to win, he had to leave the party. Joe looked out for number one. :cool:

[Piggy]

You and Tricky are right about Lieberman, but Lieberman was also right: in order to win, he had to leave the party. Joe looked out for number one. :cool:

As did Specter. His own party was caucusing against him, so his choice was to retire or switch.

And the Limbaughs of the world cheered.

Good riddance, they said.

That's all fine and well for them, because when the GOP is on the ropes it actually fires up their audience and they get richer. It's happening right now.

[Sporanox]

That's who we've wound up in bed with. And now we find that there's no one else to shack up with, so most Republican office-holders dare not risk getting kicked out of that flea-infested bed for fear of being left out in the cold altogether.

I think you're being too melodramatic, both on the supposed stupidity of Palin and her influence, but unfortunately there is no definitive way to prove one side or the other.


Where did you get this idea that the core of conservative governance is a devotion to abandoning the responsibility to govern at all?

You know what a big-government solution is.

[Darth Rotor]

As did Specter. His own party was caucusing against him, so his choice was to retire or switch.

And the Limbaughs of the world cheered.

Good riddance, they said.

That's all fine and well for them, because when the GOP is on the ropes it actually fires up their audience and they get richer. It's happening right now.
What's that old adage?

Follow the money.

I confirmed for myself what Limbaugh was up to during Ahnold's run for California Governator: stirring up the pot was the most important thing for Rush, since Clinton was no longer in office for Rush to play his "shafting of America" schtick on.

His business model is so good, Glenn Beck has adopted it.

DR

[Sporanox]

The first part of that proposal is, I have to say, nothing but fantasy.

The "invisible hand" theory has long been debunked. There is no magic in benign-neglect capitalism. It leads to boom-and-bust cycles, economy-wrecking bubbles, and rampant corruption.

Nobody believes in totally deregulated capitalism. That's a strawman. At the bare minimum, we restrict monopolies. I was speaking of the tendency to go along with deficit-ballooning government programs, which is not significantly connected to deregulation in this context.

As for the bailouts, I'm not totally convinced they were necessary, partially because there is no way to prove the doomsday scenarios used to scare us into supporting them.


Balanced budget? I'm all for it, as soon as it can be responsibly done.


We will never have a balanced budget if we keep throwing our money away. This is something that most people in Congress can't grasp. I'm not certain they realize the value of a lower deficit, either.


If you want a horrific example of why pragmatism is better than ideological purity, you have to look no further than the Iraq war.

Ideology by itself doesn't cripple the nuts and bolts of an operation. Incompetence does. We saw that with Rumsfeld's vision of the Army (unsuited to occupation) and an institutional inability to respond to changing circumstances.

[quadraginta]

<snip>

Ideology by itself doesn't cripple the nuts and bolts of an operation. Incompetence does. We saw that with Rumsfeld's vision of the Army (unsuited to occupation) and an institutional inability to respond to changing circumstances.


Yes it does. That is exactly the problem. Ideology without any regard for reality is crippling.

The past eight years of ideology driven decision making has been disastrous. Please let us have some pragmatism.

[Sporanox]

Yes it does. That is exactly the problem. Ideology without any regard for reality is crippling.

The past eight years of ideology driven decision making has been disastrous. Please let us have some pragmatism.

Explain how that happened in Iraq, please? We are probably playing with semantics. I view the "shower us with roses" summation of war strategy and an over-reliance on shady exiles as incompetent methodology. Perhaps that is an extension of ideology. Yet, even though one would be ideologically decided to invade Iraq, there is no reason to remain ignorant of the facts known before the war, or dismiss the widespread looting and chaos as nothing of consequence.

[ParrotPirate]

They just keep painting themselves closer to the farthest right corner of the room,don't they?

[drkitten]

As for the bailouts, I'm not totally convinced they were necessary, partially because there is no way to prove the doomsday scenarios used to scare us into supporting them.

Ah, yes. The "you can't prove to me there's no Bigfoot" argument.


We will never have a balanced budget if we keep throwing our money away. This is something that most people in Congress can't grasp. I'm not certain they realize the value of a lower deficit, either.

The only problem with that is that we've had a balanced budget in recent memory. The deficit decreased substantially under Clinton (http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/), based on sensible economic theories that say that when the economy is doing well by itself, you refrain from further stimulus and instead build up reserves that can be used when the economy starts to fail. Or as Fed Chairman Martin (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/business/23view.html?ei=5090&en=3337604c8708710a&ex=1356066000&adxnnl=1&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1259614885-971jzN33GF5JAtw0PfjF0Q) put it, the Fed's job (and by extension the government's) is "to take away the punch bowl just as the party gets going."

Of course, having said, that, the party is no longer going, and it's the Fed's job (and the government's) to bring the punch bowl back. Until the party starts up again, when they should take it away and start collecting tips to use to buy another bowl twenty years from now.....


Ideology by itself doesn't cripple the nuts and bolts of an operation. Incompetence does.

But ideology is often -- usually? -- a cause of incompetence. If you bring preconceived conclusions to the table instead of letting data drive the conclusions, you will at best ignore the data and do the wrong thing, and at worst distort the data to support doing the wrong thing.

[Sporanox]

Ah, yes. The "you can't prove to me there's no Bigfoot" argument.

Appeal to ridicule.

