The Sad State of the Modern GOP

This forum is for discussion of political topics, and other serious non-football related debates. Please start these topics here, or they will eventually be moved here.

Moderators: salmar80, NCF, JustJeff, packfntk, APB, BF004, mnkcarp

The Sad State of the Modern GOP

Postby get louder at lambeau » Sat Mar 28, 2015 5:58 am

How messed up is it that the GOP has come to the point where they have a problem with a prospective Republican Presidential candidate for being allied with...

no, not Obama...

not Hillary...

not even Harry Reid, but...


...a former U.S. Marine who has served as Finance Chairman for the Republican Party, was a Regional Chairman for Nixon's successful Presidential Campaign, was Ronald Reagan's Chief of Staff, later served as Ronald Reagan's Secretary of the Treasury, then was George H.W. Bush's Chief of Staff, AND served as George W. Bush's Secretary of State.

That guy, James Baker, is a now a political LIABILITY to his candidate, despite his long, accomplished, stellar career as a Republican serving EVERY REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT SINCE EISENHOWER, because he doesn't agree with some large GOP bribers', er, uh, I mean "campaign financiers'" opinions.

Here is one of many articles talking about this -
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-d ... on-israel/

Baker's sin? A speech not even to a *gasp* Palestinian advocacy group, but to American Jewish Israeli lobbying group J Street. Here it is, in its entirety -



Having THIS guy run your campaign is a problem for GOP candidates? Really? THIS speech is an issue? :messedup

What a disgusting, useless, corrupt pile of $#!! the GOP has become. They will now even throw one of their own, an accomplished statesman and clear Republican Hall of Famer like James Baker under the bus in favor of a lying, divisive Israeli politician like Netanyahu, who has had problems with ALL THREE of our last American Presidents, coming from both parties.
User avatar
get louder at lambeau
Evil Dictator
 
Posts: 12030
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 10:39 pm

Re: The Sad State of the Modern GOP

Postby wallyuwl » Sat Mar 28, 2015 5:28 pm

It kind of sounds like the Democrats' treatment of Joe Lieberman.
User avatar
wallyuwl
 
Posts: 12254
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 10:18 pm

Re: The Sad State of the Modern GOP

Postby texas » Sun Mar 29, 2015 1:43 am

Every election I get suckered in, only to see how the establishment GOP treats its liberty candidates. I know my profile pic may be Cruz (and I am facebook friends with him no joke), but Rand is probably my top choice
Suck it Bears.
Roger Goodell Phone: 212-450-2027
User avatar
texas
 
Posts: 2319
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:22 am

Re: The Sad State of the Modern GOP

Postby RodgePodge » Sun Mar 29, 2015 7:58 am

texas wrote:Every election I get suckered in, only to see how the establishment GOP treats its liberty candidates. I know my profile pic may be Cruz (and I am facebook friends with him no joke), but Rand is probably my top choice


Have faith. I mean, not faith in Republicans, but faith in the system. Just remember that 3rd party Libertarian votes are just votes for a Democrat. For better or worse, this is a two-party system. The key to changing the Republican party is INTERNAL politics, where the Tea Part has made massive strides but is still battling Rinos.
Make the Packers Great Again!
User avatar
RodgePodge
 
Posts: 3573
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 4:59 am

Re: The Sad State of the Modern GOP

Postby texas » Sun Mar 29, 2015 11:28 am

RodgePodge wrote:
texas wrote:Every election I get suckered in, only to see how the establishment GOP treats its liberty candidates. I know my profile pic may be Cruz (and I am facebook friends with him no joke), but Rand is probably my top choice


Have faith. I mean, not faith in Republicans, but faith in the system. Just remember that 3rd party Libertarian votes are just votes for a Democrat. For better or worse, this is a two-party system. The key to changing the Republican party is INTERNAL politics, where the Tea Part has made massive strides but is still battling Rinos.


