There is ALOT of debate about what the Republican Party should or could do to fix itself. And many within and without the party wonder what can fix the problem or if there is really no way to fix the party.
We're talking of course about what the Republican message and identity but could also include any other grievances that come to mind.
Below are a few articles tapped from the internet to read.
The short version is, what can the Republicans do?
There used to be a political truism: Democrats fall in love, while Republicans fall in line.
That’s no longer true. Not in this moment. Democrats have learned to fall in love and fall in line. Republicans are just falling apart.
Last week, the opening salvos were launched in a very public and very nasty civil war between establishment Republicans and Tea Party supporters when it was reported that Karl Rove was backing a new group, the Conservative Victory Project, to counter the Tea Party’s selection of loopy congressional candidates who lose in general elections.
The Tea Party was having none of it. It sees Rove’s group as a brazen attack on the Tea Party movement, which it is. Rove sees winning as a practical matter. The Tea Party counts victory in layers of philosophical purity.
Politico reported this week that an unnamed “senior Republican operative” said that one of the party’s biggest problems was “ ‘suicide conservatives, who would rather lose elections than win seats with moderates.’ ”
Democrats could be the ultimate beneficiaries of this tiff. Of the 33 Senate seats up for election in 2014, 20 are held by Democrats. Seven of those 20 are in states that President Obama lost in the last presidential election. Republicans would have to pick up only a handful of seats to take control of the chamber.
But some in the Tea Party are threatening that if their candidate is defeated in the primaries by a candidate backed by Rove’s group, they might still run the Tea Party candidate in the general election. That would virtually guarantee a Democratic victory.
Sal Russo, a Tea Party strategist, told Politico: “We discourage our people from supporting third-party candidates by saying ‘that’s a big mistake. We shouldn’t do that.’ ” He added: “But if the position [Rove’s allies] take is rule or ruin — well, two can play that game. And if we get pushed, we’re not going to be able to keep the lid on that.”
The skirmish speaks to a broader problem: a party that has lost its way and can’t rally around a unified, coherent vision of what it wants to be when it grows up.
The traditional Republican message doesn’t work. Rhetorically, the G.O.P. is the party of calamity. The sky is always falling. Everything is broken. Freedoms are eroding. Tomorrow is dimmer than today.
In Republicans’ world, we must tighten our belts until we crush our spines. We must take a road to prosperity that runs through the desert of austerity. We must cut to grow. Republicans are the last guardians against bad governance.
But how can they sell this message to a public that has rejected it in the last two presidential elections?
Some say keep the terms but soften the tone.
A raft of Republicans, many of them possible contenders in 2016, have been trying this approach.
Louisiana’s governor, Bobby Jindal, speaking at a Republican National Committee meeting last month, chastised his party for being “the stupid party” that’s “in love with zeros,” even as he insisted, “I am not one of those who believe we should moderate, equivocate, or otherwise abandon our principles.”
Jindal’s plan, like that of many other Republicans, boils down to two words: talk differently.
Other Republicans, like Marco Rubio, seem to want to go further. They understand that the party must behave differently. He is among a group of senators who recently put forward a comprehensive immigration proposal that would offer a pathway to citizenship for the millions of undocumented immigrants in this country.
This is a position Democrats have advocated, and it’s a position that Republicans have to accept if they want Hispanic support — and a chance of winning a presidential election.
The Tea Party crowd did not seem pleased with that plan. Glenn Beck, the self-described “rodeo clown” of the right, said:
“You’ve got John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and now Marco Rubio joining them because Marco Rubio just has to win elections. I’m done. I’m done. Learn the Constitution. Somebody has to keep a remnant of the Constitution alive.”
For Beck’s wing of the party, moderation is surrender, and surrender is death. It seems to want to go further out on a limb that’s getting ever more narrow. For that crowd, being a Tea Party supporter is more a religion than a political philosophy. They believe so deeply and fervently in it that they see no need for either message massage or actual compromise.
While most Democrats and Independents want politicians to compromise, Republicans don’t, according to a January report by the Pew Research Center. The zealots have a chokehold on that party, and they’re sucking the life — and common sense — out of it.
For this brand of Republican, there is victory in self-righteous defeat.
With the Super Bowl over, last week's coast vs. coast game of gun control one-upping saw California Democrats announcing an effort to out do New York's midnight end run Safe Act. Flanked by the state's two urban figureheads, State Senate leadership says it will use its supermajority to ramrod a package that will make even Governor Cuomo and Mayor Bloomberg green with envy.
The stakes of cultural warfare continue to rise and gun owners regardless of party affiliation are being told they must lay down arms and submit to their superiors. The elitist notion from the time of Colfax that "for the interests of the state, the rights of the People may be set aside" remains alive and well in this country.
Social media is of course alive with anger and bluster mostly ignored by mainstream media and it's headline writers. Well maybe Piers Morgan has found a temporary boost in his poor ratings but that won't last. Quietly, those familiar with the economic incentives of "black markets" are beginning to take note. Even more quietly, people rumble about who gets dibs on the top bunks in the camps. You see states aligning on two sides of a divisive issue so potentially explosive we could cleave the Union itself. Now between you and me, driving citizens to blows is not my idea of a good outcome for this country. The search for inclusive solutions seems called for in such extraordinary times.
In all this, an interesting thought occurs this weekend.
The Democrats in their zeal may be creating the very basis that will revitalize the Republican Party in spite of itself. By targeting -- yes I do love the pun -- gun owners across the board as some sort of witch coven are they driving people to join a new American coalition?
The thought experiment goes like this. Posit the every gun owner of every race, religion or any other persuasion switches parties to and then use these swelled numbers to invigorate and change the Republican Party to focus on becoming a broad based defender of the Second Amendment. Further posit that it doesn't matter what one thinks about all the other social issues; that this single issue unites all manner of people who are uncomfortable with trusting everything in government and that this is what created the glue to sustain this new coalition.
The Republican Party has been bumbling about seeking a new wedge and the Democrats may have handed it to them on a silver platter. An influx of people to the party would certainly work itself out in a broader caucus that changes the party once everyone is settled in. Democratic pressure on the gun issue could make that happen much sooner. It'd be interesting. It's a very credible threat. What politician won't perk up if they see a tide of party registrations reaching the registrar showing that suddenly something not quiet is happening on the reservation?
It turns out it's easy enough to do. And like most interesting things these days, it can happen virally. Let's continue the example of the two coasts.
In California, one can change party affiliation online. One can change it anytime one likes. One can change arbitrarily up to 15 days before an election. You can do it here.
That means it's possible to mount grassroots revolts in between election cycles to get the California State Legislature's attention. A social media campaign to ask every gun owner who's a Democrat to a least consider re-registering as a Republican and then send a note to their representatives saying they've done so and if they want them to switch back 15 days before the next election they should heed the message. It's kind of like "Move Your Money" for redistributing political clout and there's nothing the careful gerrymandering of redistricting can do about it.
Party switching for political messaging is not as easy to do in New York. But it's still a citizen's right to do it. In New York you need to do two things. First download a PDF file with the voter registration form. Then -- this is where it gets tricky -- you need to mail that form to the specific county registrar where you live. The list of mailing addresses is in a link in the same website. Bit more trouble but it makes for a nice educational outreach campaign, a somewhat different form on the Occupy Something theme. Maybe one could start by sending a nice letter to all the addresses published by the New York Journal News? The PDF file for recording State of New York voter registration and party affiliation change is here.
Be sure to send your regards to the Governor if you do.
So the next question is can the Republicans handle the influx? It will certainly change the party to have to become much more broadminded about many issues. My guess is yes. If one looks particularly at African-American, Hispanic and Asian cultures -- as opposed to their self-appointed leaders -- one finds a great deal of common core values with the non-fringe portion of the Republican Party. There are already many such persons who are Republicans. Swelling their numbers would certainly be healthy for the party, and arguably healthier for the United States. What's not to like about seeing the voices of diversity prosper within any group? You'd have to be a bit dictatorial to oppose it. And that's not supposed to be a good thing in these United States. Have some apple pie.
Clearly such a development will also alter the Democratic Party. A broad cultural coalition of Republicans held together by the liberty to pursue more forms of happiness of the 1st Amendment and the power to compel government to serve as opposed to rule of the 2nd Amendment is a formidable vision of the going forward American experiment. No doubt Democrats will respond and win back party members by adjusting the platform. Some of the fringe from the left side of aisle will have to give way to the center. I can't say that's a bad thing either.
What actually interests me the most about this weekend thought experiment is coming to terms with seeing that lifetime party affiliation in the Internet age is a myth. As a people, we can actually think of it more as a commodity and yes even a weapon -- thankfully a political one -- to be employed to constrain the excesses of government. We aren't just limited to being sheep. American citizens are eclectic individuals. Each of us is a unique mixture of values that defies the pigeon holing of the traditional party system. How we continue to adapt our political system to serve us is probably the most important thing each citizen can do in these times.
The United States, from day one, was a project about principles and ideals.
The superpower that emerged and grew from the handful of colonists that began settling here was not the product of where those colonists happened to land, but the ideals and principles in their head and heart – applied in how they lived their lives.
The Republican Party was founded in 1854 to address one great blot on the nation’s founding legacy – the existence of slavery in a nation founded under the ideal of freedom under God.
Runaway slave and self-educated abolitionist leader Frederick Douglass said, “I am a Republican, a black, dyed in the wool Republican, and I never intend to belong to any other party than the party of freedom and progress.”
Douglass called Abraham Lincoln, America’s first Republican president, “emphatically the black man’s president.”
When some 30 years ago I told the welfare officer not to bother showing up again at my home – when I decided that my own future would be based on the values of Scripture, work and personal responsibility – there was no doubt in my mind what party would become my political home.
The party of “freedom and progress,” the party of Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass.
But, as longshoreman philosopher Eric Hoffer once observed, “Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.”
It ‘s no mystery why the Republican Party is having a hard time today. No matter how hard you squint and try to discern the values of Lincoln and Frederick Douglass, or any values for that matter, in those now wielding the money and power at the top of the party, they’ve disappeared.
These establishment Republican leaders and operatives are not about ideals and values but business – their own business.
The Wall Street Journal reports that the latest estimate from the Congressional Budget Office is that unemployment will “remain above 7.5 percent through next year. That would make 2014 the sixth consecutive year with a jobless rate that high, the longest stretch of such elevated unemployment in 70 years.”
Yet the Republican presidential candidate in 2012 could not defeat the current occupant of the White House.
In the party that is supposed to be about freedom and personal responsibility, party operatives want to blame everyone else for their own failures.
Worse, they want to pin it on candidates who actually take seriously the traditional values of their party.
Karl Rove would like to weed out candidates like former Missouri Rep. Todd Akin.
Akin, who was defeated by Democratic incumbent Claire McCaskill in the U.S. Senate race in Missouri, was a six-term Republican congressman with a flawless conservative record.
For most of 2012 he was ahead of McCaskill in the polls. Then, in August, he expressed himself poorly in an interview about abortion. Despite his apologies and efforts to clarify himself, his own party abandoned him.
McCaskill ran ads, over and over, showing the Republican’s own candidate Mitt Romney questioning Akin’s qualifications. This race could have been saved. But the party elite wasted not a second dumping Akin because they were not comfortable with his conservative values to begin with.
We’re living in a deeply troubled country today. Americans are looking for answers, not a political class feathering its own nest.
There are tens of millions of conservative American patriots who seek an opposition party to represent their conviction that America will not get back on the path to strength and prosperity without restoration of freedom, limited government, free markets and traditional values.
Today’s big question is whether the Republican Party is going to be that opposition party.
If not, it is not conservative values and convictions that will be abandoned. It will be the Republican Party.
For anyone who sees Mitt Romney's loss in the November presidential election as a harbinger of GOP decline, conservatives have a message - make that two, tellingly conflicting, messages.
One, embodied by the Conservative Victory Project (CVP) - a group backed by Karl Rove's "super PAC" seeking to curb influence from far-right organizations - and spelled out Tuesday by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va.: Our olive branch is ripe, Democrats, and with the right legislation, we're willing to compromise.
The other, perhaps best summarized in paperwork filed today by ousted Rep. Joe Walsh, R-Ill., to create a "super PAC" countering Rove's: The tea party that in 2010 ushered into Washington a wave of staunch conservative ideologues isn't going away.
The Rove group's formation was just the most explicit among intensifying calls to inject discipline into a Congress that has seen unprecedented gridlock, particularly on critical economic issues.
Gov. Bobby Jindal, R-La. - a favorite on 2016 speculation lists - at a GOP retreat last month said, "We've got to stop being the stupid party," and called on his fellow Republicans to start talking "like adults." Former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga. and Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., appearing subsequently on CBS News programs, rushed to condone the remarks. "I think we clearly have to change," Gingrich said.
Meanwhile, Cantor's speech at the American Enterprise Institute on Tuesday brought substance to the argument, not to mention a glimpse into what the tone of the newly minted 113th Congress might be. Reviewed largely as a recasting of the Republican Party's image, Cantor's remarks offered a striking departure from the partisan battles that in the past few years have brought the government more than once to the brink of crisis. Rather than emphasizing spending cuts, he spoke of the economy from an American family standpoint; most drastically, he also endorsed immigration principles of the Dream Act.
"There are some who would rather avoid fixing the problem in order to save this as a political issue," Cantor said of immigration reform proposals currently making their way through congressional committees. "I reject this notion and call on the president to help lead us towards a bipartisan solution rather than encourage the common political divisions of the past."
While announcing gun trafficking legislation today, Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., said he was "very encouraged" by the House majority leader's speech. "I think he clearly opened the door for the House to move on meaningful legislation," he said. "Maybe, just maybe, this is the beginning of opening doors."
But despite some who believe the tea party peaked with its influx of dogma-driven freshmen in 2010, the grassroots activist group is sounding off about this new push toward the center. Statements from the various factions of the movement have echoed the sentiment expressed on Nov. 7 by Tea Party Patriots coordinator Jenny Beth Martin, blaming President Obama's reelection on the GOP's nomination of Romney - "a weak moderate candidate, hand-picked by the Beltway elites and country-club establishment wing of the Republican Party."
Even Tea Party Express chairwoman Amy Kremer, who despite early criticism ultimately supported Romney, and who, during the near-government-shutdown ordeal of 2011, advocated "realistic" pragmatism in budget negotiations, in a statement Monday pointed to "the biggest Republican victories in modern American politics" as indicative that CVP won't be successful.
"Reagan's victories in the 1980s, Newt Gingrich and the Republican revolution of 1994, and the Tea Party's historic wins in 2010 were all made possible because the Republican Party, and its candidates, stood strongly and proudly for pro-growth fiscal conservative policies," Kremer said. "The newly launched Conservative Victory Project wants to push the tea party out and replace them with the failed strategies of 2008 and 2012. This Super PAC is choosing power of principle, but will end up alienating conservatives and electoral losses.
"If the establishment's large donors want to see a complete electoral catastrophe, then all they need to do is push tea party conservatives into supporting alternative third candidates," she continued.
FreedomWorks, another powerhouse tea party fundraising group that suffered from its own infighting in December, also put out a statement, touting the "leadership" of the movement's heroes like Sens. Rand Paul, R-Ky., Marco Rubio, R-Fla., Pat Toomey, R-Pa., and Mike Lee, R-Utah, and warned, "the Empire is striking back."
"A clear pattern has emerged, beginning with the GOP leadership's efforts to silence delegates on the floor of the RNC, continuing with House Leadership's purge of fiscally conservative congressmen from their committee positions for voting out of line with the GOP establishment," spokeswoman Jacqueline Bodnar wrote. "Now, an Orwellian-named 'Conservative Victory Project' is created with the sole operating mission of blocking the efforts of fiscally conservative activists across the country.
"All events point to a fundamental clash between the old guard Republican establishment, dictating outdated ideas from the top-down, versus a tech-savvy younger generation of activists driving their agenda from the bottom-up," the statement continued.
CVP spokesman Jonathan Collegio said in an email to CBSNews.com that his group's goal "isn't to divide the party," but to "institutionalize the William F Buckley rule by supporting the most conservative candidate in the primary who can win in the general."
"...Our party has lost a number of races in recent years, both by so-called 'establishment' candidates and tea party candidates, not because of bad messages but bad messengers: undisciplined candidates with little local support and who lacked the fundraising prowess necessary to win campaigns," Collegio continued. "To win more races, we need better candidates, and that's what this group will support."
Collegio said CVP has not yet made a list of specific races they will target because "it's too early," but some reports suggest Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, who says he is "50-50" on whether to make a bid for retiring Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin's seat, may be the group's most obvious starting point. King has been known to rally with firebrand Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., who founded the House Tea Party Caucus and almost lost her seat in November after an unsuccessful run for the White House. Bachmann's office declined to comment for this article.
Though early polls show King with solid footing in the Hawkeye State, Steven Law, president of Rove's "super PAC" American Crossroads, told the New York Times the CVP is "concerned about Steve King's Todd Akin problem," referring to King's defense of the former Missouri congressman and Senate candidate's incediary remarks about "legitimate rape." King, too, has been known to offer controversial statements, including his critique of Mr. Obama's middle name "Hussein" as a hindering factor in winning the "War on Terror."
Another target may be tea party Rep. Paul Brown, R-Ga., who is expected to announce today his intention to seek the seat of retiring Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga. Broun has bagged his share of controversy as well, having had his say in the "birther" movement questioning the president's citizenship, and opining that "all that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and Big Bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of hell."
Glenn Edward Lee Beck was born in Everett, Washington, to William and Mary Beck, who lived in Mountlake Terrace, Washington, at the time of their son's birth.
Sometimes it grows good in the Northwest...along with all that good hemp.
Solution #1:
Step 1: Kick out everyone that's not a "Rockefeller Republican".
Step 2: Stay away from conservative standpoints on social issues.
Step 3: Acknowledge that the vision of 1950s America as seen on Leave It To Beaver and The Andy Griffith Show will never exist again, nor did it ever in the first place.
Step 4: Stop pandering exclusively to people who refuse to accept #3.
Step 5: Profit.