The only problem with that is that we've had a balanced budget in recent memory. The deficit decreased substantially under Clinton, based on sensible economic theories that say that when the economy is doing well by itself, you refrain from further stimulus and instead build up reserves that can be used when the economy starts to fail. Or as Fed Chairman Martin put it, the Fed's job (and by extension the government's) is "to take away the punch bowl just as the party gets going."

Why is that a problem? Most people know the budget was balanced under Clinton. That's why I keep typing the qualifier "the last decade"...


Of course, having said, that, the party is no longer going, and it's the Fed's job (and the government's) to bring the punch bowl back. Until the party starts up again, when they should take it away and start collecting tips to use to buy another bowl twenty years from now.....

Two things:

1) The government has bought a crappy punch bowl. I don't think they're up to the task.

2) The government never had the money to buy the punch bowl in the first place, and I doubt they will twenty years from now at their current mindset.

But ideology is often -- usually? -- a cause of incompetence. If you bring preconceived conclusions to the table instead of letting data drive the conclusions, you will at best ignore the data and do the wrong thing, and at worst distort the data to support doing the wrong thing.

I'm fairly certain Bush wanted Iraq to turn around. The reason why the surge wasn't implemented earlier was, in part, because Rumsfeld was incompetent. I see what you mean, though. You might tie the latter's failure to a belief that a leaner military could meet the challenge of occupation, which would be an ideology - although quite separate from several others.

[drkitten]

Why is that a problem? Most people know the budget was balanced under Clinton. That's why I keep typing the qualifier "the last decade"...

Because that's an unrepresentative sample. What was your phrasing? "We will never have a balanced budget if we keep throwing our money away. This is something that most people in Congress can't grasp."

First, I don't see that qualifier in there anywhere. But more importantly, claiming that we will "never" have something because "most" Congressmen in the past ten years don't grasp it is like my claiming that we will never have summer again because most of the past week has been cold and rainy.

The past ten years have been largely dictated by one of the least competent presidents in the history of the United States running up enormous deficits and creating an economic and political cesspool that will take both time and money to clean up.



1) The government has bought a crappy punch bowl. I don't think they're up to the task.

And you're doing it again. They were up to the task ten years ago. How did the punch bowl change between 1999 and 2009?


I'm fairly certain Bush wanted Iraq to turn around.

I'm also quite certain that he wanted the Texas Rangers to win the World Series. If not the Superbowl. Merely "wanting" something doesn't make a person competent or not an ideologue.

The problem was not what he wanted, but what he thought would happen. His ideology dictated that it would turn around, even when it demonstrably wasn't turning around. I might want a position as the President's National Science Advisor, but only a lunatic would believe that I am or even that I will get it.

[drkitten]

Appeal to ridicule.

Yup. An appropriate response to a non-sequitur that attempts to inappropriately move the goalposts. If you want to know what would have happened without the stimulus, consult the various economists. There's a pretty universal consensus by now that the stimulus has worked but wasn't big enough and therefore the recovery is going to be pretty anemic.

Epistemologically, that's no more controversial than the idea that if I hadn't operated on your cancer, it would have spread and killed you. Of course, no oncologist can prove that, but that's hardly a reason to dismiss your doctor's opinion.

[Sporanox]

Because that's an unrepresentative sample. What was your phrasing? "We will never have a balanced budget if we keep throwing our money away. This is something that most people in Congress can't grasp."

First, I don't see that qualifier in there anywhere. But more importantly, claiming that we will "never" have something because "most" Congressmen in the past ten years don't grasp it is like my claiming that we will never have summer again because most of the past week has been cold and rainy.

Where was this level of spending in the Clinton Administration? Clearly, most legislators have lost their inhibitions. This is not impossible.

And you're doing it again. They were up to the task ten years ago. How did the punch bowl change between 1999 and 2009?

Well, for one, I don't think there were stimulus funds awarded to nonexistent districts in 1999.

I'm also quite certain that he wanted the Texas Rangers to win the World Series. If not the Superbowl. Merely "wanting" something doesn't make a person competent or not an ideologue.

True.


The problem was not what he wanted, but what he thought would happen. His ideology dictated that it would turn around, even when it demonstrably wasn't turning around. I might want a position as the President's National Science Advisor, but only a lunatic would believe that I am or even that I will get it.

His ideology did not lead to Rumsfeld's failures. This is obvious because he still had the same mindset when he pushed the surge, which did turn it around. This was my point.

ETA

Yup. An appropriate response to a non-sequitur that attempts to inappropriately move the goalposts. If you want to know what would have happened without the stimulus, consult the various economists. There's a pretty universal consensus by now that the stimulus has worked but wasn't big enough and therefore the recovery is going to be pretty anemic.

Hah. Yes, I've heard: this stimulus was too small, and we might need another one!

The problem with that is those same policymakers who drafted the stimulus predicted unemployment without the stimulus that was lower than actual unemployment with the stimulus. There's also the matter of no evidence that the stimulus actually was cost-effective, or did what it was claimed to have done.

[drkitten]

Where was this level of spending in the Clinton Administration?

Actually, the spending was for the most part there, with the exception of the military spending.

Clearly, most legislators have lost their inhibitions. This is not impossible.

Not impossible. Just not true.

What destroyed the surplus was not primarily a sudden upsurge in spending, but the irresponsible (and ideologically driven) tax cuts pushed through by Bush. It's not that spending went up, but that revenues went down -- at the very time they should have been going up, to bring the housing boom under control.

Which, again, is a triumph of ideology over facts.


Well, for one, I don't think there were stimulus funds awarded to nonexistent districts in 1999.