Oh yeah absolutely. I was a statewide GOP delegate in the 2014 election cycle- change from within. Granted, my district was 99 bible-thumping uberconservative baptists and me, so we were talking two different forms of conservatism, but when held up against some of the other counties, we pushed the platform the right way ever so slightly.

You ever been a delegate? Most people don't know how easy it is, but that really is where the platform is formed.
Suck it Bears.
Roger Goodell Phone: 212-450-2027
User avatar
texas
 
Posts: 2319
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:22 am

Re: The Sad State of the Modern GOP

Postby RodgePodge » Sun Mar 29, 2015 8:44 pm

texas wrote:
RodgePodge wrote:
texas wrote:Every election I get suckered in, only to see how the establishment GOP treats its liberty candidates. I know my profile pic may be Cruz (and I am facebook friends with him no joke), but Rand is probably my top choice


Have faith. I mean, not faith in Republicans, but faith in the system. Just remember that 3rd party Libertarian votes are just votes for a Democrat. For better or worse, this is a two-party system. The key to changing the Republican party is INTERNAL politics, where the Tea Part has made massive strides but is still battling Rinos.


Oh yeah absolutely. I was a statewide GOP delegate in the 2014 election cycle- change from within. Granted, my district was 99 bible-thumping uberconservative baptists and me, so we were talking two different forms of conservatism, but when held up against some of the other counties, we pushed the platform the right way ever so slightly.

You ever been a delegate? Most people don't know how easy it is, but that really is where the platform is formed.


I haven't, what does it entail?
Make the Packers Great Again!
User avatar
RodgePodge
 
Posts: 3573
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 4:59 am

Re: The Sad State of the Modern GOP

Postby HeavyD » Mon Mar 30, 2015 1:45 pm

Pretty large set of stones to RIP GOP when the Dem only candidate is a Hilary Clinton.

If she didn't have a D after her name, you'd be all over her.

The email fiasco and the foundation excepting $$ from foreign governments should automatically eliminate her as presidential candidate.

What a joke.
User avatar
HeavyD
 
Posts: 3516
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 2:55 am
Location: The Cila

Re: The Sad State of the Modern GOP

Postby flapackfan » Mon Mar 30, 2015 7:23 pm

Her total lack of any accomplishment in her public life should disqualify her. The scandals should just be the nail in the coffin. Of course that would require a media that wasn't in lock step.
Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen prove that they are insured, but doesn't require every person to prove they are a citizen. Many who can't prove they are citizens will receive free insurance from those that are citizens.
User avatar
flapackfan
 
Posts: 3059
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 2:56 pm

Re: The Sad State of the Modern GOP

Postby Waldo » Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:28 pm

texas wrote:Every election I get suckered in, only to see how the establishment GOP treats its liberty candidates. I know my profile pic may be Cruz (and I am facebook friends with him no joke), but Rand is probably my top choice


I'll never understand why Libertarians slant R more than D.

On issues that actually change to some degree (gov't intervention on social issues), D and L are quite compatible, heck often the L's are more liberal than the D's (see Rand vs. Hillary on a large slate of social issues, or even more extreme, Rand's dad).

L and D are far more aligned on international issues than L and R are. D's are far more non-interventionist than R's, who have a significant faction of warmongering among them (aka military-industrial complex corporate welfare).

D's are far more for individual freedom than R's, especially compared to the uber god people of the right, who seem to need to make laws for everything (just saw a bill introduced in one of the states that would mandate everyone has to go to church).

The police state is very much an R thing moreso than D thing (which likewise is very much not an L thing), though there was a blip in the 90's as D moderates were anti-crime enthusiasts that really pushed up the police state as R's were already enthusiasts, thus a point of agreement was reached (Bill Clinton doubled down on Reagan's police state, who himself doubled down on Nixon's). It remains to be seen where Hillary is going to align on this issue this time, but the police state question is one of the big contrasts with Obama and why he got the nomination, hopefully Hillary realizes D's have moved on since the 90's and the moderates that Bill captured with the move are no longer to be had. Also one of the reasons Biden, another police state enthusiast from the 80's-90's moderate D wave, stands no chance. Standard R's left to their own devices would have millions of laws and billions of police to arrest everyone breaking them, throwing the book at everyone, loading up the for profit prisons.