Well, this is just my 2 cents, but they have 2 major problems:
1.) They've convinced themselves that they've been picking bad messengers, but I think in some cases, it's the message. As one example, there are too many people who ran on a platform of smaller government who then strove to pass laws to restrict abortion. I don't think those two things can live in harmony - either you're for smaller government, or you are not. I think the social conservative angle is a dying one - those POV's simply no longer match the American voting demographic. It's often said that "this country is a center-right country", but they can start by realizing that's not really true anymore, IMO. A plurality of Americans want abortion to be legal, and I think they need to accept and (ahem) move on.
2.) They need to divorce themselves from the right-wing media. The right-wing media is using them ill for their own profits. There are a billion articles on this so I don't think I need to link a bunch of them but I think David Frum said it best back in Feb 2010:
I’ve been on a soapbox for months now about the harm that our overheated talk is doing to us. Yes it mobilizes supporters – but by mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information, overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead. The real leaders are on TV and radio, and they have very different imperatives from people in government. Talk radio thrives on confrontation and recrimination. When Rush Limbaugh said that he wanted President Obama to fail, he was intelligently explaining his own interests. What he omitted to say – but what is equally true – is that he also wants Republicans to fail. If Republicans succeed – if they govern successfully in office and negotiate attractive compromises out of office – Rush’s listeners get less angry. And if they are less angry, they listen to the radio less, and hear fewer ads for Sleepnumber beds.
Step 1: Never allow Todd Akin to run for office ever again, not even Dog Catcher.
Step 2: When a reporter asks you any question on any topic at all, you damned well better be hearing Admiral Akbar screaming at you from his flagship.
Step 3: ???
Step 4: Profit.
Solution #1:
Step 1: Kick out everyone that's not a "Rockefeller Republican".
Step 2: Stay away from conservative standpoints on social issues.
Step 3: Acknowledge that the vision of 1950s America as seen on Leave It To Beaver and The Andy Griffith Show will never exist again, nor did it ever in the first place.
Step 4: Stop pandering exclusively to people who refuse to accept #3.
Step 5: Profit.
Congratulations, you just killed the party.
The republican party is doomed because the "true conservative" message does not win 50% of the votes. They need to appeal to the social conservatives because they're a very consistent high-turnout group. Just look at how close every recent election has been, subtract 10% of the republican vote, and see how many races they still win. If the social conservatives stay home on election day (or, worse, vote for someone else) the republican party becomes an irrelevant minority at the national level. So even though it hurts them badly with everyone else the republican party has to rant loudly about stopping abortion and the homosexual agenda and how Jesus hates all the same people you hate. Anything else means an end to the guaranteed votes and campaign funding that the "cut my taxes so I can be even richer" party leadership depends on.
Of course in the long run it's a doomed strategy since social conservatives are becoming less and less relevant as society moves on and leaves them behind, but what else can you do? If it's a choice between immediate political suicide and long-term political suicide you pick the form of suicide that gives you the most time to loot and pillage the country for your own gain and ensure your comfortable retirement once you're out of office.
American politics is so boring... not saying ours is any wealth of interest either but at least we have the Bloc to add hilarity... though the NDP killed them so...
IMO, here's what they need to change their basic platform to:
Fiscal conservitavism (basically, the "balance the budget first" people), but still following social progression through private or public enterprise.
To me, as a conservative, I see the value of mandated health care, but I don't think it's gov'ts job to provide it, so it should be conservatives who fight for a single payer type of system.
I think that fighting for a smaller government is all well and good, but it seems like the things todays tea partiers and conservatives are fighting for, require larger or the same size govt as we have already.
Balance the Budget. The Tea Party and Republicans talk the talk but then they pull off defense from the discussion and then say they refuse any tax hikes. This makes the whole discussion a joke.
1. Defense - we are still saddled with a military designed to fight a two-front global war Good when you have the Soviet Union but a waste of effort when are most likely target is going to be some 3rd world hot-spot. We have a military that has the best of the best. As an example do we really need to have a military that equals the defense budget of the next 10 or 12 nations none of which are our enemies. Do we really need the F22 and its price tag when the F15 is still the world's best air superiority fighter. (And to my knowledge still undefeated.)
2. Entitlements- we need sustainable alternatives. The weakness of the Democratic Party is that sticking your head in the sand and leaving everything as is. A lack of sustainable solutions will jump up and bite them in the behind. It may not be an immediate winner but keep offering solutions and talking about the risks and eventually the "water will rise" and people will notice or begin to suspect it is true.
3. Taxes - If we are going to balance the budget, we need to raise the taxes. Talk about the risks of a rising national debt. Talk about if the bond issues have to raise their rates 1/4 of a percentage point. The raising of taxes for the purpose of restoring a sane, well thought out plan to reduce the deficit will work. What won't work is raising taxes and continuing to treat defense and entitlements as adversaries.
Now I don't expect this to happen in the next 2 or 3 election cycles. The Republica/Tea Party needs to get spanked a few more times before the reality of being a regional powerhouse but national weakling gets through their thick heads.
DAaddict wrote: Do we really need the F22 and its price tag when the F15 is still the world's best air superiority fighter. (And to my knowledge still undefeated.)
Yes, for three reasons:
1) Fatigue life. Aircraft don't last forever, and military aircraft are full of limited-life components (for better performance while they last) and are put through a level of abuse way beyond anything in the civilian world. Eventually those F-15s are literally going to fall apart, potentially killing the pilots and/or people on the ground. So the question isn't whether or not to buy new fighters, it's whether to buy new F-22s or to spend almost as much money on new F-15s.
2) New fighters take time to design. The F-22 isn't just designed to compete with our current enemies, it's designed to compete with anything that might appear over the next 10+ years. Which is what you have to plan for, you can't just wait until you actually need a better fighter and then immediately start building them.
3) The F-15 isn't the best anymore. It's undefeated, but only because it's never been used against anyone but third-world countries flying (at best) the previous generation of fighters. In a future war (see #2) against better competition the F-15's record is going to be a lot less impressive, if it can even get the job done at all.
Of course the F-22 is still an example of stupidity in that to "cut costs" we cut production, driving the per-unit cost up because politicians don't understand the concept of sunk costs. So in the end not much money is saved, and what little we did save just gets spent on buying less-capable F-35s because we're no longer building enough F-22s to fill our entire need for new planes.
Good conversation. I know that the F15 is dated but the issue is one between
XXX $ to get a 99 percent probability of safety/success and
XXXXX $ to get a 99.9 probability of success.
I agree that I don't want to lose a single life but to say that having 10 F22 the best in the world available is better than having 1000 F15 available is the question. I don't doubt that the F15 is getting dated but at some point we have to start having the discussion about what risk is liveable.
The hard part is I don't think that there is any legitimate risk of any nation beating the US in a stand up fight. The problem is what cost is acceptable in losses sustained to achieve the result. Zero losses is the desired result but having an effective force that doesn't break the bank has to enter into the equation given that funds are not unlimited.
The problem is that many of the messages the Republican party is sending just don't come across well. That's why they're bleeding voters (women, the younger generation, hispanics, etc.). I remember one quote from a Republican after the last election regarding the Hispanic vote, it was something like "Republicans and Hispanics share many of the same values, we just need to educate them better about the Republican party." That just sounds...wrong. Or how about "we're in the Middle East because God wants us to," and yet they're trying to tell Muslims we weren't waging a war on Islam? Those messages don't reconcile.
Oh, and smaller government and less taxes? Then the states will have to pick up the slack in what's been cut from the federal level and state taxes will increase as a result. Status quo achieved, except poorer states will be screwed.
If anything, Republicans need to learn how to COMPROMISE. A government that works together to make actual progress on real issues is a government that makes voters happy. A deadlocked government that can't accomplish squat makes voters unhappy and more liable to vote for the other guy just to try something else. You can thump your chest all you want about how you didn't raise taxes, but if you let the country continue its slide into the Pit of Doom as a result, I sure as hell won't vote for you. But I am smart enough to stomach a tax increase if other meaningful accomplishments were made, and that will get you my vote.
What's interesting to me, is that I see more and more people describing themselves as "fiscally conservative, but socially liberal" (I'm one), but neither party seems to understand how to work that out. The world is marching on, but I think too many politicians just don't get it.
@Tannhauser, honestly mate, BOTH sides need to relearn how to compromise. In the past several years as places like cnn, msnbc, fnc, etc. Have picked up in popularity, congress has become a place where, once elected, they have to campaign for the next several years in order to get re-elected, rather than focusing on the job they were brought in for.
But, as a party, i think that too many republicans have voted in tea party types who had little to no experience with real politics, and things are just gettin out of hand.
They have held up lack of political experience and lack of education as virtues. This might be a bad thing when you actually want someone to be an educated politician to fight for your agenda over the opposing agenda.
Of course the F-22 is still an example of stupidity in that to "cut costs" we cut production, driving the per-unit cost up because politicians don't understand the concept of sunk costs.
Per-unit cost is irrelevant in this case. What matters is total cost.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: They have held up lack of political experience and lack of education as virtues. This might be a bad thing when you actually want someone to be an educated politician to fight for your agenda over the opposing agenda.
Political purity (no, not the other kind) is not a bad thing in many ways;i.e. freedom from pressure groups already in place to force you to vote one way or another. It is however a bad thing when you ignore the past and ignore the warning signs of danger and do not err to caution.
The Tea Party/Republican House Representatives elected to office were relatively new but not necessarily in the sense of not having been in the system for long. You don't get elected to a national office without knowing who is behind you and who lend you the power and votes to catapult you into a decision making body affect the U.S. and by extension the world. I would argue that it's a smoke and mirrors effort to try and convince people they are the homespun heroes with middle Suburbia values trying to champion the Average Person's way of life. I would agree that maybe they have humble backgrounds, but not the political naivety that would make them dangerous to count on for decision making due to lack of experience. Also, to be political naive at this stage of the game would be impossible for most of those candidates now turned into journeymen lawmakers.
Of course, holding the moral high ground while your inches from the cliff does not work. Fighting for a hopeless cause is noble and maybe their hearts are in the right place, but the bottom line is is that we need to reduce our debt such that we can catch up to it and make it manageable. Even the Democrats see that despite trying to pass initiatives to help the poor and boost domestic policies, there is simply not enough money to go around.
Example: California. We chided the state for its bloated debt and taxes, but they have dug deep and are seemingly trying to fix their mess with a balance of taxes and spending reductions. It's a hard choice to swallow, but they are trying to get it done.
Start by purging fox news, continue with reliving the tea party from duty, end with the cancellation of making comments regarding god, the bible and start re-educating the parties demographic into a more intelligent one.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Gorilla Glue. And lots of duct tape. I know many republicans swear by Duct tape.
Zombie Apocalypse. As the T Shirt Genghis Connie gave me for Christmas says " the hardest part about the Zombie Apocalypse, is pretending you're not excited."
I'm excited.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
juraigamer wrote: Start by purging fox news, continue with reliving the tea party from duty, end with the cancellation of making comments regarding god, the bible and start re-educating the parties demographic into a more intelligent one.
Yes its important to get rid of the First Amendment. After all, with ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, CNN, MSNBC, and the New York Times, the liberals are just outclassed by one cable news network...
One cable network targeted at half of the population ignored by the other 5 is always going to have a bigger audience.
Republicans can distance themselves from FoxNews if they want to, nothing anti first amendment about that.
I would be happy if the Republican Party would actually practice what they preach. Want a small government that doesn't tell people what to do? The quit trying to pass socially conservative laws telling people what to do! Want to cut spending? Push to cut spending across the board! Don't want a religious sharia based theocracy? Quit trying to make this a religious bible based theocracy! Of course this is a very simplified list of suggestions. We will see if the GOP will shoot themselves in the foot again on 2014.
This question is asked a lot, but can't be answered because the terms of the question aren't really very well thought through.
The Republican party has lost the last two elections, and that seems to be the final bit of evidence that the party has lost its way and needed fixing. But there wasn't anywhere near as much conversation about the Democrats after they lost the Presidency in 2000, giving Republicans control of the Presidency and both houses of Congress. The Democrats were in the wilderness for six years after that, and while they built on 2006 with another strong showing in 2008, it was just two more years before Republicans took back the house.
And as of right now, Republicans still hold the House (granted they polled considerably less votes and really its due to gerrymandering but they still control it). And I think it's extremely likely they'll retake the Senate in 2014 (as the 2006 performance, on which the current Democratic majority is built, cannot be repeated). So if we just look in terms of elections, the Republican party is clearly not as non-viable as people are claiming. And like any conservative party around the world, even if you're not very popular at all, it is always possible to just shut up and wait for liberal over-reach to return you to office.
Point being, if the question is 'how will the Republicans get voted back in again'... then the answer is they don't have to do anything. They will win their fair share of elections just by being the other party and cruising along. If Rove succeeds and they put up less outright crazies, that position only improves.
But there's another question, what do the Republicans want once they get back in power? And I think that's the bigger issue Republicans are still trying to answer in the wake of Bush's presidency. While the Democrats may have been left in a very weak position following the Clinton presidency, they could look at things achieved during those eight years and say that yes, that's what the party is about and what they'll do again when they're in office. But in the wake of Bush, what's the mission for Republicans at this stage? What is it they actually want to do? What parts of the Bush legacy could be looked at as things to build on?
That's the problem with the Republican party - there is simply no coherent mission statement.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: I would be happy if the Republican Party would actually practice what they preach. Want a small government that doesn't tell people what to do? The quit trying to pass socially conservative laws telling people what to do! Want to cut spending? Push to cut spending across the board!
They want to cut spending, but they don't want to cut the military, and they either don't want, or don't dare, to cut medicare or social welfare. So instead they make noise about balanced budgets and put up proposals to cut discretionary budget items and hope no-one notices they don't really want to do the thing they keep making noise over.
And that, I think, is the major issue facing Republicans. People keep talking about their electoral chances, but just cruising along and doing nothing interesting, and the party will win its share of elections. But what actual, real policy do they want to enact when they win office? That's the real question for the party.
The problem is that Republicans have become associated with certain political ideologies that public opinion is starting to trend farther and farther away from. They have lost the popular vote in five of the last six presidential elections. The moderate republicans need to become more vocal than the crazies if they want to reel these voters back in.
rubiksnoob wrote: The problem is that Republicans have become associated with certain political ideologies that public opinion is starting to trend farther and farther away from.
Sort of but not really. I mean, the ideas behind small government (that government is wasteful and inefficient, that tax cuts boost economic activity and all the rest) are still broadly accepted by the general population, and there's no trend away from those ideas that I can discern.
The problem is more, for a combination of politics and basic economic realities, the idea of vastly cutting the size of government is a thing that cannot happen. Well, not unless you want to cut defence and stop giving the elderly medical care, and those are things that aren't going to happen. This problem can be seen in the presidencies of both Reagan and Bush, who made lots of noise about bringing in small governments and cutting taxes. They cut taxes, but government spending under each grew considerably, producing very large deficits.
So with an inability to deliver their basic, core message, the party has prioritised other messages. Border control. Gun control. Abortion. Opposition to gay marriage. The problem there is that these messages all have their own problems. Border control is a net vote loser, especially for a party that already has a perception problem on matters of race. Gun control is a place holder position, the best they can hope for is the status quo, there is nothing to actually achieve, a government can do nothing but say 'look you're the same as you were before'. Opposition to gay marriage is just doomed, looking at the trend line for support for the position.
Which brings us back to the basic problem - what in the hell does anyone think the party will actually do when they win?
They have lost the popular vote in five of the last six presidential elections.
That's the kind of thing that sounds a lot more meaningful than it really is. In that time they've held the house and the senate for much longer than they've been in the minority. I mean, if you want to consider US politics in terms of congress, the last two decades have been among the most dominant positions of the Republican party in their history.
I may be a little far off the mark here, speaking as a Brit... But my impression of the Republican party from what I've seen can be sorted out in one easy step.
Frazzled wrote: Whatever they do, as long as they don't listen to lefties offering "advice" they will be fine.
I love this advice with all my heart, and hope your party continues to heed this sage wisdom. Don't listen to "lefties"; what do they know? Nate Silver? He's from the New York Times, and that's Pravda, as you're so fond of saying! Keep listening to Michael Barone, George Will, Dick Morris, Karl Rove, and Rush Limbaugh, I say!
Frazzled wrote: Whatever they do, as long as they don't listen to lefties offering "advice" they will be fine.
I love this advice with all my heart, and hope your party continues to heed this sage wisdom. Don't listen to "lefties"; what do they know? Nate Silver? He's from the New York Times, and that's Pravda, as you're so fond of saying! Keep listening to Michael Barone, George Will, Dick Morris, Karl Rove, and Rush Limbaugh, I say!
Listening to the enemy is never conducive to a winning strategy.
I'm not worried. There will always be at least two parties. They ebb and flow. After the coal industry is finally killed off the executive fiat (see Washington Post) and the US goes through 8 years of non-growth, we'll see how it is in 2016.
Frazzled wrote: Listening to the enemy is never conducive to a winning strategy.
Here is part of the problem. They aren't the enemy, they are the opposition party. Something like Al Qeada is the enemy.
To many Akin's and Rove's, not enough Christie's and Powell's.
No. Parties in opposition are the enemy of each other. Read from the comments on the NYT and Washington Post. So many calls for the abolition of the Republican Party that its not funny. Same to same on the Republican side. Power is a zero sum game.
As one who is not a member of either party, its always happy fun time for me.
Frazzled wrote: Listening to the enemy is never conducive to a winning strategy.
Here is part of the problem. They aren't the enemy, they are the opposition party. Something like Al Qeada is the enemy.
To many Akin's and Rove's, not enough Christie's and Powell's.
No. Parties in opposition are the enemy of each other. Read from the comments on the NYT and Washington Post. So many calls for the abolition of the Republican Party that its not funny. Same to same on the Republican side. Power is a zero sum game.
As one who is not a member of either party, its always happy fun time for me.
So are moderate swing voters the enemy too then? Or should they ignore anybody except their base?
Frazzled wrote: Listening to the enemy is never conducive to a winning strategy.