Well, no. Nor were there stimulus funds awarded to districts that did exist in 1999, since there weren't stimulus funds to distribute. But there were certainly inefficiencies and slipups in 1999 just as there were in 2009.

[drkitten]

Hah. Yes, I've heard: this stimulus was too small, and we might need another one!

Yes. You may have also heard that the Steelers won the Superbowl and that Prince Charles is heir apparent to the throne of the UK. Depending upon where you heard it -- for example, if you read it in a reliable and reputable source, you might even consider reading the rest of the article and seeing why they say it.


The problem with that is those same policymakers who drafted the stimulus predicted unemployment without the stimulus that was lower than actual unemployment with the stimulus.

I see. So your suggestion is that the stimulus actually increased unemployment? What's the basis for that claim?

There's also the matter of no evidence that the stimulus actually was cost-effective, or did what it was claimed to have done.

Not if you don't read the rest of the article where the economists tell you why the stimulus wasn't big enough, there isn't.

[Sporanox]

Actually, the spending was for the most part there, with the exception of the military spending.

Our enormous deficits at the present are primarily a result of military spending? Keep telling yourself that.


What destroyed the surplus was not primarily a sudden upsurge in spending, but the irresponsible (and ideologically driven) tax cuts pushed through by Bush. It's not that spending went up, but that revenues went down -- at the very time they should have been going up, to bring the housing boom under control.

Again, are these the causes of our outrageous deficits today? No. That would be bailouts and a near-trillion dollar stimulus package.

Bush's lack of fiscal discipline did indeed cause substantial deficits, but those indiscretions are now looking like the tip of the iceberg. Both incidents are problems. ETA: and again, it's too bad conservatives ignored the lack of fiscal discipline until a member of the other side got into office.

ETA II: Bush, with the help of a Democratic congress, pushed the bailouts through. He shares much of the blame.

I see. So your suggestion is that the stimulus actually increased unemployment? What's the basis for that claim?

Don't get too excited. My contention is that the stimulus was not effective.

[drkitten]

Our enormous deficits at the present are primarily a result of military spending?

Not at all. Our enormous deficits are primarily a result of irresponsible tax cuts.


Again, are these the causes of our outrageous deficits today?

Yes.

That would be bailouts and a near-trillion dollar stimulus package.

"Keep telling yourself that."




Don't get too excited. My contention is that the stimulus was not effective.

... which is to say, it should have been bigger.

Game-set-match.

[Piggy]

I think you're being too melodramatic, both on the supposed stupidity of Palin and her influence, but unfortunately there is no definitive way to prove one side or the other.

Did you actually read my post?

I think not.

First of all, I'm not at all wrong about Palin's ignorance (not stupidity).

But once again, I'm not talking about Palin's influence. I'm talking about the influence of her audience.

[Sporanox]

Not at all. Our enormous deficits are primarily a result of irresponsible tax cuts.



Yes.



"Keep telling yourself that."

http://hotair.cachefly.net/images/2009-07/wsj-deepimpacts.jpg

ETA: That darn graph stopped showing up.

... which is to say, it should have been bigger.

Game-set-match.

Yes, when we see in hindsight that a government program gave $6+ billion to phantom districts and is highly ineffective at producing jobs (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/06/AR2009110603919.html?nav=rss_business), we slap ourselves and say, "Darn! Should have wasted more money!"

[Sporanox]

Did you actually read my post?

I think not.

First of all, I'm not at all wrong about Palin's ignorance (not stupidity).

But once again, I'm not talking about Palin's influence. I'm talking about the influence of her audience.

Sorry, that was unclear, but it does seem like you are asserting that the "audience" crawled out of the woodwork in response to Palin.

[Piggy]

As for the bailouts, I'm not totally convinced they were necessary, partially because there is no way to prove the doomsday scenarios used to scare us into supporting them.

Actually, there is a way of demonstrating that we were on the verge of financial freeze.

But it requires more reading than you may be up for.

And unfortunately, I don't have the time to dredge it all up, so I'll have to leave it at that.

If you actually look at the details of what went on, it's frightening as hell, and I'm still surprised that we've come out this well so far.

If you're interested, Frontline's "Inside the Meltdown" is a good place to start.

[Piggy]

We will never have a balanced budget if we keep throwing our money away. This is something that most people in Congress can't grasp. I'm not certain they realize the value of a lower deficit, either.

Of course they grasp this. They're not third-graders. Unfortunately, they often have the same urges to overspend that we do in our private lives, and for much the same reasons.

[Piggy]

But ideology is often -- usually? -- a cause of incompetence. If you bring preconceived conclusions to the table instead of letting data drive the conclusions, you will at best ignore the data and do the wrong thing, and at worst distort the data to support doing the wrong thing.

The best examples of this are Doug Feith and Paul Wolfowitz.

[Piggy]

Yup. An appropriate response to a non-sequitur that attempts to inappropriately move the goalposts. If you want to know what would have happened without the stimulus, consult the various economists. There's a pretty universal consensus by now that the stimulus has worked but wasn't big enough and therefore the recovery is going to be pretty anemic.

Opponents of stimulus now find their butts in a pretty tight crack right now.

We saw some economic growth last quarter, and it's pretty much agreed all around that it's due to stimulus, and it will take a while longer for real growth to kick in.

So if you claim the stimulus failed, you have nowhere to go.

If you deny that the stimulus is responsible for propping up the economy (that is, stopping the freefall) then your only option is to claim that the apparent bounce is real, which means the stimulus didn't fail.

