And the Republicans deep down know it doesn’t work, but cynically claims it does to have the best of both worlds - tax cuts and goodies for their constituents.
If they really believed in balanced budgets they could show it in a simple way - cut spending before cutting taxes. If a family wants to reduce their income, through retirement or a new job, they look at their budget and cut first. They don’t reduce their income and try to figure out what to do without later - or at least the ones that don’t end up in bankruptcy don’t.
Update From The Bible Belt
Locals here in TN are flatly delusional.
The local newspaper’s letter column & website still receive letter calling Obama a secret Muslim, & blame the banking crisis…on Clinton. :smack:
Griping about school prayer is a constant, & Fox is still an oracle.
Tennessee will go Republican. No matter how stupid the nominee.
I think we’ve heard this song before.
Care to support that at all? Fiscal irresponsibility, in the form of cutting taxes and raising spending, is the domain of Republicans. Putting God in everything - Republican. Demonizing gays: Republican. Starting wars based on lies: well, that doesn’t really fit anyone, since Bosnia and Gulf War I were based on actual problems.
Well, there was some exaggeration of atrocities in Kuwait, but yeah, I suppose a secular despot threatening the Saudi oil fields is a problem, from several points of view. I might have let him run wild in Arabia, myself.
[bolding mine]
That’s what’s scary about him. He sells bad ideas well. Believable != true.
This is very worrying to me; I have friends who fell for the Fair Tax scheme, hard. Never mind that it makes income spent on capital untaxed & income spent on necessities taxed. They don’t own enough stock to see the implications.
So yes, Huckabee could win for the GOP, if America’s stupid enough to vote for him. Let’s hope not, & be glad Obama is so charismatic.
Don’t forget proving that government can’t work. That’s a Republican mainstay that Bush put a lot of effort into demonstrating.
The flippancy of your suggestion that we “just get a third party”.
And the flippancy of that one too, btw.
To reply to RickJay’s whine about the low quality of leaders in his own parliamentary system, perhaps to the extent that’s true it may be the result of the structure of such a system. A party can gain enough power to at least participate in a coalition, and get some cabinet seats, by keeping a narrow focus and catering to a particular constituency. There is no real need for a party or its leadership to appeal to a constituency that adds up to any more than 50.1% of the seats, and it doesn’t even take that much to be in control of the entire government. Without parties having official standing, they always have to jockey for the middle so they don’t get shut out. Having to do so may help develop better leaders.
In the US officially-nonpartisan system, a leader has to appeal to a broader constituency just to be a leader of his own party, which is a coalition of the narrower types of interests that would each have its own in a parliamentary approach. A third party or candidate can only arise if it represents a popular constituency or interest that neither major party caters to, and if it does, it will be co-opted. Ross Perot, for instance, represented balancing the budget, something the Dems and Reps had both failed to do, but he got enough votes that the Dems picked up that agenda. George Wallace represented racism after the Dems repudiated it, and his support convinced the Reps to cater to that constituency for themselves.
But there’s simply no place in a tripartite system for a third party that can represent a broader interest on an enduring basis. Why would you think there is?
Oh right, the OP … the broader GOP hasn’t even begun to realize it’s lost in the woods - and they’re so lost that there isn’t much of a “broader GOP” anyway. They’ve discredited and even repudiated their moderates for the sake of ideological purity (for the supply-side true believers) and moral purity (for the Bible thumpers) and, it must be said, racial purity (for that segment of its base). But that ideology has failed, the moral agenda is generally understood to be hateful and hypocritical, and the racist base has been firmly repudiated, and the great moderate middle has been co-opted by the realism of the other party. There are simply far fewer people who self-identify as Republicans anymore - the moderates who might have saved it in the short term have left it entirely.
So how are the racist, hypocritical ideologues going to recover their strength? They first have to realize that’s what they’ve become, right? The party will come back only when there have been enough missteps by the Democrats, enough fractures in their solid and growing majority, and enough softening of their reactionariness to make them a plausible flag of convenience for disaffected Democratic moderates.
And, it should be mentioned, when they have a new generation of leaders not now in Washington and not now discredited by their loyal support of the utterly failed Bush administration. In the aftermath of the last election, there were many hopeful things said by their mouthpieces about Sarah Palin and Bobby Jindal leading them back to the promised land. If their hopes rest on that kind of tokenism and that kind of “leader”, it’s going to take them just as long to find their way out of the woods as it did when they were similarly discredited and repudiated in 1932.
Don’t be so quick to state that. Remember, one of the most socially liberal states in the country just passed an amendment banning gay marriage. Yes, it took a lot of outside support and misunderstanding to do so, but it still managed to pass. That’s not what I would call a “general understanding”.
I don’t think it’s nearly as universal as you think. Political parties and those that lead them quite often have actual convictions, and actual agendas beyond just “get votes”. You sound a lot like the people who used to assure me that the Republicans are just like the Democrats.
That’s more or less the line of attack the Republican candidates tried throughout the primary process and the campaign, with Romney’s comment about “liberal Washington” maybe being the best example. Problem is, the voters didn’t buy it because it’s ridiculous on its face.
How about “very widespread and growing”, then? Remember that there are many who voted for CA Prop 8 who the polls now show regret it. The trend nationally is toward social liberalism and away from the Republican brand of moralism, no matter the occasional setbacks such as that vote, don’t you think?
RickJay’s view isn’t that Canadian politicians and parties are all the same, it’s that they all suck. Not quite the same sentiment, but a person can certainly believe both.
So, what about proportional representation? Are you Brits ever gonna go with that (like Tony Blair promised back in 1997)?
Mmm-hm. And Obama and McCain and Clinton and Huckabee and all the rest, they don’t believe in the Constitution, and they’re loyal to foreign interests, right?
Yes, the trend is certainly going that way, and in a decade, there probably will be a general understanding that gays should be allowed to marry. But we’re not there yet, not by a longshot.
What a great, compelling and insightful analogy.
I dunno; it seems like having a popular Democrat in the White House is allowing at least some pundits and such to define themselves “anti-Obama,” much as many in 2004 were “anti-Bush.” I mean, I just read one guy claim Obama was “pro-abortion” who was “doing everything in his power to make sure more children are aborted.” If Republicans can play to that kind of outrage and get their supporters raising money and voting, isn’t that enough? Or would it turn out the way it did in '04?
But in all that rant, you didn’t say a single thing about Barack Obama. So your criticism of him remains unexplained.
Sort of, yeah, but if we’re discussing the merits of a multiparty system it deserves some more explanation.
I’m not saying they’re all the same. Der Trihs, but what I’m saying is that having more political parties does not necessarily give you better choices. We have more parties in Canada, but the choices remain, as they are in the States, all seriously compromised. Should I vote for the sort-of-economically-conservative party (which I like) that’s socially conservative (which I don’t)? Do I vote for the centrist party that’s also elitist and historically corrupt? Do I vote for the well-meaning but foolish and inept party?
My position is that all political parties are specifically in the business of WINNING VOTES. Some suck a lot worse than others, of course; I wouldn’t vote for the Christian Heritage Party or the Communist Party for any reason. My observation is that the difference between a two party system and a more-than-two-party system is simply that with more parties, they become more focused in appeasing their bases. Instead of two parties looking to buy votes, you have three, or four. The range of options does not necessarily expand - it can actually shrink, because with more potential opponents to lose votes to, a party might be less willing to deviate from the political orthodoxy of the day.