I can see why L's align with R's on $$ issues, but then again R's rarely ever actually follow their talking points and theoretical stance on $$ issues. Supply-side economic theory is surely not an L thing, though hardlining against tax raises is so there is some common ground. Likewise D's almost never follow their reputed stance on $$ issues, instead only raising taxes in extreme moderation and likewise being quite fiscally conservative, despite the tax and spend reputation that aligns neither with D talking points or actions, being little more than an R talking point.

Is it because of environmental issues? L's align with R's, but for totally different reasons. L's problem is with the rules themselves. R's problem is that the rules are preventing their donors from making more profit. The environmental regs and the economy tie in are largely a bunch of dung since it only affects a small subset of companies, most of whom are incredibly profitable already.

So why do Libertarians align with Republicans? One would think they would want to have no association whatsoever with the warmongering neocons or religious fundamentalists, both of whom are about as far from libertarian as one could be. Democrats seem to agree with Libertarians on a lot more issues, and where they don't there isn't nearly as much blatant difference.
User avatar
Waldo
 
Posts: 4985
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 3:01 am
Location: The ATL

Re: The Sad State of the Modern GOP

Postby texas » Tue Mar 31, 2015 6:31 am

RodgePodge wrote:
texas wrote:
RodgePodge wrote:
texas wrote:Every election I get suckered in, only to see how the establishment GOP treats its liberty candidates. I know my profile pic may be Cruz (and I am facebook friends with him no joke), but Rand is probably my top choice


Have faith. I mean, not faith in Republicans, but faith in the system. Just remember that 3rd party Libertarian votes are just votes for a Democrat. For better or worse, this is a two-party system. The key to changing the Republican party is INTERNAL politics, where the Tea Part has made massive strides but is still battling Rinos.


Oh yeah absolutely. I was a statewide GOP delegate in the 2014 election cycle- change from within. Granted, my district was 99 bible-thumping uberconservative baptists and me, so we were talking two different forms of conservatism, but when held up against some of the other counties, we pushed the platform the right way ever so slightly.

You ever been a delegate? Most people don't know how easy it is, but that really is where the platform is formed.


I haven't, what does it entail?


Alright, so like I said, most people don't know this but depending on your senate district, you can actually influence a lot of change over a party platform over the course of a few cycles. Nobody really seems to ever mention this stuff.

The gist of it is that you take part in conventions of varying prominence throughout the process, each one bigger than the next. At the conventions, you do a few primary things- vote on platform changes, elect official representatives for your party, and elect delegates to the next level convention.

The conventions are

1) Precinct convention- this is your precinct within your county. A lot of times, nobody attends, or you'll be the only one. It takes place on the day you vote in a primary. After the polls close (I think like 7 PM or so), you go back to the polling location and request the precinct convention packet from the election judge (usually the little old lady who made you sign the book and gave you the "I voted" sticker), which has instructions on how to officially hold your precinct convention in case nobody else shows up. I've done this twice and both times there were a few other people so I didn't have to lead.

While you're there, you vote on your precinct's official platform, which seems kind of silly because it is. So for example if you were the only one there, you could write and ratify an amendment to the Official Brown County GOP Precinct 08 Platform that officially endorses extra taxation on Bears fans. That will get you laughed at, at the next level, but whatever. All amendments you propose will be voted on at the next level. You also need to elect official party precinct representatives to serve the fine people of your precinct, and you need to elect delegates to represent your precinct at the next level, the county convention.

The precinct convention is humorously quaint, but it promotes what America is theoretically about, in that everyone can play however large a role they like in the democratic process. It serves as a good dry run to the bigger conventions too, where actual stuff happens.

2) The county convention- the agenda for the county convention is analogous to the precinct convention, just bigger (obviously) as instead of being held for a district of 1000-2000 people or so (your precinct), this convention makes the platform for the whole county. You won't be the only person at this one.