[Sporanox]

Actually, there is a way of demonstrating that we were on the verge of financial freeze.

But it requires more reading than you may be up for.

And unfortunately, I don't have the time to dredge it all up, so I'll have to leave it at that.

If you actually look at the details of what went on, it's frightening as hell, and I'm still surprised that we've come out this well so far.

If you're interested, Frontline's "Inside the Meltdown" is a good place to start.

I will watch and compare it, thanks.

Of course they grasp this. They're not third-graders. Unfortunately, they often have the same urges to overspend that we do in our private lives, and for much the same reasons.

I'm not sure if they do. HR 3200 was projected to "save money" when the CBO scored it as a deficit-increasing initiative.

[Sporanox]

Opponents of stimulus now find their butts in a pretty tight crack right now.

We saw some economic growth last quarter, and it's pretty much agreed all around that it's due to stimulus, and it will take a while longer for real growth to kick in.

So if you claim the stimulus failed, you have nowhere to go.

If you deny that the stimulus is responsible for propping up the economy (that is, stopping the freefall) then your only option is to claim that the apparent bounce is real, which means the stimulus didn't fail.

Sorry, if you have to add that qualifier in there, you haven't stuck opponents of the stimulus in a bind.

[Piggy]

Sorry, that was unclear, but it does seem like you are asserting that the "audience" crawled out of the woodwork in response to Palin.

I've never said that, although it's certainly true that Palin whipped them into a frenzy.

In fact, Palin was the wrong strategy because Obama's candidacy had already brought out the base in force. Palin was redundant in that regard, and only served to alienate the voters McCain really needed -- middle-of-the-road independents and Reagan Democrats.

The problem now is that ideological extremism by the GOP has left the remaining seats dependent on the far right-wing fringe, the kind of folks who cheer Palin, leave Fox News playing on their TVs all day, and believe Glenn Beck's nonsense.

That's why this purity test is the wrong move. It goes farther in the direction that has already cost us the White House and Congress.

[Piggy]

Sorry, if you have to add that qualifier in there, you haven't stuck opponents of the stimulus in a bind.

Yes, they are in a bind, because if the current bump is due to the stimulus rather than real economic growth, it has done exactly what it was intended to do.

[Sporanox]

I've never said that, although it's certainly true that Palin whipped them into a frenzy.

In fact, Palin was the wrong strategy because Obama's candidacy had already brought out the base in force. Palin was redundant in that regard, and only served to alienate the voters McCain really needed -- middle-of-the-road independents and Reagan Democrats.

The problem now is that ideological extremism by the GOP has left the remaining seats dependent on the far right-wing fringe, the kind of folks who cheer Palin, leave Fox News playing on their TVs all day, and believe Glenn Beck's nonsense.

That's why this purity test is the wrong move. It goes farther in the direction that has already cost us the White House and Congress.

You think Palin's candidacy was redundant? Man, you must not know many Palinites.

Another approach: what constructive legislation, in your opinion, did Republicans accomplish in their (ETA: most recent) congressional reign that could not have been accomplished under the other party?

Yes, they are in a bind, because if the current bump is due to the stimulus rather than real economic growth, it has done exactly what it was intended to do.

Psst...jobs.

[Cain]

So you still haven't read the platforms, eh? Well, ok.

You post out of ignorance, but I'm sure you're used to it by now. One of the courses I teach is intro to government, where I regularly assign students a political parties comparison research assignment; they are instructed to compare party platforms, so not only have I read them, but I sometimes get over a hundred papers in a quarter quoting planks, and in two weeks I'm sure I will be to recite the Democratic Party's position on abortion verbatim.

I'll repeat what I said earlier to you: you don't have much of an argument.

So you're saying that people don't actually think this, they don't even seem to think it, but they almost seem to think it?

Are you really this dense? And if you choose to answer, you can do it the same reply box. You don't need to flood the forum with any more sense than you have already.

And here's another person who seems to post only for the sake of squeezing something out.

PonderingTurtle:

And your context is like trying to get people to change water from being wet.

Oh-K. More importantly, it still doesn't change the fact you rather foolishly misinterpreted my comment, made something out of it that it wasn't, and then in a face-saving movement claim that it's meaningless. Fine, fine.

Only way to attain your goals.

Ah, so now you're saying it wasn't implied. You again want to impose your point of view upon it. Thanks, let's just be more upfront in the future.

I concede that there is a possibility that Americans might decide they don't like the basic Republican principles. But the GOP hasn't been pushing basic Republican principles over the past decade, so there's no reason to keep the status quo.

Nice true scottsman fallacy right there. There is no difference between true republicans and actual republicans. You want the democratic party to be the only national party in the US.

The No True Scotsman is one of the more abused "fallacies" on this forum. Any mere mention of "true" sets it off for the weak, a sort of wannabe skeptic's equivalent of charging the second law of thermodynamics invalidates evolution. If you are serious meaningful differences, then you might want to start capitalizing political parties. And thank you for telling me what I want; yet again, you exhibit not the slightest subtlety in distinguishing between what I consciously want and what you think I effectively want, but then such nuance requires careful thinking, and we can't have any of that from the types who impulsively cry "true scottsman"!

[Piggy]

You think Palin's candidacy was redundant? Man, you must not know many Palinites.

Are you kidding? I'm up to my eyeballs in Palinites.

But still, you don't seem to be able to grasp what I am clearly saying.

