Wherefore & whither the GOP? (Sept 2010)

[foolsguinea]

or, "Why is anyone still voting for the GOP anyway?"

Since I was hijacking the Why SPECIFICALLY do Republicans hate Obama? thread, I started this one for "Why is anyone still voting for the GOP anyway?"

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

If Huckabee emerged as the GOP's leader, that would signify an important change in the party's direction, because he's not just Mr. Religion, he's also a Huey Long economic populist who might ally with the Dems on many economic issues -- a combination that taps a whole new base, as there are lot of Americans who think the same way, and they're highly unsatisfied with the GOP as it is, dominated by business interests.

Pfft. He's a nitwit who endorsed the "Fair Tax." With that kind of populism, I'll take the elitist moderates of the Democratic Party.

[foolsguinea]

As I said, other thread:

Originally Posted by foolsguinea

And this is a reason to put this pack of wild dogs in Congress in greater numbers how?

Also, I'm from SW Missouri, which is very hardcore GOP. I laugh at the idea that the GOP don't have leadership. Maybe you think people like Roy Blunt, John Boehner, & Mitch McConnell aren't good leaders, but the Republicans follow them because the party follows whatever passes for a leader. Certainly more than the Democrats follow Obama.

Don't believe me? Where were all the Republicans smarter than George Bush who stood up to him & stopped the war in Iraq? Where was his 2004 primary challenge from the sensible right? (That's the point I wrote the GOP off.) The GOP will follow the leader down to hell.

The Dems aren't much better--Obama does suffer some disrespect to his youth, but Democrats rolled over for Bush's war authorization too. Raising the proportion of GOP congressmen will steer the country in the direction Boehner, your "non-leader," wants. Looks like he's leading to me.

Further, it will encourage the GOP's behavior. Why should these guys be rewarded for the last two years?

Originally Posted by foolsguinea

Another way of looking at it is that the GOP is led by the dead hand of half-remembered principles & assumptions. That's not "real leadership" either I suppose.

Originally Posted by foolsguinea

"Fiscal conservatism" has two three meanings. The careful, responsible, long-term planning meaning, & the "cut taxes on the rich" meaning--and the "bankrupt the government to destroy the welfare state" subset thereof.

...

Consider the Democratic Party's position. Every time they propose a regulation (like, "Companies selling insurance have to provide it when the customer needs it") or raise a tax (even back to historic norms), they're denounced as communists & unAmerican--as aliens in effect. And about a third of the country believes it! After a while, a centrist patriotic party like the Dems gets worn down.

I'm foolsguinea, & I'm a former GOP voter. I had to learn to stop legitimizing that party.Hardly. This is the fallacy of a two-party system. The GOP screwed up, big. Four years in the wilderness is not long enough. And you can't blame the moderate Dem establishment for not solving all the nation's problems in two years as if that's equivalent to the GOP creating so many problems in 12 years.

Well, yes, there's a reason we don't give toddlers the vote.

[foolsguinea]

Also, they cut taxes to run higher deficits while starting a war & raising expenses. I was raised a Reagan Republican, & I will never vote for those jerks again.

So you tell me. What's keeping you in the party?

[Algher]

Originally Posted by foolsguinea

Also, they cut taxes to run higher deficits while starting a war & raising expenses. I was raised a Reagan Republican, & I will never vote for those jerks again.

So you tell me. What's keeping you in the party?

I will get flamed for this...

The Democrats suck too (but in their own special ways). As I said in the other thread, it was LBJ who taught us to throw a war and put it on the credit card.

The Democrats don't have a spine, while the Republicans don't have a head.

I will vote for individual Democrats at times - but I will not join their party anytime soon.
I don't like Democrat submissions for the Courts.
I don't like the Democrats ways of making everything a Federal issue.
I don't like the Democrats voting record on gun rights.
I don't WANT a national single-payer health care system.

We have a two party system in this country, so that leaves this libertarian minded businessman stuck as a registered Republican.

[foolsguinea]

The objection to federal health insurance is strange to me.

