According to this prof, Jeb, based on his track record as Governor of Florida, is no “moderate.”
There are two kinds of moderation that people get confused about a lot. First, there’s ideological moderation. Jeb is no ideological moderate. He’s actually more conservative than the last two Bush Presidents and his record backs that up.
The reason that Jeb gets portrayed as a moderate is for the same reason John McCain, John Huntsman, and Orrin Hatch often get portrayed as moderates: they are willing to compromise and they don’t regard Democrats as the enemy. There’s moderation in ideology and moderation in partisanship. Jeb, McCain, and Graham are all pretty far right but aren’t particularly partisan.
Hardly a broken promise. He’s not bringing it up himself, he’s just saying he’d sign the bill if it was passed by the legislature. Obama is also going to sign a lot of things he didn’t talk much about or isn’t interested in over the next two years.
In any case, right to work is popular. The fact that it’s not the law in 50 states is a testament to special interest politics.
Ah, yes, “special interests”. Narrow groups of selfish concerns. Like, people who work.
A useful and important distinction - thanks.
There was a time, not that long ago, when willingness to compromise was simply a given, a fact of adulthood and mature responsibility. Now it’s a minority view in the GOP, one that gets anybody upholding it attacked as viciously as they attack Democrats, and for no better reason. What you’re attempting to call “moderation” isn’t a mark of distinction, it’s a basic requirement for being a fucking grownup.
And yet, in limited supply among the solons and philosopher-kings of the GOP these days.
Like union bosses. Even union workers, if they have the option to not be a part of it, many choose to leave it.
There’s always been a time to compromise and a time to stand on principle. I think that a lot of newer politicians don’t know when each is appropriate. There’s also the fact that due to earmarking rules you can’t just buy votes anymore, which is a good thing.
Another excellent reason not to vote for any of them, then. Someday you might realize how convincing a case you present.
It’s a convincing case not vote for Ted Cruz, certainly. That argument doesn’t apply to any of the other candidates.
Yeah, well, that don’t work out too well.
Looks to me like it worked out great. We’re supposed to have the smallest public workforce possible.
How great is it going to be when businesses fail because these people can’t afford to patronize them anymore?
But hey, we busted the unions, it’s all good, God Is On Our Side, blah blah blah.
Public employees don’t contribute to the economy because they are paid with tax money that would have been spent regardless by consumers. Fewer public employees means more money in consumers’ wallets which means public employees are needed in the private sector.
And that’s why Wisconsin’s unemployment rate is 5.2%. What’s Illnois’ unemployment rate again?
Smallest? No.
Appropriate size for what public wants them to do?
Sure.
:rolleyes: Public employees contribute to the economy because they are paid with tax money that they spend as consumers.
They also, of course, contribute the economy as public employees. In strictly economic terms, the public sector is not some kind of useless parasitic growth on the private sector; it adds actual value to the economy in its own ways.
Which is the smallest size necessary to get the job done, just like in a private company. It’s not a jobs program, it’s a government that is supposed to perform tasks. If the tasks aren’t necessary, they shouldn’t be spending money on people doing them.
What makes you think they aren’t necessary?