The county convention is usually held a month or two after the precinct conventions have taken place. Assuming you were elected a delegate from your precinct, you will be able to vote on official party platform amendments as well as county party representatives and delegates to the next level convention. Same as the precinct convention. Except this time they probably will crack down on bogus amendments. It's still humorously small sometimes, depending on your county. I was at one in 2010 with about 500 people in attendance and some US House representatives, and then in 2014 I was in a different county with 50 mostly small time local politicians and rednecks.

In 2010 I was in a county that was allotted 100 or so delegates to the state convention, and 400 people in attendance, and since they were #$%! who didn't abide by the rules, the only named me an alternate delegate as there were 160 people for 100 slots. That's okay though, alternates usually wind up being turned into full delegates at the next level because attendance is spotty. Plus alternates get full access to the convention anyway, including speaking privileges I believe. In 2014, there were 50 interested people for 64 delegate spots so I was easily named a full delegate.

3) State convention- this is a very big one (in my case, the biggest since Texas is the biggest red state). It's generally pretty fun too. Tons of parties and events and free alcohol, and you get to mingle with big names if you so choose. Also since it's the GOP, tons of pretty girls with good hygiene who aren't #$%! headcases. And you get to have a voice in your state party platform (which for Texas has national implications). All of your state's counties at this point have sent a number of delegates to the convention based on county size (although technically they split it up at the convention by state senate district), and in my case, we filled a basketball stadium in 2014 since there are so many Texas republicans. By a stroke of luck, my county had rows 1-15 on the floor of the actual court so we had front row seats to Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Rick Perry, Greg Abbott, etc.

Same thing happens here, you vote on your state platform, vote on party representatives, etc. Except it's usually a couple days split up into sections. Sometimes you'll be in a room with your county and senate district, doing a lot of voting on specific amendments, then other times you'll be "on the floor" with everyone, during which they often host the big name speakers and do statewide business like ratifying the official platform. In 2014 the Texas GOP officially endorsed gay conversion therapy (I missed that vote), so sometimes shenanigans happen but in general if you have your heart set on a policy you can often affect enough voters by the time platform conventions are voted on (usually the last day). Also you can request the mic any time during debate if you want to speak in front of thousands of people.

4) National convention- A lady all the way back at my precinct convention told me she was actually a national delegate from Texas one time, but I'm unsure of how to get to the national convention from the state level.



That's the rundown. I think it's good reference for me to have typed this so maybe it will help someone take part in this process next time. It really is a lot of fun at the state convention- in 2010 I was 20 and on the 2nd night we went out downtown (it was in Dallas that year) to party, and in our group was a federal judge and he offered me a beer right away. I asked him if he knew I was only 20 and he told me that if I get a ticket, just let him know and he'll remove it. We then proceeded to get $#!!.

In 2014 I was invited to a party on the 1st night, but unfortunately my brother was graduating then, but it turns out Rand Paul was there so that would have been #$%! awesome. The point is- these conventions are both fun and good for crafting policy, and if you capably network you can move things in the right direction.
Suck it Bears.
Roger Goodell Phone: 212-450-2027
User avatar
texas
 
Posts: 2319
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:22 am

Re: The Sad State of the Modern GOP

Postby texas » Tue Mar 31, 2015 7:04 am

Waldo wrote:
texas wrote:Every election I get suckered in, only to see how the establishment GOP treats its liberty candidates. I know my profile pic may be Cruz (and I am facebook friends with him no joke), but Rand is probably my top choice


I'll never understand why Libertarians slant R more than D.



Well, luckily for you, I'll explain. Although I may be a bit biased since technically on those political ideology tests I am squarely halfway between pure libertarian and pure conservative.

Anyway, the main cause is size and influence of government, including various proposed bans. The GOP has a pretty large faction that wants to shrink the bureaucratic effect on everyone. I've always absolutely hated it when someone dumber than me makes a decision for me on my behalf. We despise the so-called GOP establishment, but at least the GOP has a fairly sizeable wing that actually does believe in shrinking all that is federal.