1. We already have massive public spending on health care.

2. The GOP don't have the stones to actually make Medicare cheaper:
a. "Starve the Beast" was supposed to force a situation where Republican lawmakers found it politically acceptable to make cuts in entitlements; It hasn't worked.
b. Medicare Part D was actually more expensive due to GOP ideology that a private company should be making a profit from a public fund.

3, At least if we have a universal system, we get away from the working public paying for a single-payer system which does not benefit them.

[Mozart1220]

Originally Posted by Algher

I will get flamed for this...

The Democrats suck too (but in their own special ways). As I said in the other thread, it was LBJ who taught us to throw a war and put it on the credit card.

The Democrats don't have a spine, while the Republicans don't have a head.

I will vote for individual Democrats at times - but I will not join their party anytime soon.
I don't like Democrat submissions for the Courts.
I don't like the Democrats ways of making everything a Federal issue.
I don't like the Democrats voting record on gun rights.
I don't WANT a national single-payer health care system.

We have a two party system in this country, so that leaves this libertarian minded businessman stuck as a registered Republican.

I like Liberals on the courts because I like the people represented over the corporations.

Republicans make things federal issues too.

Democrats have no problem with the 2nd amendment, they just don't see the need for individual arsenals and military weapons in the hands of the public.

And every other civilized nation has a single payer system and they seem to like it. The ONLY reason WE don't is that the corporate insurance and drug companies don't like it.

Oh, and LBJ could hardly be blamed for Vietnam. Eisenhower got that one underway. Kennedy tried to end it and see what happened to him?

[pkbites]

Originally Posted by Mozart1220

Democrats have no problem with the 2nd amendment,

Don't even try to tell me you had a straight face while posting this.

Originally Posted by Mozart1220

they just don't see the need for individual arsenals and military weapons in the hands of the public.

You mean militia weapons?

It is Democrats who always push for restrictions on any guns, both federally and locally. Remember, it was Democrat sponsored gun bans that eventually lead to the 2 recent SCOTUS rulings overturning them.

Originally Posted by Mozart1220

Democrats have no problem with the 2nd amendment,

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by foolsguinea

or, "Why is anyone still voting for the GOP anyway?"

But you acknowledge that all indications are that quite a few folks are planning on doing it in a few weeks, yes?

[Ludovic]

Originally Posted by Algher

I will get flamed for this...

The Democrats suck too (but in their own special ways). As I said in the other thread, it was LBJ who taught us to throw a war and put it on the credit card.

The Democrats don't have a spine, while the Republicans don't have a head.

I will vote for individual Democrats at times - but I will not join their party anytime soon.
I don't like Democrat submissions for the Courts.
I don't like the Democrats ways of making everything a Federal issue.
I don't like the Democrats voting record on gun rights.
I don't WANT a national single-payer health care system.

We have a two party system in this country, so that leaves this libertarian minded businessman stuck as a registered Republican.

Why go out of the way to avoid calling the party by its name?

[Chronos]

The biggest affront to the Second Amendment didn't come from the Democrats. It was Republicans who abolished the militias that the Second says are so essential. What's the point of militias if they're just absorbed into the federal military, and no longer under state control?

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by pkbites

You mean militia weapons?

Well, I certainly don't think the drafters of the 2nd Amendment had things like the Montana Freemen or whatever in mind when they wrote of a "well ordered militia."

[pkbites]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Well, I certainly don't think the drafters of the 2nd Amendment had things like the Montana Freemen or whatever in mind when they wrote of a "well ordered militia."

Apples and oranges. You're talking about groups of people while I was talking about equipment.

In any case, I doubt the drafters had the likes of Jenna Jameson in mind when they wrote the First Amendment, either!

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Well, I certainly don't think the drafters of the 2nd Amendment had things like the Montana Freemen or whatever in mind when they wrote of a "well ordered militia."

I didn't realize you were an "original intent" kind of guy.

Regards,
Shodan

[otternell]

Over the last couple of years, I have been shifting away from Republican. I think the reason I am shifting away, is exactly why some are still embracing it:
Social issues. I put my social allegiances on the back burner for years, because I thought that Republicans were the better economic party. The last couple of years has me questioning that they are on my side economically speaking. I am the polar opposite of Republican on social issues.