Palin's candidacy was redundant because Obama's candidacy had already accomplished what the McCain campaign hoped to achieve by adding her to the ticket.

Sending her on her rally tour added nothing to the Republican chances, and subtracted quite a bit. It was a net loss.

If you're going to argue otherwise, I'm afraid the facts are against you.

[Piggy]

You post out of ignorance, but I'm sure you're used to it by now. One of the courses I teach is intro to government, where I regularly assign students a political parties comparison research assignment; they are instructed to compare party platforms, so not only have I read them, but I sometimes get over a hundred papers in a quarter quoting planks, and in two weeks I'm sure I will be to recite the Democratic Party's position on abortion verbatim.

And yet you see substantive differences? Interesting.

[Piggy]

Psst...jobs.

No one expected a jobs recovery from the stimulus. They expected some make-work jobs, and even then everyone knew it would lag.

Nobody was predicting anything but a classic jobless recovery, with jobs following on the heels.

[SezMe]

Sending her on her rally tour added nothing to the Republican chances, and subtracted quite a bit. It was a net loss.

If you're going to argue otherwise, I'm afraid the facts are against you.
Facts are in short supply in political campaign analysis but opinions are a dime a dozen. So here's mine - keep the change. :)

I disagree that Palin was a net loss, especially in the first month or so after she was picked. McCain was weak, the base was lukewarm and the campaign was going nowhere. Palin brought emotion, passion and crowds to her rallys. The base had SOMETHING to cheer for and the ticket had some charisma to counter Obama.

In the long run, not so much. But I don't dismiss her impact quite as much as you do, Piggy.

[Piggy]

Are you really this dense? And if you choose to answer, you can do it the same reply box.

So you follow up your "people almost seem to think" with a contention that cramming my replies into one box is somehow essentially different from splitting them.

Amazing how your mind works.

[Piggy]

In the long run, not so much.

But in campaigns, the long run is all that matters.

The effort failed, because the base was going to come around for the GOP ticket anyway.

McCain abandoned the fight for the middle, which is all that mattered.

[MattusMaximus]

It looks as if the GOP establishment is pushing back against the idea of the "purity test"...

GOP establishment scorns purity test (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/30028.html)
Establishment Republicans are recoiling at a draft proposal before the Republican National Committee that would bar party financial support for candidates who fail to meet eight of 10 issue tests.

The resolution, the latest skirmish in the GOP’s ongoing internal ideological battle, would require candidates to meet a purity test on fiscal and social issues or risk being denied direct and coordinated spending from the national committee.

But numerous top party officials say that imposing such a conservative litmus test would only spur intra-party bickering at a time when Republicans are poised to make significant gains in next year’s mid-term elections.

“We’re becoming a church that would rather chase away heretics than welcome converts and that’s no way to become a majority party,” complained former Rep. Tom Davis, a Virginia Republican who served as National Republican Congressional Committee chairman. “This makes no sense for those of us who are interested in winning elections.” ...

This is a welcome development, imo. But it is not going to sit well with the Limbaugh/Beck/Tea Party wingnut crowd... not one bit. I expect more TP-induced ranting and raving to follow.

:popcorn1

[MattusMaximus]

But in campaigns, the long run is all that matters.

The effort failed, because the base was going to come around for the GOP ticket anyway.

McCain abandoned the fight for the middle, which is all that mattered.

Which is why, ultimately, the Tea Party strategy of "ideological purity" is doomed in the long run.

[ponderingturtle]

Psst...jobs.

Jobs are a trailing ecconomic indicator, not a leading ecconomic indicator. For example I work in manufacturing, we are like I think a lot of companies, we are presently swamped with work for our current workforce because we laid off many of the people. Now we are trying to delay hireing more workers because we want to see if the level of work will keep increasing to were it was 2 years ago.

So the company is doing much better sales are up something like 30% from what they were 6 months ago, but we haven't increased our work force yet.

[ponderingturtle]

The No True Scotsman is one of the more abused "fallacies" on this forum. Any mere mention of "true" sets it off for the weak, a sort of wannabe skeptic's equivalent of charging the second law of thermodynamics invalidates evolution. If you are serious meaningful differences, then you might want to start capitalizing political parties. And thank you for telling me what I want; yet again, you exhibit not the slightest subtlety in distinguishing between what I consciously want and what you think I effectively want, but then such nuance requires careful thinking, and we can't have any of that from the types who impulsively cry "true scottsman"!

You were differentiating True Republicans(tm) from the Republicans currently in office, this is a no true scotsman fallacy. You are deciding that some idealized version of republicans who have not been in evidence on the national sceen in decades are more republican than those being elected as republicans.

True republicans are those elected on the republican ticket.

[tyr_13]

Even setting aside the fallacies in the test questions themselves, and what they have to do with being a Republican, why require eight out of ten?

Why not six? Or five? Not only would this test limit Republicans, it would greatly limit them. Hell, the way the questions are it basically says, "fiscal conservatives who are not way right on social issues get the **** out."

It's just so poorly thought out on so many levels it's surprising that the GOP even sees a need to address it.

[DavidJames]

True republicans are those elected on the republican ticket.Exactly, Republicans, as described by many on this forum haven't existed in my politically aware lifetime, i.e. mid 1960's on.

[Sporanox]

Are you kidding? I'm up to my eyeballs in Palinites.

But still, you don't seem to be able to grasp what I am clearly saying.

Palin's candidacy was redundant because Obama's candidacy had already accomplished what the McCain campaign hoped to achieve by adding her to the ticket.