Here is part of the problem. They aren't the enemy, they are the opposition party. Something like Al Qeada is the enemy.
To many Akin's and Rove's, not enough Christie's and Powell's.
No. Parties in opposition are the enemy of each other. Read from the comments on the NYT and Washington Post. So many calls for the abolition of the Republican Party that its not funny. Same to same on the Republican side. Power is a zero sum game.
As one who is not a member of either party, its always happy fun time for me.
So are moderate swing voters the enemy too then? Or should they ignore anybody except their base?
Nope, just supporters of the Democratic Party. Moderates are potential voters for their cause. They are the 'hearts and minds' as it were.
After all, you don't think Obama views the Republican Party as the enemy?
I vote Republican about half the time, and out my mark behind any independent I can out of principle. But since I don't have an R on my voter ID my opinion doesn't matter to some of them.
d-usa wrote: I couldn't care less how Obama views the party.
I vote Republican about half the time, and out my mark behind any independent I can out of principle. But since I don't have an R on my voter ID my opinion doesn't matter to some of them.
I think us moderates are the victims here...
Why? We're the free agents of the political world. Everyone wants your vote.
Now thats a curse near election time with all the advertising...I'll grant you that one. You can still vote, still send letters to support different positions to your representatives, still provide monetary support for candidates you prefer.
And Remember, vote WienerDog Party straight ticket in 2014. A steak in every bowl!
Moderates need to be the person that steers their party towards milder climates, so to speak. A lot of the Republican message is diluted by the extremists who want much bigger changes to come about that is possible. Democrats have that same issue to, but it seems like a societal problem. We like to gravitate towards the larger than life, think bigger leaders than the guys who just go about their jobs and not make any noise. Look at Clinton (Bill); he enjoyed great popularity despite his views and actions.
Tibbsy wrote: I may be a little far off the mark here, speaking as a Brit... But my impression of the Republican party from what I've seen can be sorted out in one easy step.
1. Stop recruiting nutters
I'd ammend that by saying stop supporting ultra-conservatives with party funds. As a moderate Republican, these fethers are pissing me off.
How, exactly? I did it by not voting for the ultra-conservatives in the last election (locally, state, and federal elections). What else can one devilishly handsome man do?
How, exactly? I did it by not voting for the ultra-conservatives in the last election (locally, state, and federal elections). What else can one devilishly handsome man do?
I'll admit this would be hard. You need the moderates to compromise with the more extreme components of their party base. In the case of Republicans, this will be even harder to do as their philosophical ideologies are vastly different and core values are harder to compromise over. Conservatives however are conservative in one sense or another, so compromising the lesser stances for the bigger one could be their best shot, namely streamlining our debt to catch up to what we can owe responsibly and cutting costs where they can be reduced without hacking off vital components of our national infrastructure and bureaucracy.
It would also mean shrinking what the government pays out to people for their services (healthcare is one for example) and capping costs for businesses and individuals to make a living (malpractice insurance for example).
Doing so however will be unpopular and dangerous to the economy (in the prior examples, health care industry would deflate in value as money entering the system significantly decreases and the insurance companies involved receive less money to cover costs). Long term however, we need to make the system fair for all and stop the gouging of prices for services that have become very expensive for everyone to afford.
Again though, it would mean sacrificing stances on abortion, gay rights, and guns that while are lesser stances, evoke great emotional responses from said base. Of course, the Republicans have to learn how to come from behind as again, many people see the party floundering under its many-heads, a hydra at war with itself.
Also... they need to stop putting their foot in their mouwf.
See Akins... he'd would've won in MO had he not made that stupid statement. Everybody knew he was staunchly pro-life... but what he said was a PR catastrophy.
I think in general, the Republicans need to be better equipped with respect to Public Relations.
The question facing the GOP is simple: they have a shrinking base. Hispanic Americans, including millions of undocumented immigrants, are the last best hope for the Republican Party. Meaningful immigration reform -- and I mean something that would beneficially change the status of millions on a relatively short time frame -- could forge a tremendously powerful base.
There are three main obstacles:
(1) The need for (at least optical) economic improvement: Voters reiterate again and again that the economy is what matters to them. The GOP must therefore fight on this ground to retain a semblance of relevance. The economic situation would either have to change or seem to change for the Republicans to be able to talk seriously about immigration reform. The other option is to re-center the idea of economic reform around immigration reform but the cost to the party may be too high on that score to risk it.
(2) Extremism: Voters have also demonstrated a preference for moderation but the GOP has reached to greater and greater extremes in order to stay relevant since the end of George W. Bush's administration. While undoubtedly a polarizing figure, Bush also offered an impressively balanced political realism. His "compassionate conservatism," especially conveyed in a broad evangelical tone (religion as inclusive/vibrant rather than exclusive/irrelevant), is what the GOP badly needs today. I would be shocked if the impending death of Bush the Elder is not used to rehabilitate Bush the Younger.
(3) The rise of Rogue Statesmen: The politically expedient betrayal of George W. Bush and the subsequent invention of "Tea Party" conservatism has encouraged the model of the rogue statesmen. Ron Paul is the most extreme example (although their prominence was forshadowed by McCain in 2000). Basically, you have a candidate who is committed to ideological purity rather than political process. One of the many results of those priorities, which in turn leads them to being largely unappealing to voters, is that rogue statesmen say egregiously offensive remarks and support egregiously offensive policies -- for example, transparently racist voter ID laws. It works well enough in local politics but fails miserably in national elections.
The Republican Party has traditionally stood on three strengths: rationality, moderation, and discipline. Developments since 2007 have undermined all three strengths so it should be little surprise that the party is increasingly niche.
I'll stress that the GOP, despite being "conservative," also has the traditional strength of being flexible and dynamic. One could argue that there have been four different Republican Parties in the last three decades alone: the Party of Reagan, the Party of Gingrich, the Party of George W. Bush, and the Tea Party. It's no coincidence each version of the GOP except the current one can be associated with a powerful leader.
Yes its important to get rid of the First Amendment. After all, with ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, CNN, MSNBC, and the New York Times, the liberals are just outclassed by one cable news network...
Right. I said purge it. Doesn't mean you can't start it over. Make it a proper news network, call it the republican news network or something, and stop lying to your audience by calling yourself fair and balanced. Free speech is one thing, outright misleading is another.
Yes its important to get rid of the First Amendment. After all, with ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, CNN, MSNBC, and the New York Times, the liberals are just outclassed by one cable news network...
Right. I said purge it. Doesn't mean you can't start it over. Make it a proper news network, call it the republican news network or something, and stop lying to your audience by calling yourself fair and balanced. Free speech is one thing, outright misleading is another.
If you want to get read of misleading news we need to purge every news source in the United State and all go watch the BBC
Yes its important to get rid of the First Amendment. After all, with ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, CNN, MSNBC, and the New York Times, the liberals are just outclassed by one cable news network...
Right. I said purge it. Doesn't mean you can't start it over. Make it a proper news network, call it the republican news network or something, and stop lying to your audience by calling yourself fair and balanced. Free speech is one thing, outright misleading is another.
You just said the same thing. So I get to repeat myself too:
Yes its important to get rid of the First Amendment. After all, with ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, CNN, MSNBC, and the New York Times, the liberals are just outclassed by one cable news network...
Yes its important to get rid of the First Amendment. After all, with ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, CNN, MSNBC, and the New York Times, the liberals are just outclassed by one cable news network...
Right. I said purge it. Doesn't mean you can't start it over. Make it a proper news network, call it the republican news network or something, and stop lying to your audience by calling yourself fair and balanced. Free speech is one thing, outright misleading is another.
If you want to get read of misleading news we need to purge every news source in the United State and all go watch the BBC
Hold on. I'll the flamethrower. After all nothing says purge the unclean like a little flaming prometheum action. Who's with me?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: What does the first amendment have to do with the GOP telling FoxNews to feth off?
Thats just fine. Of course thats not what he said. He said Fox should be purged. Then he amended that by saying they should be sent to re-education to more properly reflect the GoodFact view.
Fox News has pretty clearly contributed to the woes of the GOP by advocating a shrill tone of paranoid extremism among conservatives. Rage and fear have not led the Republicans to victory; in fact, this program has simply driven them into alienation. It is important to note that the problem facing the GOP is not just the GOP alienating voters. It is also that the GOP is alienating itself away from the voters. Republicans seem less and less able to even conceive of thoughts and opinions outside of their shrinking base. I think this is one reason that Republican officials and candidates say such bizarre and outrageous things so often -- they don't think they're being offensive because they don't understand many of the people who are going to hear them.
Fox News has reinforced the idea that Republicans only need to talk to Republicans and that they only need to deal with the Republican outlook -- you might call this the "just the [Republican] facts, ma'am" approach. It's not to say some Democrats aren't also living in an isolated world -- MSNBC is a very similar echo chamber. But the people voting Democrat do not seem to have MSNBC on the TV very often. Many Republican households have Fox News blaring around the clock, something like Big Brother from 1984. That's a lot of conditioning and the result has not been a more successful GOP.
The time has come to realize that the interests of Fox News are simply not the same as the interests of the GOP. Fox News is a business that sells sensationalism. They bank on fear and rage. The hypothesis has been that this same fear and rage could drive election results but that seems less and less true. Indeed, one might say the scales tipped long ago and it now does much more harm than good. It has effectively mobilized an important part of the base out of the GOP and into Obama's moderate Democratic party. What Fox News needs to do as a business in order to make money and thus survive is ultimately not what the GOP needs to do in order to get elected and thus survive even if money is very important to getting elected.
There is a good argument, and it goes around in far left circles all the time, that the "real" Democratic party is pretty much gone and the thing that we currently call the Democratic party is actually the GOP from the 1990s. There are certainly a lot of problems with that if you take it literally but it's a good point nonetheless.
Okay... who watches Fox News? Do any of you TRY to watch them before making the statement that they're the Republican mouthpiece? It's like some of you believe they're the Mouth of Sauron:
I usually watch CNN... but when I can, I'll watch Megan Kelly. Hey... I'm a dude... sue me!
And sometimes "The Five" is okay.
But, I generally avoid the evening slots... is all the angst from the O'Reilly, Hannity and Greta lineup?
kronk wrote: Before Fox News, old white conservatives people were listening to the Rush Limbaugh radio show.
Same thing, just more talking heads.
Also, MSNBC sucks.
Man it does. I finally was able to watch some of it this last week. It was as out there as Fox. Literally everything was the Republicans fault. Plus all Republicans are stupid, except when they are scheming. Then they are smart.
Am I the only one to notice their underlying signature color is blue, and Fox's is red? Kind of like blue states and red states.
kronk wrote: Before Fox News, old white conservatives people were listening to the Rush Limbaugh radio show.
Same thing, just more talking heads.
Also, MSNBC sucks.
Man it does. I finally was able to watch some of it this last week. It was as out there as Fox. Literally everything was the Republicans fault. Plus all Republicans are stupid, except when they are scheming. Then they are smart.
Am I the only one to notice their underlying signature color is blue, and Fox's is red? Kind of like blue states and red states.
Well... to be fair, MSNBC is changing... they're copying the Fox Business Model...
S.E. Cupp is regularly on with Toure... and that's an interesting dynamic (plus, she's HOT!).
The question remains, why is Fox News seemingly more important to Republicans than MSNBC is to Democrats? I think we can find out a lot that is wrong with the GOP -- and right with the Democrats -- by answering this.
Manchu wrote: The question remains, why is Fox News seemingly more important to Republicans than MSNBC is to Democrats? I think we can find out a lot that is wrong with the GOP -- and right with the Democrats -- by answering this.
No idea. I'm Republican, and I don't watch Fox news.
Manchu wrote: The question remains, why is Fox News seemingly more important to Republicans than MSNBC is to Democrats? I think we can find out a lot that is wrong with the GOP -- and right with the Democrats -- by answering this.
Hmmm... I don't know really as I don't watch 'em all that much (would rather watch sports.)
But, I think it goes beyond Fox... it's more of the institution of the party that's the problem... particularly how entrenched the "establishments" are in the game (same goes for both party really).
I really disagree. The "establishment" Republicans are clearly not the problem. It is the grass roots firebrands who are driving the GOP far far far right and disgusting mainstream voters. Fox News, whether you watch it on TV or read the website, is very obviously in step with the latter rather than the former.
Manchu wrote: I really disagree. The "establishment" Republicans are clearly not the problem. It is the grass roots firebrands who are driving the GOP far far far right and disgusting mainstream voters. Fox News, whether you watch it on TV or read the website, is very obviously in step with the latter rather than the former.
Good example would be the establishment republicans realizing it was Romneys time and that he had a good shot, and FoxNews' quest for anybody but him.
I think the reason FoxNews is so vital to the right is that they are the only right-wing news. The majority if other outlets lean left to varying degrees. But nobody directly competes with FoxNews for their target audience. If one of the cable networks would go full moderate, then maybe The influence of FoxNews would lessen.
Manchu wrote: I really disagree. The "establishment" Republicans are clearly not the problem. It is the grass roots firebrands who are driving the GOP far far far right and disgusting mainstream voters. Fox News, whether you watch it on TV or read the website, is very obviously in step with the latter rather than the former.
Good example would be the establishment republicans realizing it was Romneys time and that he had a good shot, and FoxNews' quest for anybody but him.
I think the reason FoxNews is so vital to the right is that they are the only right-wing news. The majority if other outlets lean left to varying degrees. But nobody directly competes with FoxNews for their target audience. If one of the cable networks would go full moderate, then maybe The influence of FoxNews would lessen.
Manchu wrote: I really disagree. The "establishment" Republicans are clearly not the problem. It is the grass roots firebrands who are driving the GOP far far far right and disgusting mainstream voters. Fox News, whether you watch it on TV or read the website, is very obviously in step with the latter rather than the former.
Well... okay.
Lemme do some watching then...
During the Primary, Fox was anti-Romney... but, once he was the candidate, Fox supported him just fine.
d-usa wrote: Good example would be the establishment republicans realizing it was Romneys time and that he had a good shot, and FoxNews' quest for anybody but him.
Yep. Romney as himself would have done a lot better than Tea Romney.
d-usa wrote: If one of the cable networks would go full moderate, then maybe The influence of FoxNews would lessen.
I think Frazzled is closer to correct on this one. "Full moderate," which means neutral (?), is probably not possible. What establishment Republicans (Rockefeller Republicans or, as Fox News might say, RINOs) are hungry for is a "respectable right." I think many of them are finding it in NYT and PBS/NPR, traditionally conceived of as leftist sources. But in this era, they have a better reputation for moderation. Frontline's coverage of the mortgage crisis, for example, has been unfaltering pro-Wall Street ... just like Tim Geithner. Democrat blue is a lot more like Tory blue these days.
whembly wrote: During the Primary, Fox was anti-Romney... but, once he was the candidate, Fox supported him just fine.
Fox News, among others, was trying to drive Romney farther to the right -- and they succeeded.
I think one problem is how people are talking about just Fox, or just MSNBC, or just CNN. If you're getting your news from one source, through one viewpoint,THAT'S the problem. And too many voters do it that way. They listen/watch one particular news source and then they trust that source to guide their opinions.
Manchu wrote: The question remains, why is Fox News seemingly more important to Republicans than MSNBC is to Democrats? I think we can find out a lot that is wrong with the GOP -- and right with the Democrats -- by answering this.
I think your point is a bit off. MSNBC doesn't have the pull with democrats, because the channel is just freaking crazy. Al Sharpton is a part of their primetime line up. They've been caught how many times in the last year doctoring video footage? Chris Matthews wets himself when Obama gets on TV (ok, that was a bit of embellishment on my part), but in general, the channel is just horrible. I know ardent Dems who wouldn't never dream of voting republican, but refuse to watch that channel.
I'd much rather ask, how bad of a reflection is it on America that they are second in the primetime news channel ratings, then your question.
Edit: And yes, i realize this takes it a bit off topic, but I felt that a differant viewpoint of that was important to inject here.
Manchu wrote: The question remains, why is Fox News seemingly more important to Republicans than MSNBC is to Democrats? I think we can find out a lot that is wrong with the GOP -- and right with the Democrats -- by answering this.
I think your point is a bit off. MSNBC doesn't have the pull with democrats, because the channel is just freaking crazy. Al Sharpton is a part of their primetime line up. They've been caught how many times in the last year doctoring video footage? Chris Matthews wets himself when Obama gets on TV (ok, that was a bit of embellishment on my part), but in general, the channel is just horrible. I know ardent Dems who wouldn't never dream of voting republican, but refuse to watch that channel.
I'd much rather ask, how bad of a reflection is it on America that they are second in the primetime news channel ratings, then your question.
FoxNews has the pull with extreme Republicans, because the channel is just freaking crazy. Sara Palin was a part of their primetime line up. They've been caught how many times in the last year doctoring video footage? Hannity has a heart attack when Obama gets on TV (ok, that was a bit of embellishment on my part), but in general, the channel is just horrible. I know ardent Reps who wouldn't never dream of voting Democrat, but refuse to watch that channel.
I'd much rather ask, how bad of a reflection is it on America that they are first in the primetime news channel ratings, then your question.
-----------------------------------
Fixed.
Althouth it is pretty easy to figure out why FoxNews is first. MSNBC has done nothing except copy FoxNews business model and tactics, except they are cheering for the other side.
Manchu wrote: The question remains, why is Fox News seemingly more important to Republicans than MSNBC is to Democrats? I think we can find out a lot that is wrong with the GOP -- and right with the Democrats -- by answering this.
I think your point is a bit off. MSNBC doesn't have the pull with democrats, because the channel is just freaking crazy. Al Sharpton is a part of their primetime line up. They've been caught how many times in the last year doctoring video footage? Chris Matthews wets himself when Obama gets on TV (ok, that was a bit of embellishment on my part), but in general, the channel is just horrible. I know ardent Dems who wouldn't never dream of voting republican, but refuse to watch that channel.
I'd much rather ask, how bad of a reflection is it on America that they are second in the primetime news channel ratings, then your question.