My dad and brothers are Republican because they really hate Obama. My boss is Republican (he claims that he's Tea Party and Palin all the way, as if there's a difference) and he routinely talks about the "culture of life" as opposed to the "culture of death", and lists all the things that make up the culture of life, which are all broadly social issues. So, I am seeing a bit of bigotry in the fam and social issues in the boss.

[Ludovic]

Originally Posted by otternell

My dad and brothers are Republican because they really hate Obama. My boss is Republican (he claims that he's Tea Party and Palin all the way, as if there's a difference) and he routinely talks about the "culture of life" as opposed to the "culture of death", and lists all the things that make up the culture of life, which are all broadly social issues. So, I am seeing a bit of bigotry in the fam and social issues in the boss.

Ironically, if the Teabaggers get into power, I'm betting they won't make any headway at all toward solving the deficit, which they claim is their raison d'etre. Even with control of Congress they simply won't have the political power. Same thing goes for control of immigration, they won't do anything about that either.

But they sure will be able to explode the deficit with lower taxes and start with the troglodyte social legislation.

[elucidator]

Originally Posted by Bricker

...But you acknowledge that all indications are that quite a few folks are planning on doing it in a few weeks, yes?

Is that a "neener neener!" or an "Oh, fuck!"?

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by pkbites

In any case, I doubt the drafters had the likes of Jenna Jameson in mind when they wrote the First Amendment, either!

You might be surprised. Guys are guys, the world over and for all times.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by elucidator

Is that a "neener neener!" or an "Oh, fuck!"?

It's more of an observation about the OP's subtitle, "Why is anyone still voting for the GOP anyway?"

That phrase carries an inference: that there are simply no reasons to vote for the GOP, or, if there are reasons, they are so obscure that they escape the ken of the commentator.

This would be an understandable observation if the Democrats were polling huge majorities. "Why," might someone ask rhetorically, "is anyone voting GOP? Obviously, vast numbers of people can find no reason to vote GOP, and neither can I!"

But when the polls predict a large-scale victory for the GOP, when control of the House is widely thought to be a sure-thing switch back to the GOP, then the question becomes a bit blinder. At the least, the tone should change: "Why are all these people voting GOP?" one might ask. That at least captures the honest lack of understanding of the choice, while acknowledging that a large chunk of the electorate is apparently making that choice.

"Why is anyone still voting for the GOP anyway?" simply suggests a stubborn refusal to admit that large numbers of people are planning to vote for the GOP.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Bricker

It's more of an observation about the OP's subtitle, "Why is anyone still voting for the GOP anyway?"

That phrase carries an inference: that there are simply no reasons to vote for the GOP, or, if there are reasons, they are so obscure that they escape the ken of the commentator.

This would be an understandable observation if the Democrats were polling huge majorities. "Why," might someone ask rhetorically, "is anyone voting GOP? Obviously, vast numbers of people can find no reason to vote GOP, and neither can I!"

But when the polls predict a large-scale victory for the GOP, when control of the House is widely thought to be a sure-thing switch back to the GOP, then the question becomes a bit blinder. At the least, the tone should change: "Why are all these people voting GOP?" one might ask. That at least captures the honest lack of understanding of the choice, while acknowledging that a large chunk of the electorate is apparently making that choice.

"Why is anyone still voting for the GOP anyway?" simply suggests a stubborn refusal to admit that large numbers of people are planning to vote for the GOP.

Fair point, but I read the OP as being directed to Republicans: "What's keeping you in the party?" Considering that those Pubs in power the past few years have such a crappy track record and the hard-right Tea Partiers now rising to leadership are obviously even worse.

Got any answers to that?

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by Bricker

"Why is anyone still voting for the GOP anyway?" simply suggests a stubborn refusal to admit that large numbers of people are planning to vote for the GOP.

Really? It suggests that the OP recognizes that people still vote for the GOP. That is what the "still voting" part means. The only fact is question is why.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Fair point, but I read the OP as being directed to Republicans: "What's keeping you in the party?" Considering that those Pubs in power the past few years have such a crappy track record and the hard-right Tea Partiers now rising to leadership are obviously even worse.