Sending her on her rally tour added nothing to the Republican chances, and subtracted quite a bit. It was a net loss.

If you're going to argue otherwise, I'm afraid the facts are against you.

Yes, Palin constituted a net loss, but a gain with the base.

No one expected a jobs recovery from the stimulus. They expected some make-work jobs, and even then everyone knew it would lag.

Nobody was predicting anything but a classic jobless recovery, with jobs following on the heels.

Hmm, where have I heard the phrase "created or saved" before...must be my imagination...oh wait.

What?


So the company is doing much better sales are up something like 30% from what they were 6 months ago, but we haven't increased our work force yet.

It was stated in the sale of the stimulus that...

By the way, Piggy, I notice you didn't reply to this question:


Another approach: what constructive legislation, in your opinion, did Republicans accomplish in their (ETA: most recent) congressional reign that could not have been accomplished under the other party?

[SezMe]

By the way, Piggy, I notice you didn't reply to this question:
I stayed out of the way because you addressed you question directly to Piggy but if you had asked me I would have asked for a restatement of the question because in its present form, I don't understand it.

[Piggy]

Jobs are a trailing ecconomic indicator, not a leading ecconomic indicator. For example I work in manufacturing, we are like I think a lot of companies, we are presently swamped with work for our current workforce because we laid off many of the people. Now we are trying to delay hireing more workers because we want to see if the level of work will keep increasing to were it was 2 years ago.

So the company is doing much better sales are up something like 30% from what they were 6 months ago, but we haven't increased our work force yet.

Ditto us. Our fulfillment crew is actually back up to full hours now (thank Athe) but we're not doing any hiring.

[Piggy]

Yes, Palin constituted a net loss, but a gain with the base.

Which is useless.

[Piggy]

Hmm, where have I heard the phrase "created or saved" before...must be my imagination...oh wait.

Non-sequitur.

[Piggy]

By the way, Piggy, I notice you didn't reply to this question:


Another approach: what constructive legislation, in your opinion, did Republicans accomplish in their (ETA: most recent) congressional reign that could not have been accomplished under the other party?



I ignored it for the same reason SezMe did. I have no idea what you're talking about.

[Sporanox]

What were the constructive accomplishments of Republicans in their last congressional period of domination? Do you think the same legislation could have been implemented by Democrats had they been in power at the time?

Non-sequitur.

I'll finish it: "we created or saved (x number) of jobs..."

- Barack Obama, 208320821 times this year

[Piggy]

I'll finish it: "we created or saved (x number) of jobs..."

- Barack Obama, 208320821 times this year

Yeah, yeah, I know. I got the reference. I just don't understand the relevance.

[Piggy]

What were the constructive accomplishments of Republicans in their last congressional period of domination? Do you think the same legislation could have been implemented by Democrats had they been in power at the time?

Again, you're losing me. I've lost the thread. Why are you asking this?

[Sporanox]

Again, you're losing me. I've lost the thread. Why are you asking this?

You understand the first question, right? What do you consider the Republican legislative accomplishments in the past Republican reign?

Point being, what's the use of a Republican Congress if they don't really get anything of significance done?

Yeah, yeah, I know. I got the reference. I just don't understand the relevance.

It was a goal of the stimulus.


No one expected a jobs recovery from the stimulus. They expected some make-work jobs, and even then everyone knew it would lag.

He never added the caveat "make-work," either.

[Cain]

You were differentiating True Republicans(tm) from the Republicans currently in office, this is a no true scotsman fallacy.

Actually, I mistakenly quoted you out of context. In fact, you were responding to another poster, accusing him of this No True Scotsman nonsense. The remarkable feature of the No True Scotsman Man fallacy involves convenient, ad hoc redefinition (see Flew's original example). But on these forums almost any time anyone ever says "true X" people immediately hop into action.

[ponderingturtle]

It was stated in the sale of the stimulus that...


Here I thought it was to stimulate the ecconomy so that the ecconomy would recover and that would lower unemployment.

[ponderingturtle]

Actually, I mistakenly quoted you out of context. In fact, you were responding to another poster, accusing him of this No True Scotsman nonsense. The remarkable feature of the No True Scotsman Man fallacy involves convenient, ad hoc redefinition (see Flew's original example). But on these forums almost any time anyone ever says "true X" people immediately hop into action.

The point is that it was a No True Scotsman fallacy. He was having some idealized version of republicans that are not represented by the people elected by the republican party. That is the NTS fallacy.

[Dr Adequate]

I'll finish it: "we created or saved (x number) of jobs..."

- Barack Obama, 208320821 times this year What he did not say was: "... where x is a number so large that unemployment actually went down during a depression".

Oh, and he can't walk on water either.

[Sporanox]

What he did not say was: "... where x is a number so large that unemployment actually went down during a depression".

Oh, and he can't walk on water either.

You must have missed the part where the predicted unemployment without the stimulus was actually less than actual unemployment with the stimulus. If you don't expect him to reach his own goals, you have set the bar low indeed.

BTW, depression is a different term than recession.

ETA

Here I thought it was to stimulate the ecconomy so that the ecconomy would recover and that would lower unemployment.

Were you asleep every time he made an economy speech?

[Dr Adequate]

You must have missed the part where the predicted unemployment without the stimulus was actually less than actual unemployment with the stimulus. If you don't expect him to reach his own goals, you have set the bar low indeed. His stated goal (amongst other things) was to save or create a given number of jobs, not to use his magic powers of awesome to ensure that for the first time in the history of ever the universe would agree perfectly with the predictions of economists.