FoxNews has the pull with extreme Republicans, because the channel is just freaking crazy. Sara Palin was a part of their primetime line up. They've been caught how many times in the last year doctoring video footage? Hannity has a heart attack when Obama gets on TV (ok, that was a bit of embellishment on my part), but in general, the channel is just horrible. I know ardent Reps who wouldn't never dream of voting Democrat, but refuse to watch that channel.
I'd much rather ask, how bad of a reflection is it on America that they are first in the primetime news channel ratings, then your question.
-----------------------------------
Fixed.
Althouth it is pretty easy to figure out why FoxNews is first. MSNBC has done nothing except copy FoxNews business model and tactics, except they are cheering for the other side.
Nice attempt, but it didn't translate well. Palin was merely a contributer, much like Alan Colmes, or Dick Morris. Al Sharpton has his own show. Furthermore, she didn't build her career on race baiting and exploitation like Sharpton did. While Fox has certainly been caught a couple of times with messing with footage, it's hardly to the scale that MSNBC has, nor has anything they've done been criminal, like what MSNBC did to George Zimmerman, and their now being sued for. You are right on Hannity though, the man is just about as rabid as Matthews is.
Manchu wrote: The question remains, why is Fox News seemingly more important to Republicans than MSNBC is to Democrats? I think we can find out a lot that is wrong with the GOP -- and right with the Democrats -- by answering this.
I think your point is a bit off. MSNBC doesn't have the pull with democrats, because the channel is just freaking crazy. Al Sharpton is a part of their primetime line up. They've been caught how many times in the last year doctoring video footage? Chris Matthews wets himself when Obama gets on TV (ok, that was a bit of embellishment on my part), but in general, the channel is just horrible. I know ardent Dems who wouldn't never dream of voting republican, but refuse to watch that channel.
I'd much rather ask, how bad of a reflection is it on America that they are second in the primetime news channel ratings, then your question.
FoxNews has the pull with extreme Republicans, because the channel is just freaking crazy. Sara Palin was a part of their primetime line up. They've been caught how many times in the last year doctoring video footage? Hannity has a heart attack when Obama gets on TV (ok, that was a bit of embellishment on my part), but in general, the channel is just horrible. I know ardent Reps who wouldn't never dream of voting Democrat, but refuse to watch that channel.
I'd much rather ask, how bad of a reflection is it on America that they are first in the primetime news channel ratings, then your question.
-----------------------------------
Fixed.
Althouth it is pretty easy to figure out why FoxNews is first. MSNBC has done nothing except copy FoxNews business model and tactics, except they are cheering for the other side.
Nice attempt, but it didn't translate well. Palin was merely a contributer, much like Alan Colmes, or Dick Morris. Al Sharpton has his own show. Furthermore, she didn't build her career on race baiting and exploitation like Sharpton did. While Fox has certainly been caught a couple of times with messing with footage, it's hardly to the scale that MSNBC has, nor has anything they've done been criminal, like what MSNBC did to George Zimmerman, and their now being sued for. You are right on Hannity though, the man is just about as rabid as Matthews is.
You forgot that Huckabee has his own show too... evidently, he's popular in the south. o.O
d-usa wrote: Good example would be the establishment republicans realizing it was Romneys time and that he had a good shot, and FoxNews' quest for anybody but him.
Yep. Romney as himself would have done a lot better than Tea Romney.
Romney-as-Himself might have been an unstoppable juggernaut harkening back to the outcome of the 1980 election.
djones520 wrote:Nice attempt, but it didn't translate well. Palin was merely a contributer, much like Alan Colmes, or Dick Morris. Al Sharpton has his own show. Furthermore, she didn't build her career on race baiting and exploitation like Sharpton did. While Fox has certainly been caught a couple of times with messing with footage, it's hardly to the scale that MSNBC has, nor has anything they've done been criminal, like what MSNBC did to George Zimmerman, and their now being sued for. You are right on Hannity though, the man is just about as rabid as Matthews is.
Glenn Beck, however, definitely did have his own show. And he did build a career on race baiting and exploitation. I've got absolutely no love for Sharpton; he's just incredibly selfish and exploitative. Glenn Beck, on the other hand, is legitimately crazy.
And as to the 'messing with footage' bit, I see you've forgotten the role FoxNews played in the Shirley Sherrod mess.
I'm not going to defend MSNBC because I think they suck. But I'm quite certain that FoxNews is equally terrible. Please do not try to play it like FoxNews isn't; as the awful pattern of behaviour MSNBC has displayed was directly copied from the FoxNews strategy
EDIT: Thanks, Whembly. I had completely forgotten about Huckabee.
d-usa wrote: Good example would be the establishment republicans realizing it was Romneys time and that he had a good shot, and FoxNews' quest for anybody but him.
Yep. Romney as himself would have done a lot better than Tea Romney.
Romney-as-Himself might have been an unstoppable juggernaut harkening back to the outcome of the 1980 election.
djones520 wrote:Nice attempt, but it didn't translate well. Palin was merely a contributer, much like Alan Colmes, or Dick Morris. Al Sharpton has his own show. Furthermore, she didn't build her career on race baiting and exploitation like Sharpton did. While Fox has certainly been caught a couple of times with messing with footage, it's hardly to the scale that MSNBC has, nor has anything they've done been criminal, like what MSNBC did to George Zimmerman, and their now being sued for. You are right on Hannity though, the man is just about as rabid as Matthews is.
Glenn Beck, however, definitely did have his own show. And he did build a career on race baiting and exploitation. I've got absolutely no love for Sharpton; he's just incredibly selfish and exploitative. Glenn Beck, on the other hand, is legitimately crazy.
And as to the 'messing with footage' bit, I see you've forgotten the role FoxNews played in the Shirley Sherrod mess.
I'm not going to defend MSNBC because I think they suck. But I'm quite certain that FoxNews is equally terrible. Please do not try to play it like FoxNews isn't; as the awful pattern of behaviour MSNBC has displayed was directly copied from the FoxNews strategy
EDIT: Thanks, Whembly. I had completely forgotten about Huckabee.
No problemo!
So... the question I have... is there any other major news organizations worth a damn now?
I do like "The Naked News"
Automatically Appended Next Post: So... my hockey time lost tonight... had a rough go with the kidz... so, I start partaking therapuetic Alchoholic treatments.
And I'm watching Bill O'Reilly on FNC...
It's "meh" so far. Me being ALMOST drunk might be helping that.
d-usa wrote: I think the reason FoxNews is so vital to the right is that they are the only right-wing news. The majority if other outlets lean left to varying degrees. But nobody directly competes with FoxNews for their target audience. If one of the cable networks would go full moderate, then maybe The influence of FoxNews would lessen.
Cable news as a whole is just not relevant. The viewing numbers are pitiful.
FOX news is politically relevant because it controls so much of the political dialogue within the Republican party iself. In a lot of ways it's a faction of the GOP, competing with other factions for dominance and the furtherance of its own ambitions.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tannhauser42 wrote: I think one problem is how people are talking about just Fox, or just MSNBC, or just CNN. If you're getting your news from one source, through one viewpoint,THAT'S the problem. And too many voters do it that way. They listen/watch one particular news source and then they trust that source to guide their opinions.
I agree with getting your information from a diverse range of sources, but some sources are just junk and offer nothing.
FOX the other day was saying the German policy for solar panels wouldn't work because Germany has more sun than the US. Seriously - they thought Germany was a sunnier place than the US. I mean, there's heaps of good arguments against the Germany solar panel policies, but here you've got people who are so indifferent to reality they just made up something idiotic on the spot and reported it to the viewers.
And I'd put MSNBC on the list of sources that just can't be relied on for information at all, these days. I mean, I've never heard anything as stupid as the less sun than Germany thing, but I've seen enough dubious stuff that to you would have to end up fact checking everything stated, at which point why bother.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Althouth it is pretty easy to figure out why FoxNews is first. MSNBC has done nothing except copy FoxNews business model and tactics, except they are cheering for the other side.
FOX is better at it, and better positioned because there really isn't much of a market for liberal outrage. There's plenty of liberals but they don't work the same as conservatives. That's why talkback radio is full of conservatives telling their little stories and there's a big audience out there ready to be outraged by the daily whatever. Try the same thing, like with whatever that radio station with Jeanine Garafalo was, and it's a massive money loser.
Conservatives love the daily outrage, that's their drug, that's what they're in it for. So they're happy to sit there listening to conservative radio, or watching FOX news, getting their faily fix of shocking, horrible outrages that just make outraged.
Liberals work differently, they're still hooked on a drug, but their drug is self-righteousness, and they don't get that from listening to someone else talk. They have to be the guy talking, proving they're more aware of the plight of the whoever than the other guy is. That's why there's approximately 400 trillion liberal political blogs.
So... the question I have... is there any other major news organizations worth a damn now?
I do like "The Naked News"
The CBC is pretty darn good. Though for the Americans I guess the BBC would still be better though it too has had it's share of scandals. Though they aren't about how bad their news coverage is awesomely enough.
But CBC is the best, plus there is Hockey on it too!
Conservatives love the daily outrage, that's their drug, that's what they're in it for. So they're happy to sit there listening to conservative radio, or watching FOX news, getting their faily fix of shocking, horrible outrages that just make outraged.
In effect, yes...this is what should be the Conservative norm, just like Liberals should be shaking their heads and wondering why others are stuck in their ways.
Now to get the Conservatives focused on things that matter rather than the frivolous stuff. Also, be more progressive Teddy-ish!
rockerbikie wrote: Maybe they should appeal to other voters than white conservatives like the Latinos, blacks and other minorities for once.
There are conservative elements of Latino and black society, but there is a certain alienation that has occurred due to elements within the Republican party that keep them from reaching out.
As a party of no, anti-immigration, anti-abortion, anti-gay rights, anti-social safety nets, that portrait is hard to get behind regardless of who you are.
rockerbikie wrote: Maybe they should appeal to other voters than white conservatives like the Latinos, blacks and other minorities for once.
There are conservative elements of Latino and black society, but there is a certain alienation that has occurred due to elements within the Republican party that keep them from reaching out.
As a party of no, anti-immigration, anti-abortion, anti-gay rights, anti-social safety nets, that portrait is hard to get behind regardless of who you are.
Yeah... I am well aware of the conservative blacks and Latinos. I say the main problem for both parties is the lack of a good third option that has a chance of winning an election. From what I have seen people usually flock to the right and the left. Mitt Romney and the Republican Party doesn't appeal to the ideals of most conservative Americans compared to some independents but who would vote for the minnow when you can vote for the shark. I see a system that is inheritely broken and I can see no way to fix it...
The "problem" that is clear to voters is that the Republicans do not have a long-term strategy. Instead, they are dug in deep on 'tactical" issues, and mostly opposition based. However, their tactical decisions seem to be knee jerk and not guided by their overall strategy anymore.
Once the party can get together and build a coherent startegy/platform that is not self-contradicting then things will work out better.
The "problem" that is clear to voters is that the Republicans do not have a long-term strategy. Instead, they are dug in deep on 'tactical" issues, and mostly opposition based. However, their tactical decisions seem to be knee jerk and not guided by their overall strategy anymore.
Once the party can get together and build a coherent startegy/platform that is not self-contradicting then things will work out better.
Hah hah
As an independent, what is the Democratic Party's long term strategy again?
Democratic Strategy:
1. Maintain/expand/reform the social safety net
2. Raise revenue by increasing taxes
3. Reduce spending on Defense
4. Regulate
5. Improve the economy with increased spending
6. Use the power of the Government to stop people from doing things they don't like.
Here is the Republican plan:
1. Replace the Governmentt Safety Net with Free Market entities, unless a Democrat wants to do the same thing in order to maintain/expand the social safety net. Then it is bad. 2. No new taxes, while balancing the budget.
3. Increase spending on Defense, while balancing the budget.
4. De-regulate the economy.
5. Improve the economy by de-regulating
6. Reduce the power of the Government, unless they want to increase it, because they don't like what you are doing.
So in essence become Chavez’s Venezuela. Love it.
Democratic Strategy:
1. Maintain/expand/reform the social safety net
-Until the country becomes bankrupt.
2. Raise revenue by increasing taxes
-Until the country becomes bankrupt.
3. Reduce spending on Defense
-ok.
4. Regulate
-Recession
5. Improve the economy with increased spending
-Good luck with that. How’s it working so far?
6. Use the power of the Government to stop people from doing things they don't like.
-Mmm dictatorship. Love it!
Frazzled wrote: So in essence become Chavez’s Venezuela. Love it.
Democratic Strategy:
1. Maintain/expand/reform the social safety net
-Until the country becomes bankrupt.
2. Raise revenue by increasing taxes
-Until the country becomes bankrupt.
3. Reduce spending on Defense
-ok.
4. Regulate
-Recession
5. Improve the economy with increased spending
-Good luck with that. How’s it working so far?
6. Use the power of the Government to stop people from doing things they don't like.
-Mmm dictatorship. Love it!
If you disagree with the purpose of the strategy you agree that it exists?
Frazzled wrote: So in essence become Chavez’s Venezuela. Love it.
Democratic Strategy:
1. Maintain/expand/reform the social safety net
-Until the country becomes bankrupt.
2. Raise revenue by increasing taxes
-Until the country becomes bankrupt.
3. Reduce spending on Defense
-ok.
4. Regulate
-Recession
5. Improve the economy with increased spending
-Good luck with that. How’s it working so far?
6. Use the power of the Government to stop people from doing things they don't like.
-Mmm dictatorship. Love it!
If you disagree with the purpose of the strategy you agree that it exists?
Couldn't resist. However my actual question was, what is the Democratic's Party's long term strategy to remain viable? Judging from the last campaign it was:
Republicans are bad for women, gays, and illegals.
The problem is that
gays: thats already happening and the Republican party can get supportive or neutral easily.
illegals: thats already changing, and was before the election. Both parties want amnesty. We're just arguying the details and border security now.
women: boiled down to abortion. Abortion is settled law until such time as the fetus can become viable in the first semester, then its illegal.
Meanwhile the deficit is a trillion a year and we're playing with 1-2% maximum annual growth. Thats not a recipe for maintaining party power. Thats a recipe for revolution.
No one asks why all the crazies are appearing so much now? Look at the 1930s and you'll see. It has all happened before. It wil all happen again.
Frazzled wrote: [Couldn't resist. However my actual question was, what is the Democratic's Party's long term strategy to remain viable? Judging from the last campaign it was:
Republicans are bad for women, gays, and illegals.
That's easy. Let the Republicans keep talking. Everything you said about Gays, Illegals, and Women may be settled, but that doesn't mean the Republican base that votes in primaries accept the fact that it is settled. UI don;t think the base will let the party change as easily as you seem to think. See the last few election cycles primary challenges.
Meanwhile, the Dems keep pushing for things that help the "Obama" coalition of liberals, minorities, women, and Millenials; which is now larger than the colaition of Angry, Noisy, Old White Guys .
rockerbikie wrote: Maybe they should appeal to other voters than white conservatives like the Latinos, blacks and other minorities for once.
Realising the race baiting strategies of old were showing rapidly decreasing returns, the Republicans have been trying to do just that. There's been all manner of committees and outreach programs and efforts to change the way they sell their message. The problem, though, is that the nature of the Republican party has changed, the focus on the individual at battle with government to protect his rights is a mindset that just doesn't work outside of a particular kind of white person.
In order to appeal to a wider demographic, the Republican party would have to become an entirely different party.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: So in essence become Chavez’s Venezuela. Love it.
Well that's just being silly. You want people to take you seriously, don't do stuff like that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Couldn't resist. However my actual question was, what is the Democratic's Party's long term strategy to remain viable? Judging from the last campaign it was:
Republicans are bad for women, gays, and illegals.
Oh, okay, I see what's going on here. Basically you don't read anything on the political philosophy or strategy of either party, but figure what you noticed from paying attention during the last election must be all there is to know.
The other issue that the Republicans need to look at is incestuous amplification. It was a military concept used originally to explain why the French leadership in WWII were so blind to idea that the Maginot line could be bypassed by driving through the Ardennes - the problem was that the conversation was limited to only very serious people, and 'very serious people' was defined as people who thought the idea of attacking through the Ardennes was madness. And once everyone that serious knows that an attack through the Ardennes is lunacy, it doesn't matter what those outside the group think, even if they demonstrate it with a military exercise driving straight through it - they're not the very serious people.
It's a problem that concerns most political parties to some extent or another*, but one I think is particularly strong within the Republican Party right now, because the party draws on a very narrow range of people for its leadership (and not just in terms of them being white - pick out the people in the Republican leadership that aren't former military brass, businessmen or trust fund babies). It's why Bobby Jindal could get up and give a speach suggesting how to grow the party... by just saying they should say their message a little differently - there was no consideration in there that perhaps their message of individualism and opposition to governance maybe just didn't appeal to people who weren't their select clique. It's why Romney's efforts when talking to black and hispanic voters were the blackest of comedy - "we need to tell you to have stable parents, then poverty will be solved".
It's why the outreach programs the party has tried have met with declining voting shares among blacks and latino voters - because the focus has been on how to sell their values to these voters, and not on the idea of what kinds of values might actually appeal to these voters.
*In fact I'd say the current Labor government in Australia, drawing most of its leadership from the union movement, suffers it probably worse than your Republican party. The priorities of the government are issues that just do not resonate with population at large.
Frazzled wrote: Wo low blow Sebster, but then again, its what I expect from you.
Your efforts in this thread were to claim that continuing the social safety net was like Chavez's Venezuala, and then tried to describe the Democratic message by a handful of crib-notes taken from the last presidential election, all the while scoffing that there could be any more to it than that.
All I gotta say... is that I agree with the author... the time to hydrate is before the cameras roll.
Spoiler:
As I wrote earlier, I’m no fan of State of the Union speeches. I’m usually no fan of the opposition-party responses, either, for a variety of reasons. First, they suffer in comparison to the pomp offered the President and can’t avoid seeming anti-climactic. The only person who ever really got that was Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, who arranged to give his response in 2010 in the Virginia legislature, with his fellow Republicans offering applause in a venue that at least approximated that enjoyed by Barack Obama.