Got any answers to that?

Of course.

The other side is worse.

On a majority of issues across the board, I tend to side with Republicans' stated goals over Democrats' stated goals. I can list them, but I see the result then slding into a half-dozen mini-debates on whether Republicans are serious about their opposition to abortion, how much Democrats have back-burnered their attempts to narrow gun rights, and the like.

Don't read this as, "So, therefore, the Republicans are perfect for me!"

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

Really? It suggests that the OP recognizes that people still vote for the GOP. That is what the "still voting" part means. The only fact is question is why.

"Anyone," suggests a small number of the electorate. "Why are all these people still voting for the GOP?" would convey a sense closer to the actual situation at hand.

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by Bricker

"Anyone," suggests a small number of the electorate.

I disagree. "Anyone" is simply inclusive of all those who vote for Republicans. It makes no judgement about the size of that group.

[Steve MB]

Originally Posted by Bricker

"Anyone," suggests a small number

On the contrary -- the term is so generic as to suggest just the opposite.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Steve MB

On the contrary -- the term is so generic as to suggest just the opposite.

That's fine. It's certainly possible I was mistaken about what inference most readers would draw. The benefit of my commenting on it remains: removing it from the area of inference and into the realm of explicitly stated, where there is no ambiguity.

[gonzomax]

The tea party candidates ran against Boehner backed Repubs and whipped them . That has to put the Repubs in drawing rooms trying to find ways to control the tea baggers. The teasers are not likely to go along with the Boehners in voting if they actually get elected. The Repubs love to have absolute control over their pols. This could be interesting.
This is a repudiation of the Repubs, not the Dems. Big fun coming up in November.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by gonzomax

The tea party candidates ran against Boehner backed Repubs and whipped them . That has to put the Repubs in drawing rooms trying to find ways to control the tea baggers. The teasers are not likely to go along with the Boehners in voting if they actually get elected. The Repubs love to have absolute control over their pols. This could be interesting.
This is a repudiation of the Repubs, not the Dems. Big fun coming up in November.

Of course it is.

And when the House changes hands, that will be an even bigger repudiation of the Republicans. Why, if the GOP gains control of the Senate too, they'll be positively marginalized!

Thank goodness the Republicans can't get the White House, too. If they won all three, it would just show how completely despised they were.

[elucidator]

Do you approve? Will you cheer the ascendancy of reasonable, rational Republicans like Palin, O'Donnel and Paladino over the insanely radical Obama? You're being a bit coy, here, Bricker, so perhaps if we cut to the chase? Are you pleased with the direction the Republican Party is moving in? What positive benefits do you see in all of this?

[foolsguinea]

Originally Posted by pkbites

You mean militia weapons?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States)

"Militia weapons" are not necessarily assault rifles.

As for the supposed sanctity of the Second Amendment: People talk about original intent, but we can surmise that given enough familiarity with rifling & auto-fire, the founders would have discouraged private ownership of automatic weapons & instituted gun licensing--from the fact that their descendants did those things once firearm technology progressed.

What does this have to with the threads's point? Not much.

But: Rural pols of either party tend to be more pro-gun, urban pols of either party more pro-gun-control. Stray bullets are scarier in densely populated areas. Being unarmed is scarier when the cops are twenty+ miles away. Rural voters voting against Dems because Dems are supposedly anti-gun tend to reinforce the appearance that Dems are anti-gun; a vicious cycle.

Originally Posted by Shodan

I didn't realize you were an "original intent" kind of guy.

Well, that was a dig at "original intent" justifications for things that aren't the "original intent." In any case, our gun laws should be based on present needs, not appeals to the authority of a text written in the age of muskets. That may mean licensed private gun ownership for manuals & semi-autos, with full autos banned. And that's a position we have now & can be accepted by both parties.

[pkbites]

Originally Posted by foolsguinea

the founders would have discouraged private ownership of automatic weapons & instituted gun licensing--from the fact that their descendants did those things once firearm technology progressed.

That's the lamest thing I've heard this year. You can't presume what my old man would have done in a given situation based on what I do in the same situation any more than you guess what I'd do in a given situation based on what my grand-kids do in the same situation.