BTW, depression is a different term than recession. A depression is a severe recession. You don't think this counts?

[dudalb]

It looks as if the GOP establishment is pushing back against the idea of the "purity test"...

GOP establishment scorns purity test (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/30028.html)


This is a welcome development, imo. But it is not going to sit well with the Limbaugh/Beck/Tea Party wingnut crowd... not one bit. I expect more TP-induced ranting and raving to follow.

:popcorn1

One of the real problems the GOP is has is that some of people who have the most influence in the party are people like Limbaugh and company who first concern is not getting GOPers elected, but in getting high ratings. Rush and his ilk will do anything,even if it hurts the party, to keep their audience and their ad revenues.

[dudalb]

dp

[SezMe]

Another approach: what constructive legislation, in your opinion, did Republicans accomplish in their (ETA: most recent) congressional reign that could not have been accomplished under the other party?
I've thought about this and want to reply with another question. Since the Reps emphasize less government, distrust government, and think government is part of the problem not part of the solution, isn't the fact that they passed no significant legislation considered a good thing?

[SezMe]

One of the real problems the GOP is has is that some of people who have the most influence in the party are people like Limbaugh and company who first concern is not getting GOPers elected, but in getting high ratings.
I wonder how much influence the radio talkers really have. Rush didn't get his presidential pick, didn't screw up the Democratic Michigan primary, didn't get a win in NY23, etc. Probably the same assessment could be made of Hannity, Beck, etc.

How much sway do they really carry?

[Sporanox]

His stated goal (amongst other things) was to save or create a given number of jobs, not to use his magic powers of awesome to ensure that for the first time in the history of ever the universe would agree perfectly with the predictions of economists.

:rolleyes: Dispense with the ridiculous language. Why do we trust those darn Obama economists anyway, if they can't even get the unemployment window correct?

That given number of jobs saved or created was the number necessary for unemployment to be bent to the stimulus crafters' predictions. So, the point is he didn't reach it.

A depression is a severe recession. You don't think this counts?

How many economists agree with you?

I've thought about this and want to reply with another question. Since the Reps emphasize less government, distrust government, and think government is part of the problem not part of the solution, isn't the fact that they passed no significant legislation considered a good thing?

No, because I did not pose this question to a moderate Republican. If you posed the question to me, I still would say no. Besides the fact that legislative activity is required to reduce the size of government and make it more accountable to the public, Republicans actually displayed a penchant for increasing both the size and power of government - in fiscal and national security matters, respectively.

[tyr_13]

A depression has no hard and fast definition however the commonly accepted ones are a severe economic downturn marked especially by raising unemployment, several years of recession, or four straight quarters of negative growth.

I don't think it is out of line to call this last round a depression. It really has little impact on this thread though.

[Piggy]

You understand the first question, right? What do you consider the Republican legislative accomplishments in the past Republican reign?

Point being, what's the use of a Republican Congress if they don't really get anything of significance done?

No, I'm afraid I've lost the context.

I agree that we've had a do-nothing Congress for quite some time.

But I've simply lost the train of thought. I'm on several threads here, so I can't trace this one back. My fault.



It was a goal of the stimulus.

It was one of the goals of stimulus to provide stop-gap jobs on the public dole, but it was never a goal to provide real job recovery. A stimulus cannot do that.

Everyone knew (and knows) that real job recovery will lag.


ETA: The primary problem of the stop-gap job goal was that it conflicted with the requirement for oversight. You can either do things quickly, and invite fraud, or you can provide oversight and do things slowly. But you can't do things quickly and prevent fraud by providing adequate oversight.

[Sporanox]

A depression has no hard and fast definition however the commonly accepted ones are a severe economic downturn marked especially by raising unemployment, several years of recession, or four straight quarters of negative growth.

I don't think it is out of line to call this last round a depression. It really has little impact on this thread though.

No, it doesn't. I only raise the issue because I'm used to hearing this situation referred to as a recession.

No, I'm afraid I've lost the context.

I agree that we've had a do-nothing Congress for quite some time.

But I've simply lost the train of thought. I'm on several threads here, so I can't trace this one back. My fault.

Dude, are you kidding me? You don't need to know the context.


It was one of the goals of stimulus to provide stop-gap jobs on the public dole, but it was never a goal to provide real job recovery. A stimulus cannot do that.

Everyone knew (and knows) that real job recovery will lag.

Problem is, from the evidence we see, the stimulus wasn't cost-effective in that regard.


ETA: The primary problem of the stop-gap job goal was that it conflicted with the requirement for oversight. You can either do things quickly, and invite fraud, or you can provide oversight and do things slowly. But you can't do things quickly and prevent fraud by providing adequate oversight.

Then maybe we shouldn't have rushed the stimulus.

[Piggy]

I wonder how much influence the radio talkers really have. Rush didn't get his presidential pick, didn't screw up the Democratic Michigan primary, didn't get a win in NY23, etc. Probably the same assessment could be made of Hannity, Beck, etc.

How much sway do they really carry?

You've got to consider time frames.

The far right wing commentators held a minority right-wing audience, quite happily, thru the Dubya years. These were Dubya supporters who felt empowered.

In '04, they supported Bush and were paid off. They and their audiences were riding high.

'08 was a different kettle of fish.

They were not McCain supporters until Palin was brought on board. At that point, they were able to join the ticket.