The democrats, at this point especially, don't even pay lip service to that anymore. A democrat cries out for tolerance and acceptance and "why can't you let me make decisions for myself?". That's all right and good until you do something they personally disagree with, and then they want to make a law to ban you from doing it. There's only one party with a loud faction openly calling for speech laws, and it's not the GOP.

https://handleshaus.wordpress.com/2013/ ... nd-purged/

In fact, go down the list of amendments, particularly the bill of rights. On pretty much all of them, the democrats seem to #$%! love impinging them and generally trying to stifle them. I'll grant you the 4th amendment. Bush stifled that one. Good thing when Obama got in he curtailed the practic.. OH WAIT NO HE MADE IT WORSE. #$%!.

I guess I'll return the question to you: I don't really understand how some people (definitely a minority) think that the Democrats are more for personal freedom. Case in point the recent Indiana Bill. In their efforts to "protect individual rights", they throw a tantrum when the GOP passes a bill reaffirming a business owner's freedom to choose who he serves. (Also they have a wing- the regressives, that would throw an absolute conniption fit because I used the word "he" in the last sentence instead of "he/she" or "zhe" or whatever the #$%! they're crying about).
Suck it Bears.
Roger Goodell Phone: 212-450-2027
User avatar
texas
 
Posts: 2319
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:22 am

Re: The Sad State of the Modern GOP

Postby Willink » Tue Mar 31, 2015 7:13 am

Waldo wrote:
texas wrote:Every election I get suckered in, only to see how the establishment GOP treats its liberty candidates. I know my profile pic may be Cruz (and I am facebook friends with him no joke), but Rand is probably my top choice


I'll never understand why Libertarians slant R more than D.

On issues that actually change to some degree (gov't intervention on social issues), D and L are quite compatible, heck often the L's are more liberal than the D's (see Rand vs. Hillary on a large slate of social issues, or even more extreme, Rand's dad).

L and D are far more aligned on international issues than L and R are. D's are far more non-interventionist than R's, who have a significant faction of warmongering among them (aka military-industrial complex corporate welfare).

D's are far more for individual freedom than R's, especially compared to the uber god people of the right, who seem to need to make laws for everything (just saw a bill introduced in one of the states that would mandate everyone has to go to church).

The police state is very much an R thing moreso than D thing (which likewise is very much not an L thing), though there was a blip in the 90's as D moderates were anti-crime enthusiasts that really pushed up the police state as R's were already enthusiasts, thus a point of agreement was reached (Bill Clinton doubled down on Reagan's police state, who himself doubled down on Nixon's). It remains to be seen where Hillary is going to align on this issue this time, but the police state question is one of the big contrasts with Obama and why he got the nomination, hopefully Hillary realizes D's have moved on since the 90's and the moderates that Bill captured with the move are no longer to be had. Also one of the reasons Biden, another police state enthusiast from the 80's-90's moderate D wave, stands no chance. Standard R's left to their own devices would have millions of laws and billions of police to arrest everyone breaking them, throwing the book at everyone, loading up the for profit prisons.

I can see why L's align with R's on $$ issues, but then again R's rarely ever actually follow their talking points and theoretical stance on $$ issues. Supply-side economic theory is surely not an L thing, though hardlining against tax raises is so there is some common ground. Likewise D's almost never follow their reputed stance on $$ issues, instead only raising taxes in extreme moderation and likewise being quite fiscally conservative, despite the tax and spend reputation that aligns neither with D talking points or actions, being little more than an R talking point.

Is it because of environmental issues? L's align with R's, but for totally different reasons. L's problem is with the rules themselves. R's problem is that the rules are preventing their donors from making more profit. The environmental regs and the economy tie in are largely a bunch of dung since it only affects a small subset of companies, most of whom are incredibly profitable already.