But none of this erases the fact that every major piece of gun control legislation in the last 40 years (both federally and at the stat/local level) has been introduced and pushed by Democrats.

[foolsguinea]

Originally Posted by Bricker

That phrase carries an inference: that there are simply no reasons to vote for the GOP, or, if there are reasons, they are so obscure that they escape the ken of the commentator.

Rather, there are insufficient good reasons to vote for a party that does the following:

The GOP tends to unsustainable long-term planning. The Bush tax cuts are not consistent with balancing the budget. There is no real hope of making up the deficit with cuts in Social Security, Medicare, & DoD; & it's mathematically impossible to balance the budget with cuts in other departments.

Related to this, the GOP refuses to do math with real numbers. Reaganomics is based on a complete failure to perceive relative size of effects.

The GOP are committed now to an economic program which has been demonstrated not to be the rising tide that lifts all boats, proving Reagan factually wrong. I have become convinced by Krugman's arguments that we really were better off under the New Deal, & the present crop of GOP primarily know the defective if not revisionist history they were taught by "conservatives" & will make bad decisions because of that.

The GOP is apparently incapable of perceiving merit & selecting candidates for public office based on it. W Bush was nominated because he had money & a familiar name. Even though he was acknowledged as neither experienced or bright. Frankly, this is a problem for both parties. But then the GOP compounded this error by deferring to this unimpressive hack for eight years.

Once they have a "leader"--President if possible, but otherwise a Speaker of the House, say--the mainstream GOP will follow their dear leader wherever he takes them, even if it's the opposite of their previous stated opinions. Look at how Taki Theodoracopulos's bunch were marginalized for opposing the Iraq War; no GOP officeholders dared to stand up & say, "We were opposed to nation-building under Clinton. & we also are opposed to it under Bush."

My objections to the GOP are mainly economic, but politics is mainly economic. If the GOP were as open to New-Dealism & tax rises as the Democrats are to social conservatism, it would be another matter. But even in that hypothetical case, Congress doesn't really spend most of its time (or, necessarily, any of its time) on the claptrap that are called "social issues" today. Voting for a Congressman on the basis of his pretended personal opinion of homosexuality is akin to picking your accountant on the basis of what he says about your daughter's taste in manga--mostly beside the point. Further, any construction of "social issues" that does not address poverty, homelessness, & living wage laws is at best bigot-baiting.

This would be an understandable observation if the Democrats were polling huge majorities. "Why," might someone ask rhetorically, "is anyone voting GOP? Obviously, vast numbers of people can find no reason to vote GOP, and neither can I!"

The number of people voting against their own interests does not in this case increase the apparent sensibleness of their decision. They're following a memory of a GOP that was not fully discredited, not judging the party on its record in the last decade.

Originally Posted by Bricker

"Anyone," suggests a small number of the electorate. "Why are all these people still voting for the GOP?" would convey a sense closer to the actual situation at hand.

Well, it's meant to convey that not even a small number should be. All the more tragic that a large number will.

[foolsguinea]

Originally Posted by pkbites

That's the lamest thing I've heard this year. You can't presume what my old man would have done in a given situation based on what I do in the same situation any more than you guess what I'd do in a given situation based on what my grand-kids do in the same situation.

So it's your contention that the entire culture changed its views on guns based on non-environmental factors? That gun control advocacy has nothing to do with changing circumstances, but is due to an insufficient continuity with the divine founders?

[...] every major piece of gun control legislation in the last 40 years (both federally and at the stat/local level) has been introduced and pushed by Democrats.

Yet Howard Dean has a very high approval rating from the NRA, & Rudy Giuliani does not. Are the Democrats to be blamed for winning urban & therefore more pro-gun-control voters?

Further, the Democrats (a diverse bunch on gun policy in any case) were running teh House of Representatives for 28 of the last 40 years, & the GOP in the period where they had power were already defined as a rural pro-gun party to an extent--though they were more committed in fact to being the party of tax cuts.

[foolsguinea]

Further, the Democrats (a diverse bunch on gun policy in any case) were running the House of Representatives for 28 of the last 40 years, & the GOP in the period where they had power were already defined as a rural pro-gun party to an extent.