However, at least rhetorically, Marco Rubio took the correct path in responding to the usual SOTU laundry-list speech. In his rebuttal, Rubio stayed away from offering the Republican legislative agenda, and instead stuck to the Republican and conservative philosophies of governing and economics. Rather than try to compete with Santa Claus, Rubio explained that, in the words of Robert Heinlein, there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch:
This opportunity — to make it to the middle class or beyond no matter where you start out in life — it isn’t bestowed on us from Washington. It comes from a vibrant free economy where people can risk their own money to open a business, and when they succeed, they hire more people, who in turn invest or spend the money they make, helping others start a business and create jobs.
Presidents in both parties — from John F. Kennedy to Ronald Reagan — have known that our free-enterprise economy is the source of our middle-class prosperity.
But President Obama, he believes it’s the cause of our problems, that the economic downturn happened because our government didn’t tax enough, spend enough, or control enough. And, therefore, as you heard tonight, his solution to virtually every problem we face is for Washington to tax more, borrow more, and spend more. This idea — that our problems were caused by a government that was too small — it’s just not true. In fact, a major cause of our recent downturn was a housing crisis created by reckless government policies.
And the idea that more taxes and more government spending is the best way to help hardworking middle-class taxpayers, that’s an old idea that’s failed every time it’s been tried.
More government isn’t going to help you get ahead; it’s going to hold you back. More government isn’t going to create more opportunities; it’s going to limit them. And more government isn’t going to inspire new ideas, new businesses, and new private-sector jobs; it’s going to create uncertainty.
Because more government breeds complicated rules and laws that small businesses can’t afford to follow. Because more government raises taxes on employers who then pass the costs on to their employees through fewer hours, lower pay, and even layoffs. And because many government programs that claim to help the middle class often end up hurting them.
The only agenda item/hobby horse mention from Rubio was not a proposal for another government program. Rubio proposed yet again a balanced budget amendment to force government to live within its means. There are risks with this idea, which we’ve covered in depth, but as we continue to see massive annual deficits adding to our rapidly rising national debt, the risks are outweighed by the potential for catastrophe in the future.
Rubio also offered a stinging rebuttal to Obama’s demagoguery:
But his favorite attack of all is that those of us who don’t agree with him, that we only care about rich people. Mr. President, I still live in the same working-class neighborhood I grew up in. My neighbors aren’t millionaires; they’re retirees who depend on Social Security and Medicare. They’re workers who have to get up early tomorrow morning and go to work to pay the bills. They’re immigrants who came here because they were stuck in poverty in the countries where the government dominated the economy.
The tax increases and the deficit spending you propose will hurt middle-class families. It will cost them their raises. It will cost them their benefits. It may even cost some of them their jobs. And it will hurt seniors because it does nothing to save Medicare and Social Security.
So, Mr. President, I don’t oppose your plans because I want to protect the rich. I oppose your plans because I want to protect my neighbors, hard-working middle-class Americans who don’t need us to come up with a plan to grow the government. They need a plan to grow the middle class.
Economic growth is the best way to help the middle class. Unfortunately, our economy actually shrank during the last three months of 2012. But if we can get the economy to grow at just 4 percent a year, it would create middle-class jobs and it would reduce our deficits by almost $4 trillion over the next decade.
Tax increases can’t do this. Raising taxes won’t create private- sector jobs. And there’s no realistic tax increase that could lower our deficits by almost $4 trillion. That’s why I hope the president will abandon his obsession with raising taxes and instead work with us to achieve real growth in our economy.
It was an effective rebuttal, and well delivered. Instead of trying to outdo Obama on government freebies, Rubio offered a clear explanation of why those promises won’t work, and most of them won’t even be tried. At the same time, Rubio reset the Republican approach to middle-class economics, a point not lost on Politico’s Jonathan Martin:
The selection of Rubio to speak for his party marked the latest, and perhaps most overt, step in the GOP’s rehabilitation project since Election Day, an effort to repackage its identity without altering its policies.
And at four separate moments in his remarks, Rubio went to great lengths to get the message across: The GOP isn’t the party of rich white guys. …
Later, Rubio returned to the personal, noting that he had to foot his own college bills. “When I finished school, I owed over $100,000 in student loans, a debt I paid off just a few months ago,” he said.
And ,if he hadn’t gotten his point across, Rubio came back to his class identity toward the end of his remarks in a paean to Medicare.
“It provided my father the care he needed to battle cancer and ultimately die with dignity,” said Rubio of government health insurance for the elderly. “And it pays for the care my mother receives now. “
And if you thought you heard a common phrase laced throughout the remarks, you did: “Middle-class” came in for 16 mentions.
Just for the record, Obama’s much-longer speech only had eight mentions of the “middle class.”
Rubio provided himself a good argument for his ascendancy as the public leader of the Republican Party, not just on policy but also on philosophy. I’d bet that Rubio’s speech gets remembered for its content longer than Obama’s SOTU retread.
As I didn’t watch the State of the Union speech live, I also missed the two responses to it from Barack Obama’s opposition. The networks carried Marco Rubio’s speech live, but most viewers had to go to the Tea Party Express website to watch Rand Paul rebut Obma’s SOTU address. While some may complain about that decision, it is arguably fair. If Mitt Romney had won the election, would we have cheered while the networks not only provided live coverage of Harry Reid’s rebuttal, but also one from Senator Bernie Sanders representing the Center for American Progress? Somehow, I doubt it.
Anyway, it’s almost anachronistic to complain about a lack of coverage in the age of YouTube, isn’t it?
Like Rubio, Paul eschewed the laundry-list agenda approach in his response, and in some ways relied more on philosophy than Rubio did:
Ronald Reagan said, government is not the answer to the problem, government is the problem.
Tonight, the President told the nation he disagrees. President Obama believes government is the solution: More government, more taxes, more debt.
What the President fails to grasp is that the American system that rewards hard work is what made America so prosperous.
What America needs is not Robin Hood but Adam Smith. In the year we won our independence, Adam Smith described what creates the Wealth of Nations.
He described a limited government that largely did not interfere with individuals and their pursuit of happiness.
All that we are, all that we wish to be is now threatened by the notion that you can have something for nothing, that you can have your cake and eat it too, that you can spend a trillion dollars every year that you don’t have.
Noting that Obama rebuked Congress for the supposedly dangerous cuts in the sequester, Paul reminded viewers who came up with the idea in the first place. He also pointed out that few understand that the sequester doesn’t actually cut current spending, but merely cuts the rate of growth in future spending:
The President does a big “woe is me” over the $1.2 trillion sequester that he endorsed and signed into law. Some Republicans are joining him. Few people understand that the sequester doesn’t even cut any spending. It just slows the rate of growth. Even with the sequester, government will grow over $7 trillion over the next decade.
Only in Washington could an increase of $7 trillion in spending over a decade be called a cut.
Like Rubio, Paul also argues for a balanced budget amendment:
So, what is the President’s answer? Over the past four years he has added over $6 trillion in new debt and may well do the same in a second term. What solutions does he offer? He takes entitlement reform off the table and seeks to squeeze more money out of the private sector.
He says he wants a balanced approach.
What the country really needs is a balanced budget. …
To begin with, we absolutely must pass a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution!
The amendment must include strict tax and spending limitations.
Liberals complain that the budget can’t be balanced but if you cut just one penny from each dollar we currently spend, the budget would balance within six or seven years.
Contra Obama, Paul says that Washington has plenty of bipartisanship … and that’s the problem:
It is often said that there is not enough bipartisanship up here.
That is not true.
In fact, there is plenty.
Both parties have been guilty of spending too much, of protecting their sacred cows, of backroom deals in which everyone up here wins, but every taxpayer loses.
It is time for a new bipartisan consensus.
It is time Democrats admit that not every dollar spent on domestic programs is sacred. And it is time Republicans realize that military spending is not immune to waste and fraud.
It’s an excellent, vigorous speech aimed at the GOP base, a clever companion to Rubio’s effort to recast the GOP more broadly within the electorate. Before yesterday, most news accounts cast this as a competition between the two men, and that competition may arise electorally at some point. To me, though, these two speeches look more complementary than competitive, as Republicans attempt to grow their influence and enlarge their tent rather than just shift the tent pegs over.
I'd have to admit... Rand Paul doesn't seem as kooky as his dad.
The idea of a response to the State of the Union address seems to be similar to people posting video responses to far more popular people in the hopes to get some views on YouTube.
The Opposing party response has been in place for many many years. not seeing the issue.
Fortunately for me I was unable to watch either the SOTA or rebuttal due to a more pressing engagement (watching the Battle of Leyte Gulf on the War Channel whilst surfing the intranetz with a nice rum and water).
Frazzled wrote: The Opposing party response has been in place for many many years. not seeing the issue.
Yeah, that has been going on for quite some time so I don't see the issue there either. I do think it is a problem, and actually is unusual, is when you have a Republican response and a Republican Tea Party response; usually just one party spokesman would speak.
Frazzled wrote: The Opposing party response has been in place for many many years. not seeing the issue.
Yeah, that has been going on for quite some time so I don't see the issue there either. I do think it is a problem, and actually is unusual, is when you have a Republican response and a Republican Tea Party response; usually just one party spokesman would speak.
Christie should say nothing. Just sit there quietly and eat the donut with a disgusted look on his face, occasionally pausing to shake his head and sigh loudly. When he finishes the donut he just gets up and leaves.
Ahtman wrote: Christie should say nothing. Just sit there quietly and eat the donut with a disgusted look on his face, occasionally pausing to shake his head and sigh loudly. When he finishes the donut he just gets up and leaves.
This. However, I'd make d-USA a speechwriter based on that post alone.
Frazzled wrote: The Opposing party response has been in place for many many years. not seeing the issue.
Yeah, that has been going on for quite some time so I don't see the issue there either. I do think it is a problem, and actually is unusual, is when you have a Republican response and a Republican Tea Party response; usually just one party spokesman would speak.
That is an issue for the Republican Party to sort out amongst themselves.
Anyone can make a response, it is free speech in operation.
But President Obama, he believes it’s the cause of our problems, that the economic downturn happened because our government didn’t tax enough, spend enough, or control enough. And, therefore, as you heard tonight, his solution to virtually every problem we face is for Washington to tax more, borrow more, and spend more.
Yeah, see, this is what I mean when I was talking about incestuous amplification above. To the very narrow group controlling the GOP this kind of attack sounds like a winner, but everywhere else it just reads like the stupid, half-brained nonsense it really is. The group is too self-limiting, they have no idea how things work outside the narrow constraints of their inner circle.
I'd have to admit... Rand Paul doesn't seem as kooky as his dad.
He's more willing to bend his basic philosophy to suit the political realities than his Dad was, but other than that he's a total nutbar.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote: Christie should say nothing. Just sit there quietly and eat the donut with a disgusted look on his face, occasionally pausing to shake his head and sigh loudly. When he finishes the donut he just gets up and leaves.
Sits there silently eating his donut, then gets up and says 'Goodnight America, I love you Bruce Springsteen' and walks off into the night.
That is an issue for the Republican Party to sort out amongst themselves.
Anyone can make a response, it is free speech in operation.
I don't recall anyone saying otherwise on either point. It was only pointed out that it hasn't been pro forma for there to be multiple Republican responses, and that has changed, obliviously.
Its that 50 year mark/ time for a revolution. Question is, "will it be a relitively bloodless social revolution like in the 1960's and 1910's or is it going to be bloody one like the 1860's?
Its that 50 year mark/ time for a revolution. Question is, "will it be a relitively bloodless social revolution like in the 1960's and 1910's or is it going to be bloody one like the 1860's?
Remember boys, its not too early to join Pope Frazzled and the WienerDog party. We've received multiple endorsements, including the Dark Lord Cthulu.
"I can't think of anyone more likely to bring about the end of the world then Pope Frazzled. He's got my vote!"
Its that 50 year mark/ time for a revolution. Question is, "will it be a relitively bloodless social revolution like in the 1960's and 1910's or is it going to be bloody one like the 1860's?
Stay with me as this is sort of me shoot'n from my hips...
Since I totally believe that the single-payer model is inevitable (ala, Canada), here's what I'd advocate the Republicans to propose:
1) Fully expand Medicare to everyone (the mechanic/coverage would obviously need to change and of course ACA would be repealed)
2) Raise Federal taxes (if possible) to be neutral-ish after the State's drops Medicaid
3) Link #1 & #2 to comprehensive Tax Reform
4) Link #1, #2 & #3 to either the Balanced Budget Amendment (which still needs work) OR Repeal the 17th amendment.
On #3... I'd advocate a simplified Tax Reform...maybe not full-blown Flat Tax... but a progress scaled Flat Tax... ie,
5%, 10%, 15%, 20% effective tax rates with NO deduction/loopholes/whatever... and that the definition of income is better defined (that is, things like investment returns, salary, bonuses and any *new* money is considered income and taxed accordingly).
On #4... the states governance need more protection from the Federal Government...
I firmly believe that had we NOT had the 17th amendment, and that the US Senate answers to their State's legislatures (w/o 17th, State's legislatures vote for the Senate)... then, the ACA bill would've never passed due to the Medicare expansion (which the STATE would've have to come up with the additional money).
The point is... some sort of Universal Healthcare could be made popular... and if the Republican spearhead that proposal, then they could negotiate to get Tax Reform on the table (or some other traditional Republican platform) in return for Universal healthcare.
sebster wrote: Conservatives love the daily outrage, that's their drug, that's what they're in it for.
This is what liberals were known for especially in the 1990s. With Feinstein shrieking on about gun control again and our President in his second=final term, I think liberals might soon be/already are doing this again.
Its that 50 year mark/ time for a revolution. Question is, "will it be a relitively bloodless social revolution like in the 1960's and 1910's or is it going to be bloody one like the 1860's?
Stay with me as this is sort of me shoot'n from my hips...
Since I totally believe that the single-payer model is inevitable (ala, Canada), here's what I'd advocate the Republicans to propose:
The more I look at US healthcare, the more convinced I am that you need massive reform to the system before single payer could be considered. There is simply nowhere near enough cost controls in place, too much needless medical intervention (in many cases actually increasing the health risks to the patient). I think both a cost control and cultural change is needed, and that hopefully the ACA and some follow up reform will put in place the system needed to make public healthcare viable.
On #3... I'd advocate a simplified Tax Reform...maybe not full-blown Flat Tax... but a progress scaled Flat Tax... ie,
5%, 10%, 15%, 20% effective tax rates with NO deduction/loopholes/whatever... and that the definition of income is better defined (that is, things like investment returns, salary, bonuses and any *new* money is considered income and taxed accordingly).
The rates you give are kind of meaningless without any indication about when they kick in, and a 20% top rate is just not viable at all. But I do agree with the idea of better defining income, in order to roll all income up into a single assessable income category, taxed as a single whole (so no more nonsense of double taxation on dividends, or capital gains income getting its own special tax rate). Deductions as well should really be limited to things that were actual expenses incurred in earning the above assessable income.
On #4... the states governance need more protection from the Federal Government...
I firmly believe that had we NOT had the 17th amendment, and that the US Senate answers to their State's legislatures (w/o 17th, State's legislatures vote for the Senate)... then, the ACA bill would've never passed due to the Medicare expansion (which the STATE would've have to come up with the additional money).
Did you read the link I provided earlier in the thread? It was a pretty good summary of where the Republican fixation on state's rights came from, and where its taken the party.
Stay with me as this is sort of me shoot'n from my hips...
Since I totally believe that the single-payer model is inevitable (ala, Canada), here's what I'd advocate the Republicans to propose:
The more I look at US healthcare, the more convinced I am that you need massive reform to the system before single payer could be considered. There is simply nowhere near enough cost controls in place, too much needless medical intervention (in many cases actually increasing the health risks to the patient). I think both a cost control and cultural change is needed, and that hopefully the ACA and some follow up reform will put in place the system needed to make public healthcare viable.
Well... it's going to take a multi-faceted approach to really address this... but I see two major culprit.
1) The idea that even more money will fix it
and...
2) The practice of defensive medicine
On #3... I'd advocate a simplified Tax Reform...maybe not full-blown Flat Tax... but a progress scaled Flat Tax... ie,
5%, 10%, 15%, 20% effective tax rates with NO deduction/loopholes/whatever... and that the definition of income is better defined (that is, things like investment returns, salary, bonuses and any *new* money is considered income and taxed accordingly).
The rates you give are kind of meaningless without any indication about when they kick in, and a 20% top rate is just not viable at all. But I do agree with the idea of better defining income, in order to roll all income up into a single assessable income category, taxed as a single whole (so no more nonsense of double taxation on dividends, or capital gains income getting its own special tax rate). Deductions as well should really be limited to things that were actual expenses incurred in earning the above assessable income.
True... that's why I prefaced this post by saying I was shooting at the hips... but I'd advocate that the largest "tax base" would be lower mid class (10%) and upper mid class (15%). Then, work from there...
Wholly agree with ya on the assessable income category. I'd even go as far as having no deductions.
On #4... the states governance need more protection from the Federal Government...
I firmly believe that had we NOT had the 17th amendment, and that the US Senate answers to their State's legislatures (w/o 17th, State's legislatures vote for the Senate)... then, the ACA bill would've never passed due to the Medicare expansion (which the STATE would've have to come up with the additional money).
Did you read the link I provided earlier in the thread? It was a pretty good summary of where the Republican fixation on state's rights came from, and where its taken the party.
I knew you'd bite on this...
Yes, I read that link and I'm not so sure I'd agree with everything... still absorbing it. To me... whomever is the minority party uses that "nullification" tactic.
Having said that, I'd still stand by my "#4". In fact, I think it'll be much easier to repeal the 17th amendment than it is to create a new amendment (Balanced Budget). What this would do is essentially restore the state governance's "voice" in Federal politics. Right now, they're like the 3rd wheel in a relationship.
Its that 50 year mark/ time for a revolution. Question is, "will it be a relitively bloodless social revolution like in the 1960's and 1910's or is it going to be bloody one like the 1860's?
So which option do you want?