So why do Libertarians align with Republicans? One would think they would want to have no association whatsoever with the warmongering neocons or religious fundamentalists, both of whom are about as far from libertarian as one could be. Democrats seem to agree with Libertarians on a lot more issues, and where they don't there isn't nearly as much blatant difference.


The libertarian-republican connection is a leftover of the progressive era-takeover of the Democratic party in the early 20th century. Traditionally, the republican party was the graft, rah rah, special interest, imperialist party, favorable to the establishment of international prominence, directly related to its emergence from the Whig party, itself a re-establishing of the Federalist Party, one of the two major political elements in Americas founding. Until about 1900 the "democratic base" was pretty much "classical liberalism", e.g., small government, religious, anti-interventionism, usually pejoratively referred to as Buourbon Democrats until the William Jennings Bryan led "Pietist coalition" took over not only the dems, but also the republicans. With crazy protestant fundamentalists taking over both parties, the makeup of the parties went into limbo. Teddy Roosevelt/Woodrow Wilson's presidency pretty much destroyed the old burbon dems, in their aftermath what emerged as the "old right" carried the same mantel generally (anti-interventialism, free marketism) except positioned with a bit more emphasis on social conservativsm viz the earlier libertarian movement, but also being clearly anti-imperialistic, in stark repudiation to Wilsons desire to interfere all over the world as a dem. This movement further got hammered during the FDR presidency, but still maintained some influence, its last hurrahs probably being the new-right Goldwater combining libertarian social and economic positions with a war-hawk military stance. Emerging from that you have the unholy alliance you see today.


"Old school conservatives" in the above sense are pretty much dead. Even if you compare the GOP of the 1980s to present, the principled guys have been wiped out in contrast for neocon war-mongers (deficits don't matter Cheney), and the religious right hating all the gays, heavily emphasizing the war on drugs, etc. I think the strength of the L-R connection is based on similar notions of what government is (e.g., "limited" in a hard sense, by either the Constitution, normative morals (the non-aggression axiom), or the primacy of "liberty", personal responsibility, among others) . The religious right/neocons like to mimic the same phrasing, especially with regards to their own interests, but are generally very unprincipled. If you look at the entire history of the Republican vein of American politics its not principled in the first place, but the Dems of today bear no resemblance whatsoever to what they began as. That leaves the libertarians in philosophic limbo in a two party system. The dem-libertarian connection generally withered away after the Vietnam war over obvious economic differences.
Also I'd note the military warmongering faction infects both parties. Hillary is pretty much a war-hawk, and (for humors sake) Bush, almost amazing, initially ran on an anti-interventionist platform in 2000 in response to Bill sending troops all over the place (Kosovo, Somalia, bombing Sudan, continuation of military debacle of saction/no fly imposed after Gulf War). Even peace prize winner Obama has followed the Bush blueprint of unilaterally bombing countries illegally (Syria, Libya):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=37&v=n7SNuvbUKBM
User avatar
Willink
 
Posts: 770
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2012 5:03 am
Location: Rochester, New York

Re: The Sad State of the Modern GOP

Postby Willink » Tue Mar 31, 2015 7:35 am

texas wrote:I guess I'll return the question to you: I don't really understand how some people (definitely a minority) think that the Democrats are more for personal freedom. Case in point the recent Indiana Bill. In their efforts to "protect individual rights", they throw a tantrum when the GOP passes a bill reaffirming a business owner's freedom to choose who he serves. (Also they have a wing- the regressives, that would throw an absolute conniption fit because I used the word "he" in the last sentence instead of "he/she" or "zhe" or whatever the #$%! they're crying about).


Dems "personal freedom" seems to just be a repudiation of the stupidity of the religious right. Really, if you are to think of the examples, the three (or four) primary ones which come to mind are:

-gay marriage, religious right opposes on the grounds of "muh sanctity of marriage", which is nothing more than an appeal to tradition
-drug war, opposed by religious right on the basis that drugs are degenerate/detrimental the family unit, which also relies, like the above, on the appeal to tradition
-abortion, opposed on the basis of the evil of killing babies, "sanctity of life"
-as mentioned above I'm dubious of it, but the anti-intervention dem position is pretty similar to the libertarian position, but I don't think its clear how much it is an effect of a rejection of the militarism of Bush rather than actual philosophic posturing, especially with widespread Dem support for Obama's military adventures.