...though they were more committed in fact to being the party of tax cuts at all costs. Don't choose insolvency in the name of gun rights. There are rural pro-gun Dems who would love your vote & can balance the budget.

[pkbites]

Originally Posted by foolsguinea

Yet Howard Dean has a very high approval rating from the NRA, & Rudy Giuliani does not.

I don't care what the NRA says. Dean supports both the assault weapons ban the Brady Bill, both Democrat pushed legislations.

Rudy Giuliani is the "country club" Republican (not a RINO, but on that side of the political spectrum) that the party needs to weed out.

Far more Dems than Pubs support gun control legislation, negating the statement that they don't have a problem with the Second Amendment. By their collective actions clearly they do.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by elucidator

Do you approve? Will you cheer the ascendancy of reasonable, rational Republicans like Palin, O'Donnel and Paladino over the insanely radical Obama? You're being a bit coy, here, Bricker, so perhaps if we cut to the chase? Are you pleased with the direction the Republican Party is moving in? What positive benefits do you see in all of this?

None of the events of late are an unqualified good.

But I think I would rather have a GOP-led House, tempered in its desire for great excesses by the minority Democrats, than a Democrat-led House tempered by Republicans.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by foolsguinea

In any case, our gun laws should be based on present needs, not appeals to the authority of a text written in the age of muskets.

Should our press laws be based on the Internet and not the hand-cranked presses?

It's all very well to say the Congress shall make no law restricting the freedom of the press when the press is limited to what paper t can crank out. But when I can tweet something to 50,000 followers instantly, there's no reason to appeal to the authority of the ancient minds who thought "press," meant pressing ink on paper.

[Chronos]

Far more Dems than Pubs support gun control legislation, negating the statement that they don't have a problem with the Second Amendment.

And far more Pubs than Dems supported the abolition of the militias that the Second Amendment clearly states are essential. The Republicans might lay a claim to being the party of the Second Half of the Second Amendment, but the Democrats have a pretty solid hold on the First Half.

[pkbites]

There is still the unorganized militia: US! And that is who the Dems routinely try to disarm with bans and regulations.

[Merijeek]

Originally Posted by pkbites

That's the lamest thing I've heard this year. You can't presume what my old man would have done in a given situation based on what I do in the same situation any more than you guess what I'd do in a given situation based on what my grand-kids do in the same situation.

And that is why I should be allowed to own a nuclear weapon.

-Joe

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

I disagree. "Anyone" is simply inclusive of all those who vote for Republicans. It makes no judgement about the size of that group.

Interestingly, the author of the phrase seems to be agreeing with me:

Originally Posted by foolsguinea

Well, it's meant to convey that not even a small number should be. All the more tragic that a large number will.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by foolsguinea

The GOP tends to unsustainable long-term planning. The Bush tax cuts are not consistent with balancing the budget. There is no real hope of making up the deficit with cuts in Social Security, Medicare, & DoD; & it's mathematically impossible to balance the budget with cuts in other departments.

Actually, I contend that the problem is the "no real hope," business you mention. We should be privitizing Social Security, not continuing to shovel money into an entitlement program. I think we have a better chance of moving in the right direction with the GOP at the helm.

Related to this, the GOP refuses to do math with real numbers. Reaganomics is based on a complete failure to perceive relative size of effects.

Reaganomics was a success. Not an unmixed success, but a success.

The GOP are committed now to an economic program which has been demonstrated not to be the rising tide that lifts all boats, proving Reagan factually wrong. I have become convinced by Krugman's arguments that we really were better off under the New Deal, & the present crop of GOP primarily know the defective if not revisionist history they were taught by "conservatives" & will make bad decisions because of that.

Pretty tenuous claim of "proof." I completely disagree.

The GOP is apparently incapable of perceiving merit & selecting candidates for public office based on it. W Bush was nominated because he had money & a familiar name. Even though he was acknowledged as neither experienced or bright. Frankly, this is a problem for both parties. But then the GOP compounded this error by deferring to this unimpressive hack for eight years.