D)All of the above
Are you guys serious when you say thinsg like this? Would you really want to see another civil war? That is very scary thinking indeed. I know you are probably just doing some mild trolling, but there are people near me who actually think like this and their idiocy is astounding.
I am a white male protestant from Alabama. I am an extreme social liberal and fiscal conservative.
The whole "the south will rise again" rallying cry has become the incoherent babel of what is left of the inbred hill folk. Southerners are perhaps some of the most misunderstood, misrepresented and mistreated people on the planet. Every demographic has that 10% that they are ashamed of and stereotypes are true of everyone and no one. I'm sure I could go to Vermont and find some shameful stereotypes.
As a whole, southerners are quite poor. It has always been that way in the south. The 21st century Protestant Man in the south is nearly a mirror image of his 17th century cousins. His values are religiously intrinsic, thus his tolerance of a hard work ethic with little payoff. He cares more for his God than family, and more for his family than himself.
Southerners are not a bunch of intolerant, racist, and inbred rednecks (despite what the media would like to show you), they are a moral based society with deep intrinsic values and complex social values.
I said all that because I think people paint the picture of "Liberal America" and "The Confederate States." While it is true that more white southerners are republican than not, this is typically due to the deep moral and intrinsic values on issues like abortion and freedom of religion (and freedom to practice that religion when/wherever).
If there were a separatist movement in America, I think most southerners would be on the side of preserving the Union. I know I would.
DaNewBoy wrote: Southerners are perhaps some of the most misunderstood, misrepresented and mistreated people on the planet.
While I think there is some truth to your larger point about misconceptions about the South, I have to disagree that Southerners are some of the most mistreated people on the planet. There are some real gak holes in the world, and for all it's faults, I wouldn't quite put the South up there as one of them. It is still generally a first world country down there. Except maybe Mississippi.
DaNewBoy wrote: Southerners are perhaps some of the most misunderstood, misrepresented and mistreated people on the planet.
While I think there is some truth to your larger point about misconceptions about the South, I have to disagree that Southerners are some of the most mistreated people on the planet. There are some real gak holes in the world, and for all it's faults, I wouldn't quite put the South up there as one of them. It is still generally a first world country down there. Except maybe Mississippi.
At face value, yes, of course. I suppose I was going for dramatic effect on this point and not being literal.
whembly wrote: Well... it's going to take a multi-faceted approach to really address this... but I see two major culprit.
1) The idea that even more money will fix it
The point being that the ACA has many cost saving measures. There is still scope for more cost saving measures (once time has shown which parts of ACA actually saved money).
and...
2) The practice of defensive medicine
Sure. But the bigger saving is to be made just in bringing some rational decision making to what healthcare people actually need. The amount of over-treatment of healthcare in the US is remarkable, and in many cases
True... that's why I prefaced this post by saying I was shooting at the hips... but I'd advocate that the largest "tax base" would be lower mid class (10%) and upper mid class (15%). Then, work from there...
Sure, and I agree with the overall approach to expand the fax base. But I think your rates are much lower than they'd have to be for government to be sustainable.
Wholly agree with ya on the assessable income category. I'd even go as far as having no deductions.
Well you just have to have deductions. I mean if you've got two guys, one earning $80 as an office drone with no expenses, and another guy earning $80k as an electrician, who's got advertising expenses, tools, materials and all the rest, it's just basically unfair to charge them both the same amount of tax. The second guy's actual disposable income, after he's paid for the all the expenses of his business, is just straight up lower than the first guy's.
I knew you'd bite on this...
Yes, I read that link and I'm not so sure I'd agree with everything... still absorbing it. To me... whomever is the minority party uses that "nullification" tactic.
Which is a fair point, on a day to day, purely tactical level. But on a greater strategic level, it's hard to see the Republican overall aims as much more than nullification (perhaps with tax cuts as part of a starve the beast strategy).
Having said that, I'd still stand by my "#4". In fact, I think it'll be much easier to repeal the 17th amendment than it is to create a new amendment (Balanced Budget). What this would do is essentially restore the state governance's "voice" in Federal politics. Right now, they're like the 3rd wheel in a relationship.
But there is a state voice at federal politics. Each state elects their own senators. But it's a direct election, the voice of the people in deciding their own state senators. As opposed to including a middle man, in which the state government is elected by the people, and it in turn elects the representative.
And more than that, I'd get really wary about confusing state and national level politics. I could see people voting at the state level not for purely state issues, but in order to influence which party nominates their federal senator.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DIDM wrote: at one time The Republicans fought to free the slaves, keep government small, and were down right the party to vote for
now they are seriously a laughing stock
The 'keep government small' rhetoric tracks really closely with the 'laughing stock' stuff.
Wholly agree with ya on the assessable income category. I'd even go as far as having no deductions.
Well you just have to have deductions. I mean if you've got two guys, one earning $80 as an office drone with no expenses, and another guy earning $80k as an electrician, who's got advertising expenses, tools, materials and all the rest, it's just basically unfair to charge them both the same amount of tax. The second guy's actual disposable income, after he's paid for the all the expenses of his business, is just straight up lower than the first guy's.
Yeah... I see your point on that. If there's going to be deduction, then it needs to be a tool to facilitate better economic condition rather than being used as political playoffs.
I knew you'd bite on this...
Yes, I read that link and I'm not so sure I'd agree with everything... still absorbing it. To me... whomever is the minority party uses that "nullification" tactic.
Which is a fair point, on a day to day, purely tactical level. But on a greater strategic level, it's hard to see the Republican overall aims as much more than nullification (perhaps with tax cuts as part of a starve the beast strategy).
I think that it wax and wanes for both parties...
Having said that, I'd still stand by my "#4". In fact, I think it'll be much easier to repeal the 17th amendment than it is to create a new amendment (Balanced Budget). What this would do is essentially restore the state governance's "voice" in Federal politics. Right now, they're like the 3rd wheel in a relationship.
But there is a state voice at federal politics. Each state elects their own senators. But it's a direct election, the voice of the people in deciding their own state senators. As opposed to including a middle man, in which the state government is elected by the people, and it in turn elects the representative.
And more than that, I'd get really wary about confusing state and national level politics. I could see people voting at the state level not for purely state issues, but in order to influence which party nominates their federal senator.
Okay, but I'm going to respectfully disagree with you.
The average local voters do NOT know how local/state politics really works. They do not know the intimate details how the state's governance is operated. So, no, the state's really do NOT have a voice in federal politics. The views/beliefs of the voters in a the states can often run contrary to the state's elected officials. See where I'm coming from?
If loosing another presidential election is what it will take for Republicans to get serious about their demographic and ideological problems then it will more likely than not be a case of too little, too late.
Manchu wrote: If loosing another presidential election is what it will take for Republicans to get serious about their demographic and ideological problems then it will more likely than not be a case of too little, too late.
What massive shifts in policy did Democrats undertake to recapture the White House after losing it for two whole terms to Bush? The sky was clearly falling then as well.
whembly wrote: Yeah... I see your point on that. If there's going to be deduction, then it needs to be a tool to facilitate better economic condition rather than being used as political playoffs.
Cool.
I think that it wax and wanes for both parties...
On a tactical level, sure. But on a greater strategic level, exactly what was it that Romney wanted the presidency for? All those guys running the primary, would you say any of them had something you'd call a vision for where to take the country, as opposed to a list of complaints about the other side?
What did Rubio do in SotU response other than attack a nonsense Obama straw man?
Okay, but I'm going to respectfully disagree with you.
The average local voters do NOT know how local/state politics really works. They do not know the intimate details how the state's governance is operated. So, no, the state's really do NOT have a voice in federal politics. The views/beliefs of the voters in a the states can often run contrary to the state's elected officials. See where I'm coming from?
No, the state politicians don't have a say. But the states themselves do. When the people of Florida elect one of their senators, they have a say in federal politics.
I just don't see why anyone would say 'oh sure, no matter what the actual people of Florida want, we really need to see what the state legislature thinks of this issue'.
whembly wrote: Yeah... I see your point on that. If there's going to be deduction, then it needs to be a tool to facilitate better economic condition rather than being used as political playoffs.
Cool.
I think that it wax and wanes for both parties...
On a tactical level, sure. But on a greater strategic level, exactly what was it that Romney wanted the presidency for? All those guys running the primary, would you say any of them had something you'd call a vision for where to take the country, as opposed to a list of complaints about the other side?
Well... that's just the way it is for the losing party.
What did Rubio do in SotU response other than attack a nonsense Obama straw man?
Oh... you meant that watergate? I liked what he had to say...
They're pretty lies... just like Obama's SotU address... I just liked Rubio's lies better than Obama's.
Okay, but I'm going to respectfully disagree with you.
The average local voters do NOT know how local/state politics really works. They do not know the intimate details how the state's governance is operated. So, no, the state's really do NOT have a voice in federal politics. The views/beliefs of the voters in a the states can often run contrary to the state's elected officials. See where I'm coming from?
No, the state politicians don't have a say. But the states themselves do. When the people of Florida elect one of their senators, they have a say in federal politics.
I just don't see why anyone would say 'oh sure, no matter what the actual people of Florida want, we really need to see what the state legislature thinks of this issue'.
I don't think you understanding the full implication. Your "No, the state politicians don't have a say. But the states themselves do" makes no sense to me.
I fully believe that when the founders drafted the constitution, they FULLY expected the state's legislatures to elect the US Senators. That was done on purpose.
Let me put it another way then...
Do you think US voters would lose "something" if they didn't directly elect the US Senators?
If the voters are engaged enough to vote for the State's legislatures, then those elected official nominate/elects the Senates... the local voters still had a "voice"... but, it's tempered by the State Officials. If the voters don't like the US Senate, they can elect a different State politician.
It seems to me fairly obvious that to remove the power of election of senators from the current electorate to a different group, would involve the voters losing something.
What is the problem to be solved?
People already complain about the electoral college system for presidential elections.
Kilkrazy wrote: It seems to me fairly obvious that to remove the power of election of senators from the current electorate to a different group, would involve the voters losing something.
What is the problem to be solved?
People already complain about the electoral college system for presidential elections.
Okay... lemme ask you this.
Do the normal voters as a whole truly understand inner the mechanism how states governance is operated?
The chief reason for repealing this amendment is to return the senate to its original purpose ofrepresenting the states....
The theory is that with senators beholden to the states, the balance of power would shift in their favor, and we’d return to something more akin to federalism. In this way states would not be so powerless as to have overbearing laws thrust upon them(ie, REAL ID and ACA Act) without at least having a say in the matter. In fact, I'd go even further that the ACA bill would be VASTLY different than it's current form.
It would also mean that unfunded liabilities and other programs mandated by the federal government, but not specifically funded by it, would not be so easily rammed through if the states could block them in the senate. Essentially, the states can say "hey, it's nice to have these things/programs, but how are WE going to fund it? Didn't you think that far??".
whembly wrote: Oh... you meant that watergate? I liked what he had to say...
They're pretty lies... just like Obama's SotU address... I just liked Rubio's lies better than Obama's.
No, seriously, it isn't just this side that side thing.
The stuff Rubio said about government made absolutely no fething sense what-so-ever to anyone who's even half looked at the numbers, or half listened to what the actual policies of Obama in the last four years. It was crazypants gibberish.
Politics being what it is though, very few people actually took the time to point out the incoherent nonsense of Rubio's claim that the Democrats thought the GFC was due to inadequate spending, or that the GFC was really due to Barney Frank. Drinking some water awkwardly, well that got gakloads of airplay.
I don't think you understanding the full implication. Your "No, the state politicians don't have a say. But the states themselves do" makes no sense to me.
I fully believe that when the founders drafted the constitution, they FULLY expected the state's legislatures to elect the US Senators. That was done on purpose.
Yeah, it was done that way, on purpose. It was also amended on purpose
And it was amended because the way people understood the colonies that had just united to become a country in 1787 was very different to the way the people understood their country in 1913.
Let me put it another way then...
Do you think US voters would lose "something" if they didn't directly elect the US Senators?
If the voters are engaged enough to vote for the State's legislatures, then those elected official nominate/elects the Senates... the local voters still had a "voice"... but, it's tempered by the State Officials. If the voters don't like the US Senate, they can elect a different State politician.
Yes, I believe they would lose something. They would lose the ability to say 'well I happen to agree with this party on state issues like the proposed road reforms and the construction of a new sports stadium, but on the federal level I disagree with the party on their foreign policy. And so I will vote for them at the state level and vote against them at the federal level.'
If the 17th was repealed that person would have to think 'well I like the reforms they're proposing for the state, but if I help elect them then they'll nominate a senator who's got all those horrible ideas on foreign policy... so I don't know how to vote.'
whembly wrote: Oh... you meant that watergate? I liked what he had to say...
They're pretty lies... just like Obama's SotU address... I just liked Rubio's lies better than Obama's.
No, seriously, it isn't just this side that side thing.
The stuff Rubio said about government made absolutely no fething sense what-so-ever to anyone who's even half looked at the numbers, or half listened to what the actual policies of Obama in the last four years. It was crazypants gibberish.
Politics being what it is though, very few people actually took the time to point out the incoherent nonsense of Rubio's claim that the Democrats thought the GFC was due to inadequate spending, or that the GFC was really due to Barney Frank. Drinking some water awkwardly, well that got gakloads of airplay.
Umm... did you watch/read it? Here's the transcript... fisk it at your pleasure:
Spoiler:
Good evening. I'm Marco Rubio. I'm blessed to represent Florida in the United States Senate. Let me begin by congratulating President Obama on the start of his second term. Tonight, I have the honor of responding to his State of the Union address on behalf of my fellow Republicans. And I am especially honored to be addressing our brave men and women serving in the armed forces and in diplomatic posts around the world. You may be thousands of miles away, but you are always in our prayers.
The State of the Union address is always a reminder of how unique America is. For much of human history, most people were trapped in stagnant societies, where a tiny minority always stayed on top, and no one else even had a chance.
But America is exceptional because we believe that every life, at every stage, is precious, and that everyone everywhere has a God-given right to go as far as their talents and hard work will take them.
Like most Americans, for me this ideal is personal. My parents immigrated here in pursuit of the opportunity to improve their life and give their children the chance at an even better one. They made it to the middle class, my dad working as a bartender and my mother as a cashier and a maid. I didn't inherit any money from them. But I inherited something far better – the real opportunity to accomplish my dreams.
This opportunity – to make it to the middle class or beyond no matter where you start out in life – it isn't bestowed on us from Washington. It comes from a vibrant free economy where people can risk their own money to open a business. And when they succeed, they hire more people, who in turn invest or spend the money they make, helping others start a business and create jobs.
Presidents in both parties – from John F. Kennedy to Ronald Reagan – have known that our free enterprise economy is the source of our middle class prosperity.
But President Obama? He believes it's the cause of our problems. That the economic downturn happened because our government didn't tax enough, spend enough and control enough. And, therefore, as you heard tonight, his solution to virtually every problem we face is for Washington to tax more, borrow more and spend more.
This idea – that our problems were caused by a government that was too small – it's just not true. In fact, a major cause of our recent downturn was a housing crisis created by reckless government policies.
And the idea that more taxes and more government spending is the best way to help hardworking middle class taxpayers – that's an old idea that's failed every time it's been tried.
More government isn't going to help you get ahead. It's going to hold you back.
More government isn't going to create more opportunities. It's going to limit them.
And more government isn't going to inspire new ideas, new businesses and new private sector jobs. It's going to create uncertainty.
Because more government breeds complicated rules and laws that a small business can't afford to follow.
Because more government raises taxes on employers who then pass the costs on to their employees through fewer hours, lower pay and even layoffs.
And because many government programs that claim to help the middle class, often end up hurting them instead.
For example, Obamacare was supposed to help middle class Americans afford health insurance. But now, some people are losing the health insurance they were happy with. And because Obamacare created expensive requirements for companies with more than 50 employees, now many of these businesses aren't hiring. Not only that; they're being forced to lay people off and switch from full-time employees to part-time workers.
Now does this mean there's no role for government? Of course not. It plays a crucial part in keeping us safe, enforcing rules, and providing some security against the risks of modern life. But government's role is wisely limited by the Constitution. And it can't play its essential role when it ignores those limits.
There are valid reasons to be concerned about the President's plan to grow our government. But any time anyone opposes the President's agenda, he and his allies usually respond by falsely attacking their motives.
When we point out that no matter how many job-killing laws we pass, our government can't control the weather – he accuses us of wanting dirty water and dirty air.
When we suggest we strengthen our safety net programs by giving states more flexibility to manage them – he accuses us of wanting to leave the elderly and disabled to fend for themselves.
And tonight, he even criticized us for refusing to raise taxes to delay military cuts – cuts that were his idea in the first place.
But his favorite attack of all is that those who don't agree with him – they only care about rich people.
Mr. President, I still live in the same working class neighborhood I grew up in. My neighbors aren't millionaires. They're retirees who depend on Social Security and Medicare. They're workers who have to get up early tomorrow morning and go to work to pay the bills. They're immigrants, who came here because they were stuck in poverty in countries where the government dominated the economy.
The tax increases and the deficit spending you propose will hurt middle class families. It will cost them their raises. It will cost them their benefits. It may even cost some of them their jobs.
And it will hurt seniors because it does nothing to save Medicare and Social Security.
So Mr. President, I don't oppose your plans because I want to protect the rich. I oppose your plans because I want to protect my neighbors.
Hard-working middle class Americans who don't need us to come up with a plan to grow the government. They want a plan to grow the middle class.
Economic growth is the best way to help the middle class. Unfortunately, our economy actually shrank during the last three months of 2012.
But if we can get the economy to grow at just 4 percent a year, it would create millions of middle class jobs. And it could reduce our deficits by almost $4 trillion dollars over the next decade.
Tax increases can't do this. Raising taxes won't create private sector jobs. And there's no realistic tax increase that could lower our deficits by almost $4 trillion. That's why I hope the President will abandon his obsession with raising taxes and instead work with us to achieve real growth in our economy.
