Sorry, I think this is a little naive, in the sense that all politicians are going to attempt some sort of balance between picking their views on what gets them elected and what helps them further their goals. (Most seem to have some sense of goals beyond getting elected, although even this is probably not universal.)
Surely you can’t be. Politicians pander. It’s what they do. Political advisers encourage pandering. Voters want to be pandered to.
The uniqueness of the situation that Fear Itself is pointing out is that there are two groups, diametrically opposed on this issue, both of whom want to be pandered to. It is absolutely in the best interest of the other party (who has no such second constituency) to highlight this, regardless of which side they support.
The Shrub had the house, the presidency , the senate and the Supreme Court loaded with atavistic righties. What did he do about abortion? I must have missed it.
The Repubs will not do anything about abortion as long as they think it gets them votes. Is that hypocrisy in Shodanland? Or just politics?
Well, he did appoint Supreme Court justices who are probably dedicated to overturning Roe. What more could he have done?
They also passed a ban on so-called partial birth abortions. But yes, what could they have done in light of Roe?
As for the OP… yes, the GOP will implode of the issue of corn subsidies. That will usher in an unending Democratic majority staring in 2012.
This presumes a level of critical thinking not evident among the fundamentalists he bamboozled. There is no question he cultivated a belief in that constituency that he would somehow (perhaps divine intervention) usher in a day in America where abortions ceased, while always being careful not to make any definitive promises that he could be held to at a later date.
Nah, that’s crazy talk Fear Itself. I mean, Obama promised an era in which nobody would go without health care, but surely nobody actually believed such a thing were possible given the political reality of the world. Politicians promise shit - normally they don’t mean it, or if they do they know they can’t get it.
The problem is when you have two groups of people and you try to promise the opposite thing to each group.
In the end ethanol subsidies will be one of a long line of examples where budget-cutting Tea Partiers get hit in the face with political reality - cutting the budget is hard work, and you have to be willing to make hard decisions. The days of calling for earmark bans and outlawing wasteful spending as if that will do any good are over. Now it’s Social Security, Medicare, Defense, or bust.
I hate to have to tell you this, but the guy claiming he could have done this was a few posts up. He’s on your side of the political debate.
I’m going to need a bigger hint.
Post #63.
Actually, I do, but based on your assertions apparently I was mistaken in doing so.
But it is apparently OK to campaign in bad faith, so long as you win the election.
Keeping mind that this also is not meant seriously - I have little doubt that you will continue to blow a gasket when you think you see Republicans doing this, but at least I know not to believe you.
This, on the other hand, is entirely true.
Sarah Palin and whoever it was who gave the Republican response to Obama’s radio address just after the elections got it right - the elections were not an embrace of the Republican party - they were a second chance for the Republican party, and if the GOP does what Fear Itself recommends, the Tea Party will turn on them like rabid wolverines. We need to reduce the deficit to manageable levels, and that means spending cuts. Obama’s hopes for trillions more added to the national debt will not fly. And it is going to hurt.
We shouldn’t have wasted so much on the stimulus package, but what is past is past.
My fear is that Obama and the Dems will reach out in a spirit of bipartisan cooperation, and both extend the tax cuts and increase spending.
Something for everyone, who doesn’t mind crippling their children with debt.
Regards,
Shodan
Back on topic:
My frosted cynical side sees this as a win/win for conservatives. They can run “Tea Party Candidates” in areas that hate ethanol subsidies, and “Republican” candidates in states that love them. Each candidate counts for “their side,” neither candidate will do anything about it.
That’s the beauty of the Tea Party, it stands for nothing. It is meaningless and hallow. It is nothing more than a way to run conservative politicians in areas that may otherwise be angry at Republicans, but not quite ready to vote Democrat.
Fake competition is the best way to achieve overall success. As an example, Best Buy bought up a identical chain of stores in Canada called Futureshop. They built Best Buy stores across the street, then trained all the staff to play products off the other store. It made people feel great, like they were winning buy walking out of one store and going to the other for the low low prices. But what they weren’t doing was going to the actual competing stores.
The Tea Party is nothing more than a populist movement. Traditionally we’re used to more socialist type populist movements; bread and circuses. In this case, it capitalizes on random anger. What ever people appear to be angry about, that’s what the Tea Party promotes–completely spot specific.
The Republicans and Democrats are forced to run a national campaign. Ethanol subsidies are a good example of how they both lose equally regardless of their stance. Just like abortion and guns. The Tea Party runs locally on a national scale. It’s a brilliant way of tricking people into “choosing.”
Shodan: Reducing the deficit can also mean returning to the tax levels on the rich that we had the last time there was no deficit. Remember those days when “irrational exuberance” was actually considered a problem?
It’s quite telling that neither the GOP leadership nor its acolytes are even aware of the possibility any longer. It’s even more telling that they cannot accept that Keynesian approaches to economic stimulus work and that tax-cutting on the segment of the population that is not going to “create jobs” with their extra savings despite the rhetoric does not, that the deficits we now face are primarily the result of tax cuts (and keeping two wars off-budget, but that’s actually less of the problem), that in the contest between supply-siders’ rhetoric and reality it is reality that has won, and that the crisis we are now in is hardly going to be resolved by continuing the same policies that led us into it.
So one can only wonder at how easily they can be led into Fantasyland.
You’re still wrong about this and should have dropped it a long time ago.
The point Fear Itself was making, with regards to campaigning, was to drive a wedge. That does not have anything to do with “his party’s” principles (unless he’s running on an anti-wedge platform).
What he is saying, is that Democrats should run ads pointing out that the Tea Party and the GOP are 180 degrees apart on this issue. Force candidates to stand up and state whether they are for or against ethanol subsidies. It has nothing do with with what stance the Democrats pick, and no one is suggesting they lie, or flip flop after the election.
You assumed Fear Itself is suggesting that Democrats run on what ever message is most popular in order to win. You were wrong, probably because you were projecting, based on what you’re used to doing.
The “anything to win” comment was based on using the issue as a wedge. Do you understand the difference?
That’s a little less bothersome than my original understanding of his argument, but I’m still not entirely convinced.
There’s any number of examples of GOP candidates trying to get the support of both the TP types and realistically-minded independents, by claiming that defense, Social Security, Medicare, and all the popular parts of Obamacare will be “off limits”, leaving not much else to cut except that ol’ warhorse, “wastefraudandabuse”.
Right, right - anyonewho would suggest that we not cut Social Security is a lying sack of shit.
Regards,
Shodan
Very cogently argued, as usual. :rolleyes:
Thank you. 
Regards,
Shodan