I disagree that this problem is more GOP than Democratic. Carter was no prize. And any party that's running Alvin Greene for Senate can't really stand for the proposition that they're the party of weeding out lackluster candidates.

Once they have a "leader"--President if possible, but otherwise a Speaker of the House, say--the mainstream GOP will follow their dear leader wherever he takes them, even if it's the opposite of their previous stated opinions. Look at how Taki Theodoracopulos's bunch were marginalized for opposing the Iraq War; no GOP officeholders dared to stand up & say, "We were opposed to nation-building under Clinton. & we also are opposed to it under Bush."

While I agree party discipline is tighter in the GOP, I disagree that it's monolithic, and I disagree that this is a terrible thing.

Further, any construction of "social issues" that does not address poverty, homelessness, & living wage laws is at best bigot-baiting.

Apparently, it's not possible to have a good-faith difference of belief in what the role of government should be. You're either in favor of these programs, or catering to bigots.

This post answers your question. You can no longer claim to be unaware of why some people are voting GOP.

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Interestingly, the author of the phrase seems to be agreeing with me:

I interpret that the exact opposite. "Should be" being the operative words in that sentence.

[sleeping]

Originally Posted by foolsguinea

Also, they cut taxes to run higher deficits while starting a war & raising expenses. I was raised a Reagan Republican, & I will never vote for those jerks again.

Reagan ran deficits, too. This is actually a Republican strategy that was invented in the 70s by conservative Jude Wanniski. It's called the Two Santa Claus theory. Essentially, Wanniski pointed out that the liberal Democrats of the 60s and 70s always increased government benefits for people, making it difficult for Republicans to take the opposite side (since people would always see the Dems as giving them things, and Republicans as being stingy). Therefore, he proposed that Republicans push for tax cuts ("tax relief") without regard for the deficit, and market the tax cuts toward the middle class. Then, once the Democrats took office, they would scream about the deficit, and maintain that all spending must be cut to balance the budget--thus, no increase in benefits could take place. You can see this strategy with Reagan/Bush to Clinton and now Bush to Obama.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by pkbites

There is still the unorganized militia: US! And that is who the Dems routinely try to disarm with bans and regulations.

Whom exactly is this "unorganized militia" supposed to fight, and why?

[E-Sabbath]

Bricker, explain this to me simply. Why is privatizing social security a good idea? Basically, you'd turn it over to private money-market managers? Or would you turn it into something individual people have to manage, and mostly won't? I thought half the power in a large fund was that it _was_ all together.

[pkbites]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Whom exactly is this "unorganized militia" supposed to fight, and why?

Could be a home invader, could be a rogue sheriff (it's happened).

[foolsguinea]

Originally Posted by pkbites

There is still the unorganized militia: US! And that is who the Dems routinely try to disarm with bans and regulations.

As I said above:

Originally Posted by foolsguinea

Don't choose insolvency in the name of gun rights. There are rural pro-gun Dems who would love your vote & can balance the budget.

Gun rights advocates & right-to-lifers are the great sucker movements of the GOP. I came from the pro-life side (I was pro-gun-control) but it's the same thing. Getting hung up on one "individual rights" issue & not seeing the big picture, or even taking the bargain that you'll let the rentiers bleed the country--and now, even bankrupt the government--for that one issue. It''s irresponsible.

Originally Posted by Bricker

Should our press laws be based on the Internet and not the hand-cranked presses?

Sure, why not? What possible reason do we have to base them on hand-cranked presses now?

It's all very well to say the Congress shall make no law restricting the freedom of the press when the press is limited to what paper t can crank out. But when I can tweet something to 50,000 followers instantly, there's no reason to appeal to the authority of the ancient minds who thought "press," meant pressing ink on paper.

And yet, "freedom of the press" did not appear in isolation--that would have been baldly plutocratic in the day--but alongside "freedom of speech."

By contrast, the Constitution does not explicitly ensure both the right to bear arms and the right to bear them unlicensed & unorganized. And it does not explicitly define the right to bear arms as a right to use witchcraft, which today's weapons are by 18th-Century standards.