One of the best ways to encourage growth is through our energy industry. Of course solar and wind energy should be a part of our energy portfolio. But God also blessed America with abundant coal, oil and natural gas. Instead of wasting more taxpayer money on so-called "clean energy" companies like Solyndra, let's open up more federal lands for safe and responsible exploration. And let's reform our energy regulations so that they're reasonable and based on common sense. If we can grow our energy industry, it will make us energy independent, it will create middle class jobs and it will help bring manufacturing back from places like China.
Simplifying our tax code will also help the middle class, because it will make it easier for small businesses to hire and grow.
And we agree with the President that we should lower our corporate tax rate, which is one of the highest in the world, so that companies will start bringing their money and their jobs back here from overseas.
We can also help our economy grow if we have a legal immigration system that allows us to attract and assimilate the world's best and brightest. We need a responsible, permanent solution to the problem of those who are here illegally. But first, we must follow through on the broken promises of the past to secure our borders and enforce our laws.
Helping the middle class grow will also require an education system that gives people the skills today's jobs entail and the knowledge that tomorrow's world will require.
We need to incentivize local school districts to offer more advanced placement courses and more vocational and career training.
We need to give all parents, especially the parents of children with special needs, the opportunity to send their children to the school of their choice.
And because tuition costs have grown so fast, we need to change the way we pay for higher education.
I believe in federal financial aid. I couldn't have gone to college without it. But it's not just about spending more money on these programs; it's also about strengthening and modernizing them.
A 21st century workforce should not be forced to accept 20th century education solutions. Today's students aren't only 18 year olds. They're returning veterans. They're single parents who decide to get the education they need to earn a decent wage. And they're workers who have lost jobs that are never coming back and need to be retrained.
We need student aid that does not discriminate against programs that non-traditional students rely on – like online courses, or degree programs that give you credit for work experience.
When I finished school, I owed over 100,000 dollars in student loans, a debt I paid off just a few months ago. Today, many graduates face massive student debt. We must give students more information on the costs and benefits of the student loans they're taking out.
All these measures are key to helping the economy grow. But we won't be able to sustain a vibrant middle class unless we solve our debt problem.
Every dollar our government borrows is money that isn't being invested to create jobs. And the uncertainty created by the debt is one reason why many businesses aren't hiring.
The President loves to blame the debt on President Bush. But President Obama created more debt in four years than his predecessor did in eight.
The real cause of our debt is that our government has been spending 1 trillion dollars more than it takes in every year. That's why we need a balanced budget amendment.
The biggest obstacles to balancing the budget are programs where spending is already locked in. One of these programs, Medicare, is especially important to me. It provided my father the care he needed to battle cancer and ultimately die with dignity. And it pays for the care my mother receives now.
I would never support any changes to Medicare that would hurt seniors like my mother. But anyone who is in favor of leaving Medicare exactly the way it is right now, is in favor of bankrupting it.
Republicans have offered a detailed and credible plan that helps save Medicare without hurting today's retirees. Instead of playing politics with Medicare, when is the President going to offer his plan to save it? Tonight would have been a good time for him to do it.
Of course, we face other challenges as well. We were all heart broken by the recent tragedy in Connecticut. We must effectively deal with the rise of violence in our country. But unconstitutionally undermining the 2nd Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans is not the way to do it.
On foreign policy, America continues to be indispensable to the goal of global liberty, prosperity and safeguarding human rights. The world is a better place when America is the strongest nation on earth. But we can't remain powerful if we don't have an economy that can afford it.
In the short time I've been here in Washington, nothing has frustrated me more than false choices like the ones the President laid out tonight.
The choice isn't just between big government or big business. What we need is an accountable, efficient and effective government that allows small and new businesses to create middle class jobs.
We don't have to raise taxes to avoid the President's devastating cuts to our military. Republicans have passed a plan that replaces these cuts with responsible spending reforms.
In order to balance our budget, the choice doesn't have to be either higher taxes or dramatic benefit cuts for those in need. Instead we should grow our economy so that we create new taxpayers, not new taxes, and so our government can afford to help those who truly cannot help themselves.
And the truth is every problem can't be solved by government. Many are caused by the moral breakdown in our society. And the answers to those challenges lie primarily in our families and our faiths, not our politicians.
Despite our differences, I know that both Republicans and Democrats love America. I pray we can come together to solve our problems, because the choices before us could not be more important.
If we can get our economy healthy again, our children will be the most prosperous Americans ever.
And if we do not, we will forever be known as the generation responsible for America's decline.
At a time when one showdown after another ends in short-term deals that do little or nothing about our real problems, some are starting to believe that our government leaders just can't or won't make the right choices anymore.
But our strength has never come from the White House or the Capitol. It's always come from our people. A people united by the American idea that, if you have a dream and you are willing to work hard, nothing should be impossible.
Americans have always celebrated and been inspired by those who succeed. But it's the dreams of those who are still trying to make it that sets our nation apart.
Tonight, all across this land, parents will hold their newborn children in their arms for the first time. For many of these parents, life has not gone the way they had planned.
Maybe they were born into circumstances they've found difficult to escape. Maybe they've made some mistakes along the way. Maybe they're young mothers, all alone, the father of their child long gone.
But tonight, when they look into the eyes of their child for the first time, their lives will change forever. Because in those eyes, they will see what my parents saw in me, and what your parents saw in you. They will see all the hopes and dreams they once had for themselves.
This dream – of a better life for their children – it's the hope of parents everywhere. Politicians here and throughout the world have long promised that more government can make those dreams come true.
But we Americans have always known better. From our earliest days, we embraced economic liberty instead. And because we did, America remains one of the few places on earth where dreams like these even have a chance.
Each time our nation has faced great challenges, what has kept us together was our shared hope for a better life.
Now, let that hope bring us together again. To solve the challenges of our time and write the next chapter in the amazing story of the greatest nation man has ever known.
Thank you for listening. May God bless all of you. May God bless our President. And may God continue to bless the United States of America.
I don't think you understanding the full implication. Your "No, the state politicians don't have a say. But the states themselves do" makes no sense to me.
I fully believe that when the founders drafted the constitution, they FULLY expected the state's legislatures to elect the US Senators. That was done on purpose.
Yeah, it was done that way, on purpose. It was also amended on purpose
And it was amended because the way people understood the colonies that had just united to become a country in 1787 was very different to the way the people understood their country in 1913.
Well... at that time (1913) eschewing federalism and accepting the national government as a just and good paternal institution was quite popular at the time. The attitude then, just as it is now in most circles, is that if a social or economic problem exists, the solution is to simply create another federal agency or bureaucracy, or whatever from a top-down perspective.
Look at us now. Do you honestly think the way things are and could be... would be sustainable?
Let me put it another way then...
Do you think US voters would lose "something" if they didn't directly elect the US Senators?
If the voters are engaged enough to vote for the State's legislatures, then those elected official nominate/elects the Senates... the local voters still had a "voice"... but, it's tempered by the State Officials. If the voters don't like the US Senate, they can elect a different State politician.
Yes, I believe they would lose something. They would lose the ability to say 'well I happen to agree with this party on state issues like the proposed road reforms and the construction of a new sports stadium, but on the federal level I disagree with the party on their foreign policy. And so I will vote for them at the state level and vote against them at the federal level.'
If the 17th was repealed that person would have to think 'well I like the reforms they're proposing for the state, but if I help elect them then they'll nominate a senator who's got all those horrible ideas on foreign policy... so I don't know how to vote.'
There's merits to that line of thinking I'll admit.
But...here's a counter argument... culturally, we need to stop being a single (or few) issue voter. We need to accept the whole package and stop being a nation of cherry pickers.
Manchu wrote: If loosing another presidential election is what it will take for Republicans to get serious about their demographic and ideological problems then it will more likely than not be a case of too little, too late.
What massive shifts in policy did Democrats undertake to recapture the White House after losing it for two whole terms to Bush? The sky was clearly falling then as well.
IMO, the Republican party is far more dynamic than the Democratic party. As I outlined above, in my own lifetime there have been at least four distinct versions of the GOP. In the same period, there's been just one, stagnant, largely incoherent Democratic Party that has basically been "not Republican." I think presidential elections since Carter have either been won by Republicans or lost by Republicans rather than lost by Democrats or won by Democrats. In all honesty, I'm not sure what Bill Clinton really managed to accomplish. And all President Obama has really managed is to pass Republican health care reform policies from Clinton's era.
whembly wrote: Umm... did you watch/read it? Here's the transcript... fisk it at your pleasure:
I read the whole thing. And here is the part I was referring to;
"But President Obama? He believes it's the cause of our problems. That the economic downturn happened because our government didn't tax enough, spend enough and control enough. And, therefore, as you heard tonight, his solution to virtually every problem we face is for Washington to tax more, borrow more and spend more.
This idea – that our problems were caused by a government that was too small – it's just not true. In fact, a major cause of our recent downturn was a housing crisis created by reckless government policies.
And the idea that more taxes and more government spending is the best way to help hardworking middle class taxpayers – that's an old idea that's failed every time it's been tried."
Just stunningly, stunningly absurd. The product of a party that just does not give one gak about reality, only what they can put in a speach to rouse up the base.
Well... at that time (1913) eschewing federalism and accepting the national government as a just and good paternal institution was quite popular at the time. The attitude then, just as it is now in most circles, is that if a social or economic problem exists, the solution is to simply create another federal agency or bureaucracy, or whatever from a top-down perspective.
Not really, no. I mean, you look at the freakout over the formation of the FBI and you see a history of people saying any new government in the very last step before totalitarianism.
Look at us now. Do you honestly think the way things are and could be... would be sustainable?
Things are close to sustainable. With a series of budget measures that caused all kinds of drama in Washington, but that people out in the real world hardly even noticed... the budget (outside of poor economic environment). The CBO put out figures just a few weeks ago showing the long term deficit under existing arrangements, and all the very serious stern faced people who tell everyone that the deficit is very serious busienss that has to be addressed with serious cuts right ignored it because it told us their very serious message was actually total nonsense.
Well, until the rising cost of healthcare hits, of course. That's another set of reforms you'll have to hash out.
There's merits to that line of thinking I'll admit.
But...here's a counter argument... culturally, we need to stop being a single (or few) issue voter. We need to accept the whole package and stop being a nation of cherry pickers.
Yeah, I absolutely agree. Buggered if I know how you set about achieving that, though
How do you convince someone that furthering gay rights isn't the only issue they should consider, or that gun rights are the only issue to vote on? If they've somehow got themselves to a point where those are the issues that absolutely must be won no matter what else... well I don't even know how they got to that point, let alone how to get them out of it.
Single issue voting is a product of a two party system.
If you only have two parties, then they will have a position on every single issue. And if you are leaning anywhere in the middle where neither party represents you and your issues are split between the two, then you are forced to decide which issue (or few issues) are the most important to you. I can vote pro-gun and ignore my desire for gay marriage rights and pro-choice legilation. Or I can vote for gay marriage rights and abandon my gun position.
"But President Obama? He believes it's the cause of our problems. That the economic downturn happened because our government didn't tax enough, spend enough and control enough. And, therefore, as you heard tonight, his solution to virtually every problem we face is for Washington to tax more, borrow more and spend more.
This idea – that our problems were caused by a government that was too small – it's just not true. In fact, a major cause of our recent downturn was a housing crisis created by reckless government policies.
And the idea that more taxes and more government spending is the best way to help hardworking middle class taxpayers – that's an old idea that's failed every time it's been tried."
I love how every time this sort of thing is discussed all the Nordic countries phase out from this reality, only to reallign with this reality again once the politician's point has been made.
Now I'm waiting for the inevitable "the US has a much bigger population, it wouldn't work!" argument. The EU has 500 million inhabitants. Even if we were to discount some of the Eastern European countries that have quite a way to go, there's still a population that's at least equal to that of the US, and we seem to be doing just fine under this godless socialism.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I love how every time this sort of thing is discussed all the Nordic countries phase out from this reality, only to reallign with this reality again once the politician's point has been made.
Now I'm waiting for the inevitable "the US has a much bigger population, it wouldn't work!" argument. The EU has 500 million inhabitants. Even if we were to discount some of the Eastern European countries that have quite a way to go, there's still a population that's at least equal to that of the US, and we seem to be doing just fine under this godless socialism.
The stupid isn't so much the boo government spending stuff, it's the stupid strawman in which he pretends Obama opposes capitalism. He makes Obama out to be this liberal parody that just wants more and more spending no matter what. It ends up reading like a parody of Republican silliness. In fact, if I'd read that as a piece of satire of Republican nonsense I reckon I'd have said it's not funny because it's just way too over the top. But there it is, an apparent leader of the party is actually saying that with a straight face.
And that's before you get to the bit where he pretends that the housing bubble was due to federal housing policy. I mean there might not be a more studied issue in finance in the last twenty years, and Rubio ignores every single one of those studies because he's got some bs to sell.
The short version is, what can the Republicans do?
Edited by AgeOfEgos
I'm sick of politics, and I'm sick of the republicans in particular. I'm not a democrat, and I'm tired of being mistaken for one. I only vote for them because I believe in big government. If we had it my way, america would be an empire. I look at countries like Britain and Germany and see their success and then look back at our inbred, fat, stupid, declining society and see what this foolish notion of 'freedom' has really gotten us. We're only ever any good when we've got a visionary leader like JFK or FDR who all but ignores the democratic process to get their way or when we've got an enemy to beat like Germany or the USSR or even the inbred south.
Maybe I'm crazy, or maybe I should just take more meds, but when you look at the big picture I think an Imperial America would be far better on the whole, the government wouldn't have to put up with stupid ideas like the tea party, they could just publicly execute them. And I think that would be a better world.
d-usa wrote: Single issue voting is a product of a two party system.
If you only have two parties, then they will have a position on every single issue. And if you are leaning anywhere in the middle where neither party represents you and your issues are split between the two, then you are forced to decide which issue (or few issues) are the most important to you. I can vote pro-gun and ignore my desire for gay marriage rights and pro-choice legilation. Or I can vote for gay marriage rights and abandon my gun position.
The point I was making earlier was that we have two parties, and yet we just don't have single issue voting on any real level (sometimes you see a sticker saying "I fish and I vote" but that's about it).
Exactly why that is is a pretty good question. Perhaps its because over here you have to vote, and so there's no effort made to identify individual voters on their key issue, instead they just look to appeal overall to the general majority on the broad issue that affects everyone (economics). In the US, though, being generally appealing isn't enough, as people just aren't going to take a few hours out of their life because one party is broadly more appealling than the other. So instead they target individual voters groups on their special issues.
But maybe that doesn't work, as the UK doesn't have mandatory voting, but their politics don't really include special issue voters either. Perhaps it's a cultural thing. Americans have always seem very cause driven, with way more than the average share of activists for all kinds of causes.
And given that activism is something I quite admire... maybe the balkanisation of your politics is something that should just be accepted?
d-usa wrote: Single issue voting is a product of a two party system.
If you only have two parties, then they will have a position on every single issue. And if you are leaning anywhere in the middle where neither party represents you and your issues are split between the two, then you are forced to decide which issue (or few issues) are the most important to you. I can vote pro-gun and ignore my desire for gay marriage rights and pro-choice legilation. Or I can vote for gay marriage rights and abandon my gun position.
The point I was making earlier was that we have two parties, and yet we just don't have single issue voting on any real level (sometimes you see a sticker saying "I fish and I vote" but that's about it).
Exactly why that is is a pretty good question. Perhaps its because over here you have to vote, and so there's no effort made to identify individual voters on their key issue, instead they just look to appeal overall to the general majority on the broad issue that affects everyone (economics). In the US, though, being generally appealing isn't enough, as people just aren't going to take a few hours out of their life because one party is broadly more appealling than the other. So instead they target individual voters groups on their special issues.
But maybe that doesn't work, as the UK doesn't have mandatory voting, but their politics don't really include special issue voters either. Perhaps it's a cultural thing. Americans have always seem very cause driven, with way more than the average share of activists for all kinds of causes.
And given that activism is something I quite admire... maybe the balkanisation of your politics is something that should just be accepted?
I don't know. Does Australia usually end up with coalition governments? My only other real experience is Germany, where we have 5 active parties that usually make it past the 5% limit. So there is more opportunity for variety and it seems like single issue voting becomes less of a problem if you have a Conservative Party, Fiscal conservative/Social liberal party, Socialist Party, Green Party, etc. That makes it easier to pick a party based on a whole platform I think. And even voting for a small party that might only get 10-15% is not a vote that is thrown away in a system like that because there is an opportunity for a coalition government where even your small party gets a vote. Heck, the Greens were a ruling coalition in Germany at one point.
Of course direct representation vs parliamentary system is a whole separate issue that would be pretty off topic in this.
d-usa wrote: Single issue voting is a product of a two party system.
If you only have two parties, then they will have a position on every single issue. And if you are leaning anywhere in the middle where neither party represents you and your issues are split between the two, then you are forced to decide which issue (or few issues) are the most important to you. I can vote pro-gun and ignore my desire for gay marriage rights and pro-choice legilation. Or I can vote for gay marriage rights and abandon my gun position.
The point I was making earlier was that we have two parties, and yet we just don't have single issue voting on any real level (sometimes you see a sticker saying "I fish and I vote" but that's about it).
Exactly why that is is a pretty good question. Perhaps its because over here you have to vote, and so there's no effort made to identify individual voters on their key issue, instead they just look to appeal overall to the general majority on the broad issue that affects everyone (economics). In the US, though, being generally appealing isn't enough, as people just aren't going to take a few hours out of their life because one party is broadly more appealling than the other. So instead they target individual voters groups on their special issues.
But maybe that doesn't work, as the UK doesn't have mandatory voting, but their politics don't really include special issue voters either. Perhaps it's a cultural thing. Americans have always seem very cause driven, with way more than the average share of activists for all kinds of causes.
And given that activism is something I quite admire... maybe the balkanisation of your politics is something that should just be accepted?
Wait... WAIT!
o.O
You "HAVE to VOTE"?
...
...
...
Two questions for you (or fellow Aussies):
1) If you don't vote, what happens to you?
2) How do you identify yourself during voting and what proof is there that you DID vote?