But the loss was actually a boon to them. Limbaugh's ratings and Beck's ratings have actually gone up.

Their influence is not in determining elections. They are hangers-on as far as that is concerned.

Right now, their influence comes from the fact that those who remain staunchly loyal to the GOP are predominantly the same people who make up the Beck/Limbaugh audience.

In other words, now that the GOP is in the minority, the Beck/Limbaugh audience is suddenly the majority among GOP supporters.

That's a game changer.

Previously, they were a fractional demographic. Not any longer.

Before the '08 election, it was enough to simply placate that audience.

Now, most Republicans who still have their seats must actively court that audience, because their other constituents have abandoned them.

That's a huge difference.

In short, the loss has been a boom for the Beck/Limbaugh constituency.

[Piggy]

Dude, are you kidding me? You don't need to know the context.

No, I'm not kidding you at all, and yes, I do need to know the context. I'm not trying to dodge you. Can you give me a recap?

[Sporanox]

No, I'm not kidding you at all, and yes, I do need to know the context. I'm not trying to dodge you. Can you give me a recap?

The context is the discussion of whether a "moderate" Republican congress is worth it or not.

[Piggy]

Problem is, from the evidence we see, the stimulus wasn't cost-effective in that regard.

Damn right it wasn't. No one expected it to be. This wasn't some effort to get maximum efficiency from investment. It was a desperate effort to keep the bottom from falling out. There was no doubt in anyone's mind that we were going to lose money from it.

[Piggy]

The context is the discussion of whether a "moderate" Republican congress is worth it or not.

Oh, c'mon, man, throw me a bone here.

[Piggy]

Then maybe we shouldn't have rushed the stimulus.

I don't think you appreciate the situation at hand.

Look, I agree there's a lot that was wrong with it. And I was totally disgusted by the rush to lard it up with pork. It was shameful.

But in real terms, there was no choice but to steamroll it.

In any case, the artificial economic blip is really all anyone could expect, and despite all the high-falutin' rhetoric, it's all anyone really wanted or needed from it.

[Sporanox]

Damn right it wasn't. No one expected it to be. This wasn't some effort to get maximum efficiency from investment. It was a desperate effort to keep the bottom from falling out. There was no doubt in anyone's mind that we were going to lose money from it.

You say it was desperate, but I'm not convinced. The PR campaign was nothing but fear-mongering, and your supporting reasons descend from that.

Oh, c'mon, man, throw me a bone here.

Well, from what I can distill, your position is that we need to embrace a wide range of Republicans who disagree on a significant number of things with each other, whatever that may be - fiscal conservatism, the need for a strong military, social conservative issues. In short, that Republicans need not have any core beliefs.

My position is that we need to change the status quo, because having a Republican plurality that doesn't stand for any principles is useless. In fact, it's worse than useless. It's a waste of the money people donate to the RNC.

[tyr_13]

My position is that we need to change the status quo, because having a Republican plurality that doesn't stand for any principles is useless. In fact, it's worse than useless. It's a waste of the money people donate to the RNC.

Yeah, but did you read the questions? And eight out of ten?

Seriously, do you believe that this, or any, ideological purity test would be the most suitable way to do make Republicans stand for some principles?

[Piggy]

Well, from what I can distill, your position is that we need to embrace a wide range of Republicans who disagree on a significant number of things with each other, whatever that may be - fiscal conservatism, the need for a strong military, social conservative issues. In short, that Republicans need not have any core beliefs.

My position is that we need to change the status quo, because having a Republican plurality that doesn't stand for any principles is useless. In fact, it's worse than useless. It's a waste of the money people donate to the RNC.

Yeah, I think that's a fair assessment.

Your formula results in a "pure" GOP that can't get anything done.

My formula results in a pragmatic GOP that gets things done for its various constituents much of the time, not all of the time.

Take your pick.

[SezMe]

Seriously, do you believe that this, or any, ideological purity test would be the most suitable way to do make Republicans stand for some principles?
Worse, they really don't constitute a "purity" test. They are just a bunch of hot button issues that don't display a set of core values. It's just electioneering pap.

[Sporanox]

Yeah, I think that's a fair assessment.

Your formula results in a "pure" GOP that can't get anything done.

My formula results in a pragmatic GOP that gets things done for its various constituents much of the time, not all of the time.

Take your pick.

You shouldn't claim that without actually identifying what things this pragmatic GOP gets done much of the time. Seriously, that looks so ridiculous compared against the backdrop of refusing to answer my question.

Yeah, but did you read the questions? And eight out of ten?

Seriously, do you believe that this, or any, ideological purity test would be the most suitable way to do make Republicans stand for some principles?

The arbitrary number of agreement and the nature of some of the questions leave something to be desired, but I support some kind of purifying movement as a whole.

Worse, they really don't constitute a "purity" test. They are just a bunch of hot button issues that don't display a set of core values. It's just electioneering pap.

I wouldn't say all of it is.

[Piggy]

You shouldn't claim that without actually identifying what things this pragmatic GOP gets done much of the time. Seriously, that looks so ridiculous compared against the backdrop of refusing to answer my question.

What question?

And to address the issue of a pragmatic GOP, just go back to the Eisenhower era.

Or you can look at Ragan's compromises with a Democratic congress. Or you can look at the Republican congress's compromises with Clinton. Or you can look Bush Sr's administration.

The latter is probably the best contemporary example.

Let me ask you this: Can you point to one single thing that a "pure" GOP has gotten done?

I thought not.