It doesn't have to be all or nothing. You have the right to a reasonable gun which you are provably able to handle & control; if you keep your nose clean & go through a licensing regimen. If we were really following the Constitution, you should have to also show up for citizen militia drills once in a while. Or do you think that a bunch of individuals keeping arms only for their personal protection &/or amusement are either the intent or the meaning of the Second?

[pkbites]

The fact is every time someone says

Originally Posted by Mozart1220
Democrats have no problem with the 2nd amendment

Invariably there is always a qualifier:

Originally Posted by Mozart1220
they just don't see the need for.........

There is always a "but".



The truth is collectively Democrats DO have a problem with the Second Amendment, as judged by their actions.

[Chronos]

And the Republicans have an even bigger problem with the Second Amendment, as judged by their actions. When Democrat Brian Schweitzer tried to recall the Montana National Guard from Iraq, where were all the supposedly pro-Second-Amendment Republicans who were supporting him?

[foolsguinea]

Cute, Bricker. I'll start at the end of post #41.

Originally Posted by Bricker

This post answers your question. You can no longer claim to be unaware of why some people are voting GOP.

I'm hardly unaware, considering I used to be one of you guys. I simply am frustrated at your (not thy, Bricker, but y'all's) continued insolence, ignorance, & bullheaded insistence that your party's policies are not responsible for the servility, corruption, & general fiscal insanity of government since 1981.

We should be privitizing Social Security, not continuing to shovel money into an entitlement program. I think we have a better chance of moving in the right direction with the GOP at the helm.

Since you apparently consider "entitlement program" an epithet, I hope, until we are able to make cuts in the extremely popular HHS programs, you will support raising taxes enough to gradually buy out T-bill holders, so we're not continuing to shovel money to them. And let's recall that Social Security & Medicare are so popular that when the GOP controlled Congress & the White House they failed to restructure SS & actually expanded Medicare. So now you can no longer claim to be unaware of why those still exist in their present form.

Of course, one of W Bush's two great failures to lead the GOP Congress where he would have liked (the other being immigration reform) was SS privatization. Presumably this was in part because privatizing SS would have required a considerable tax increase, presumably on payroll & thus on all American businesses.

Reaganomics was a success. Not an unmixed success, but a success.

True. Reaganomics was a success at increasing the after-tax financial situation of a taxpayer constituency who have happily funded the GOP on the condition that they offer more of the same. Both times it was tried, it was a failure at balancing the budget, it was a failure at increasing the wealth of the lower 50% of Americans, & it was a failure at dealing with structural demand failures. Over time, the lack of regular demand-side stimulus led to long-term unemployment & homelessness for some, the return of 50-hour+ workweeks for others, & a consumer economy where the consumption base was only keeping the system alive on borrowed money.

Pretty tenuous claim of "proof." I completely disagree.

Of course you do, you're ignorant.

I disagree that this problem is more GOP than Democratic. Carter was no prize. And any party that's running Alvin Greene for Senate can't really stand for the proposition that they're the party of weeding out lackluster candidates.

Carter was indeed a harbinger of the idiotic politics to come. He was the first of the "outsider state governor" presidents. But he was outshone in the stupid by Reagan & W Bush. Carter at least tried to explain to the American people that grown-up reality is not the Big Rock Candy Mountain. Reagan & Bush played to & encouraged the overgrown two-year-old demographic.

While I agree party discipline is tighter in the GOP, I disagree that it's monolithic, and I disagree that this is a terrible thing.

Well, you're right there. I'll concede that point. Bush got his war in Iraq, but not Social Security privatization or legal status for guest workers. But why did he get his war?

Perhaps it was because, "politics stops at the water's edge," indicating that the POTUS has broad fascistic power to inflict violence on foreign territories; if so, that's frightening.

Perhaps it's simply that the legislators were (& in some cases still are) misled on the merits of this war; that's perhaps forgivable.

But the disturbing possibility occurs to me that in fact the Iraq War went forward not because Bush wanted it, but because the GOP as a party actually was for it. That means scapegoating Bush is a lie, & the problem with the GOP is not that they are slavish followers but that they are bloodthirsty warmongers--not fascists, then, but imperialists. Hardly a recommendation.