"But President Obama? He believes it's the cause of our problems. That the economic downturn happened because our government didn't tax enough, spend enough and control enough. And, therefore, as you heard tonight, his solution to virtually every problem we face is for Washington to tax more, borrow more and spend more.
This idea – that our problems were caused by a government that was too small – it's just not true. In fact, a major cause of our recent downturn was a housing crisis created by reckless government policies.
And the idea that more taxes and more government spending is the best way to help hardworking middle class taxpayers – that's an old idea that's failed every time it's been tried."
Just stunningly, stunningly absurd. The product of a party that just does not give one gak about reality, only what they can put in a speach to rouse up the base.
It's practically a mirror image "response" to the SotU address.
Both are equally bad... but, you seem to give Obama a pass there...
But, two things about that blurb up there:
A) This is not Obama's fault as it was in place before his time, but the "recent downturn was a housing crisis created by reckless government policies" is absolutely true.
B) "the idea that more taxes and more government spending is the best way to help hardworking middle class taxpayers"... what's wrong with that line.
Sure it's all politicking, but how is it different than the SotU address?
Me personally? It's all crap... it's like we've never left the campaign trails.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Single issue voting is a product of a two party system.
If you only have two parties, then they will have a position on every single issue. And if you are leaning anywhere in the middle where neither party represents you and your issues are split between the two, then you are forced to decide which issue (or few issues) are the most important to you. I can vote pro-gun and ignore my desire for gay marriage rights and pro-choice legilation. Or I can vote for gay marriage rights and abandon my gun position.
d-usa wrote: I don't know. Does Australia usually end up with coalition governments?
Well, like yourselves we've got a house of reps and a senate. Like yourselves, our house of reps is nominated electorate by electorate, with each having one winner, who then takes up a seat in parliament*. Because there's only one winner, then like your system it tends towards a two party system. This has meant that while the Greens, Democrats and other minority parties might win up to 10 or 15% of the vote in a good year, in almost every seat in the country the overall winner will be from one of the two major parties, Liberal or Labor, and the result is a parliament dominated by those two parties (the Greens made history winning their first seat in the last election, and a few elections before that the Democrats managed it for the first time). It is very rare in our history that governments have had to form a coalition in order to claim a majority of seats.
And like your system we have a senate which is nominated on a state by state basis. The difference being that we don't just nominate one senator at a time, we nominate six in each election. Those six senate positions are allocated, state by state, by proportional representation. So its in this house that you will see Greens, Democrats and other groups win seats, and will often represent the balance of power between the major parties.
*The major difference between your political system and ours is that we have no direct election for our leader. Instead, whichever party holds the majority in government is able to make its leader the Prime Minister, who has powers and responsibilities that are more or less the equivalent of your President.
My only other real experience is Germany, where we have 5 active parties that usually make it past the 5% limit. So there is more opportunity for variety and it seems like single issue voting becomes less of a problem if you have a Conservative Party, Fiscal conservative/Social liberal party, Socialist Party, Green Party, etc. That makes it easier to pick a party based on a whole platform I think. And even voting for a small party that might only get 10-15% is not a vote that is thrown away in a system like that because there is an opportunity for a coalition government where even your small party gets a vote. Heck, the Greens were a ruling coalition in Germany at one point.
Sure, but if people are inclined to vote for on single issues, then what you are likely to get are coalition governments that are strange alliances of all manner of single issue parties, which is by and large no different to having a major party that is a strange combination of various minor issues.
I'm thinking more and more that if the electorate is inclined to vote based on a pet issue, there's not much you can do in terms of a political system to prevent it.
You "HAVE to VOTE"?
...
...
...
Two questions for you (or fellow Aussies):
1) If you don't vote, what happens to you?
2) How do you identify yourself during voting and what proof is there that you DID vote?
There's a fine, a mate who forgot to vote in the last election told me he was fined about $50 for a first failure. Repeatedly failing to turn up to vote and the fine goes up. You can be excused though, and it isn't hard. I didn't vote in one election and got sent a fine, I replied telling them I was in India, and they said that was fine, if I provided proof I was in India - I never replied and they just cancelled the fine anyway
When you go to vote you just tell the person your name and address, and they just make a pen mark next to your name your name on a big list. No ID provided or anything like that.
It's practically a mirror image "response" to the SotU address.
Both are equally bad... but, you seem to give Obama a pass there...
But, two things about that blurb up there:
A) This is not Obama's fault as it was in place before his time, but the "recent downturn was a housing crisis created by reckless government policies" is absolutely true.
Seriously, no it isn't. Lots of studies, and they've all concluded the exact opposite.
As David Min summarises;
"Did Fannie and Freddie buy high-risk mortgage-backed securities? Yes. But they did not buy enough of them to be blamed for the mortgage crisis. Highly respected analysts who have looked at these data in much greater detail than Wallison, Pinto, or myself, including the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office, the Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies, the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission majority, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, and virtually all academics, including the University of North Carolina, Glaeser et al at Harvard, and the St. Louis Federal Reserve, have all rejected the Wallison/Pinto argument that federal affordable housing policies were responsible for the proliferation of actual high-risk mortgages over the past decade."
You can go to that link, and click through to any of those studies that you like. And if the likes of GAO and Harvard aren't enough, I can give more links. But the simple fact is that from 2002 to 2005 the amount of government originated loans dropped from 50% to under 30% of the market, while private securitised debt went from 10% to 40% of the market. Simply put, we can see clear as day that the government portion of the market dropped away as private firms got really excited about this new model of lending, tranching the loan into bundles of safe and less debt, selling to the market and repeating the process over and over again. All of which was a great way to make money as long as the housing bubble kept getting bigger.
But then we have Rubio, who is happy to repeat something we simply know is not true, because blaming government is easier than questioning his ideology.
B) "the idea that more taxes and more government spending is the best way to help hardworking middle class taxpayers"... what's wrong with that line.
It has nothing to do with the position of Obama or any Democrat. It's a very, very silly strawman.
Sure it's all politicking, but how is it different than the SotU address?
The State of the Union contained politics. Of course it did, it's one of the major public addresses by the most prominent politician in the country.
The difference is that Obama's political comments were on addressing contentious issues. Rubio made claims that we know are completely and utterly wrong.
You "HAVE to VOTE"?
...
...
...
Two questions for you (or fellow Aussies):
1) If you don't vote, what happens to you?
2) How do you identify yourself during voting and what proof is there that you DID vote?
There's a fine, a mate who forgot to vote in the last election told me he was fined about $50 for a first failure. Repeatedly failing to turn up to vote and the fine goes up. You can be excused though, and it isn't hard. I didn't vote in one election and got sent a fine, I replied telling them I was in India, and they said that was fine, if I provided proof I was in India - I never replied and they just cancelled the fine anyway
When you go to vote you just tell the person your name and address, and they just make a pen mark next to your name your name on a big list. No ID provided or anything like that.
One big problem I have with the GOP is that it starts in Iowa. In the space of 10 days, the leader of the GOP in Iowa changed 6 times. I think the GOP should start in a random state each year.
whembly wrote: Er... Fanny Mea was a cause... not THE cause. Obviously, there were numerous contributors to the crisis. Here's a Bloomberg article to that affect.
I see the hair splitting.
Given Fannie Mae had been doing the work it was doing since the Great Depression, and Freddie Mac was set up in the 1970s as an another company doing more or less the same thing... it's a little weird to put the housing bubble on their shoulders.
At the same time there was massive changes in the financial sector, as banks started to see tranching as a way to shortcut their business cycle, enabling more loans and therefore much greater returns on profit. That process exploded in the 2000s, and Freddie and Fannie became a much smaller portion of the overall market as a result.
In the wake of that bubble bursting, to turn around and blame any of it on the guys who'd been doing it for generations just seems weird.
Its that 50 year mark/ time for a revolution. Question is, "will it be a relitively bloodless social revolution like in the 1960's and 1910's or is it going to be bloody one like the 1860's?
So which option do you want?
D)All of the above
Are you guys serious when you say thinsg like this? Would you really want to see another civil war? That is very scary thinking indeed. I know you are probably just doing some mild trolling, but there are people near me who actually think like this and their idiocy is astounding.
Care to rephrase your reply in a manner that is not inferring an insult? Seriously, I understand the debate/propoganda trick you are using here and it is not condusive to honest communication. This very tactic of inferred insult is used by the political parties to divide the country for their own benefit. It breaks trust and stifles communication.
To explain
You are immediately trying to take some form of intellectual high ground while trying to cast me in a nebulous role of an idiotic radical. This is a bullying tactic designed to force me to back away from a stance you disagree with without discussion. Thing is that this is all hyperbole inferred by you and has little to do with the reality of my point or stance. Next time, just ask for clarification rather than inferring that I think like idiots.
The reality is that you do not know who I am nor what are my political leanings.
Ok. My initial point is that both parties are broken. National polls show that neither party is following the will of their majority constituency. This is reflected by many people viewing the voting process as a lesser of two evils.
My second point is that the country is broken. This is an admittedly overly broad statement that includes a broken legal system, broken banking system, broken election process, rampant corporate/government corruption and a strongly divided populace.
Our government is not working to fix these issues because it is in the politicians best interest for things to continue on their highly corrupted course. Rather than fix issues that have been around for the past 30+ years, our leaders use divisive tactics to keep us arguing amoungst ourselves while they have constantly extend their dominion over the citizenry. They have done this by enacting laws that have steadiy erroded our individual rights and have co-opted the judicial branch that was to be our protection against such legislation.
My proof of this last bit is that
The Patriot Act was enacted and still laid the ground work the NDAA which allows our President to target US citizens for non-constitutional incarceration and appearently now assination via drone.
The ACA was ruled constitutional
That SOPA was even proposed
Also, We as a nation are broken because the last few generations have not been raised with the ethics of co-operation. Rather they have been raised to have an unearned sense of accomplishment and to be highly narcisistic. Due to this, people in the US no longer care if they or their leaders are being hippocrites just so long as their team wins. Basically, people no longer know how to compromise in this country.
So, if the system is broke and we have a non-responsive government making a steady grab for power and a divided and entrenched populace what are the people to do?
First, They complain to there representatives.
They are then told that to follow the will of the people when there is a majority concensus is to be a populist type of government and that is wrong.(Seriously, this was the argument as to why the ACA was pushed through when 60% of the nation was against it).
Second, They try to get new blood elected in to office.
The citizenry quicly find that the system is rigged to prevent the rise of a viable third party and that new bloods that they elected through the existing parties last less than 2 years before being co-opted
Third, they gather to protest, to ask for their greivances to be redressed.
Wait, there are new homeland security laws that can stop such from happening or even making the news.
Fourth ?????(Suggesting people would use their constitutional right of passive civil disobediance could be viewed as encouraging people to act against the government and would thus fall under this administrations definition of being a terrorist. So, I wont do that (Note, this step has brought about the most positive changes in our society(workers rights to unionize, womens suffrage and civil rights movement).
Fifth?????(You know where this is going, same as above but the next step.: (This step is not desirable but did bring change, guess sometimes there has to be a bruhah to clear the air)
You see, No government has ever stopped being corrupt or just given rights and freedoms back to their citizens without the citizenry doing the highly risky thing of standing up for themselves. When you have people who stand up for themselves and others, it is the governments duty to listen and to make an effort to come up with an inclussive way of addressing such issues. If the government doesn't listen what are we to do?
Our founding fathers understood that all governments get to the point that they no longer listen to the will of their citizens and left a series of safeguards in place. Thomas Jefferson estimated that these safe guards could fail as often as every 30 years and recommended a sort of mini-revolution as the last two safe guards. The country has hit the fourth and fifth safe guards at least a total of 3 times in this nations history. The important thing is to remember that such occurances were and are a part of the plan around which our government was designed. It is one of the things that makes our constitutional system so great, now if we can only get back on it.
It is also important to remember that if the people reach the point of the 4th or 5th safe guard it is the governments fault it went that far, not the citizens.
To better answer your question:
Do I want effective change that is a balanced compromise? Yes
Do I want a revolution? No.
Do I want the government to be fixed? Yes
Will our government fix itself without the citizenry stepping up to demand such? History says no. Do I want violence? No!
Will it take violence to fix the issue? The pragmatic and historical answer is maybe. Personally, I hope not but would not be suprised if it came to such. It doesn't look good when you look at the recent actions of our government(NDAA and Drone strikes against american citizens).
What model of change do I advocate? That we might learn a lesson from the French. If the government won't listen....Peaceful nationwide strikes to shut down the money flow until the government starts to listen and work with its citizenry.
Wholly agree with ya on the assessable income category. I'd even go as far as having no deductions.
Well you just have to have deductions. I mean if you've got two guys, one earning $80 as an office drone with no expenses, and another guy earning $80k as an electrician, who's got advertising expenses, tools, materials and all the rest, it's just basically unfair to charge them both the same amount of tax. The second guy's actual disposable income, after he's paid for the all the expenses of his business, is just straight up lower than the first guy's.
Yeah... I see your point on that. If there's going to be deduction, then it needs to be a tool to facilitate better economic condition rather than being used as political playoffs.
Why are you giving in so easily? Just because sebster says that there "have" to be deductions doesn't make it so. The reasons he gave opinion, not gospel.
Fat tax of 15% with no deductions would roughly equal the current level of current taxation after deductions. And that is without all of the bureaucratic waste of money shuffling. The electrician just changes his business model to incorporate the costs via pricing and a lower tax rate that doesn't force him to take 20% in dedusctions. Basically, the deductions are already here.
What a Flat Tax would do is make the x percent of the lower earners actually pay in more than they get back in income taxes. Few years back, using standard deductions in household of 2 parents and 2 dependent children(earned income and child credits) making 50,000 a year, a family could get a refund that exceeded their total income tax witholding. Now getting a fat return in excess of 10k is nice, but it does leave you wondering who is paying for all of this.
Wholly agree with ya on the assessable income category. I'd even go as far as having no deductions.
Well you just have to have deductions. I mean if you've got two guys, one earning $80 as an office drone with no expenses, and another guy earning $80k as an electrician, who's got advertising expenses, tools, materials and all the rest, it's just basically unfair to charge them both the same amount of tax. The second guy's actual disposable income, after he's paid for the all the expenses of his business, is just straight up lower than the first guy's.
Yeah... I see your point on that. If there's going to be deduction, then it needs to be a tool to facilitate better economic condition rather than being used as political playoffs.
Why are you giving in so easily? Just because sebster says that there "have" to be deductions doesn't make it so. The reasons he gave opinion, not gospel.
Fat tax of 15% with no deductions would roughly equal the current level of current taxation after deductions. And that is without all of the bureaucratic waste of money shuffling. The electrician just changes his business model to incorporate the costs via pricing and a lower tax rate that doesn't force him to take 20% in dedusctions. Basically, the deductions are already here.
What a Flat Tax would do is make the x percent of the lower earners actually pay in more than they get back in income taxes. Few years back, using standard deductions in household of 2 parents and 2 dependent children(earned income and child credits) making 50,000 a year, a family could get a refund that exceeded their total income tax witholding. Now getting a fat return in excess of 10k is nice, but it does leave you wondering who is paying for all of this.
Easier said than done...
The idea if using deductions can HELP small businesses off the ground. That helps drive DOWN the need of startup money.
Like I said, as long as deductions (and the like) are used to functionally promote healthy economic conditions... I'd consider it. But, currently it ain't used that way at all.
focusedfire wrote: Why are you giving in so easily? Just because sebster says that there "have" to be deductions doesn't make it so. The reasons he gave opinion, not gospel.
Fat tax of 15% with no deductions would roughly equal the current level of current taxation after deductions. And that is without all of the bureaucratic waste of money shuffling. The electrician just changes his business model to incorporate the costs via pricing and a lower tax rate that doesn't force him to take 20% in dedusctions. Basically, the deductions are already here.
You can't just 'change your business model' to no longer have inventory. Forget about the electrician, how would that work for a hardware store? And the whole fething point of a tax system is that it is efficiently levied without interfering with the natural economy. Read your Adam Smith.
I mean honest and truly to anyone that's even half thinking about this, it should be absolutely obvious how this has to work. You have two guys who take home $80,000 a year, you want to charge them both the same tax. No-one can argue with that. With a simple income and deductions system, they will be charged the same whether it's $80,000 in straight salary, or $150,000 in sales for the business, less $70,000 in expenses.
But with your 'I've never spent a second studying tax in my life but I'm on the internet so of course I know how to completely reform the system' logic, the first guy gets taxed on an income of $80,000, the second guy gets taxed on an income of $150,000. Absurd.
The idea if using deductions can HELP small businesses off the ground. That helps drive DOWN the need of startup money.
Like I said, as long as deductions (and the like) are used to functionally promote healthy economic conditions... I'd consider it. But, currently it ain't used that way at all.
I really don't think it should be about promoting one economic activity or another (outside of very specific cases, like R&D).
It really is about the simple fact that income is the total amount brought in, less the amount spent to bring that money in. Simply dropping the second part of that produces a gibberish tax system, that is entirely incapable of accounting for the wide variety of ways in which people make money.
Frazzled wrote: Whatever they do, as long as they don't listen to lefties offering "advice" they will be fine.
I love this advice with all my heart, and hope your party continues to heed this sage wisdom. Don't listen to "lefties"; what do they know? Nate Silver? He's from the New York Times, and that's Pravda, as you're so fond of saying! Keep listening to Michael Barone, George Will, Dick Morris, Karl Rove, and Rush Limbaugh, I say!
Listening to the enemy is never conducive to a winning strategy.
One thing that hurt the party is the system of primaries. You had several moderate republicans get voted out and replaced by extremely right candidates. The presidential election was basically a pissing contest for republican candidates to see who could out extreme each other. Some moderates left the party in disgust like Arlen Specter. Here is a good article by David Frum who is a conservative talking about the problems for moderate republicans. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/01/29/are-moderate-republicans-useless.html
One of the worse things the party has done is to label moderates and centrists RINOs and equate it to democrats.
Rand? No way! For some reason he sent my office a Christams card (we are not in his district/state) and he didn;t look like a living Ronald McDonald in the card.
(This step is not desirable but did bring change, guess sometimes there has to be a bruhah to clear the air)