The abortion issue at least has some depth to it in terms of philosophic debate (see right to life, potential rational actor argument vs parasitic entity violating women right to bodily integrity), but the drug war and gay marriage libertarian positions, while aligning in effect to the dem position, center back to the fundamental libertarian views of government, namely, to leave everyone alone and let them do as the please provided they don't physically harm anyone. Clearly, that isn't the attitude of the dems, who see the govt as a panacea-esque instrument for tinkering with society. (As probably most notably articulated sarcastically by Anarcho-Communist Peter Kropotkin towards statist of both aisles, the idea that "laws" are a remedy of evil"). That attitude is probably best evidenced by the two most annoying groups of both parties; the religious right and the social justice wing of the Dems.
User avatar
Willink
 
Posts: 770
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2012 5:03 am
Location: Rochester, New York

Re: The Sad State of the Modern GOP

Postby Waldo » Tue Mar 31, 2015 3:03 pm

Willink wrote:The dem-libertarian connection generally withered away after the Vietnam war over obvious economic differences.


The thing is though, the D and R economic positions have changed dramatically since that time.

R talking points like to maintain that the D economic position hasn't changed since the 70's, but that just isn't true. With the moderate D wave that Clinton was a part of, fiscal prudence has been the plan, and if anything its gotten stronger since then. Even at the state level, fiscal restraint is very much the D plan. Most D's have the general rule that a budget can only increase at a rate slower than inflation, and upper income brackets bear the brunt of any tax increases (however only partially undoing the massive cuts to the upper income brackets R's were successful at achieving).

The R fiscal position seems to be a random hodgepodge of nonsense. Whatever their talking points, they rarely follow them (aside from not raising taxes). There is the deficits don't matter faction (not so much power at the moment, but includes all R presidents since Nixon), the vote buyers (see Bush II and medicare), the arguably insane (whatever the heck they are attempting to do in Kansas), etc...., the R position seems to be one of ideology, however extreme, over rational decision making, when rational decision making is brought to bear, they get primaried strongly.

Willink wrote:Also I'd note the military warmongering faction infects both parties. Hillary is pretty much a war-hawk, and (for humors sake) Bush, almost amazing, initially ran on an anti-interventionist platform in 2000 in response to Bill sending troops all over the place (Kosovo, Somalia, bombing Sudan, continuation of military debacle of saction/no fly imposed after Gulf War). Even peace prize winner Obama has followed the Bush blueprint of unilaterally bombing countries illegally (Syria, Libya)


Oh come on now, this is a hardcore false equivalence and you know it. Every time there is an inkling that a war could be politically possible, R factions press the issue as does their blah, blah, blah class (Faux News et al). The degree of military intervention between R's and D's is dramatically different. Heck when Obama refused to go all out against Syria, the right screamed weak coward. Hillary may be unusually Hawkish for a D, but she'd still be a dove as an R (it is hard to separate Hillary from Bill on this issue however).

You have to understand though that Hillary while a strong national presidential candidate, isn't particularly thought of highly by D's, she's just better than the alternative, which is at this point, the R slate. Obama beat her for good reason. But I suspect the D nomination isn't nearly as settled as its made out to be. Any reasonably decent D candidate that actually gets something going will have strong support. I think if John Kerry would try to run again (which he is quite against), he'd clean Hillary's clock in the primaries.

I mean, I (and a fair number of people I know) vote D, but would vote for Rand over Hillary; because frankly he's more liberal than Hillary is on most issues, especially the ones that actually have some chance of movement (the whole privatizing social security thing, while a nice talking point, is at best a pipe dream politically). But Rand stands little chance of getting the R nomination since he's not the Koch approved candidate, the Koch's private party is a good bit more powerful nationally than the actual R party, especially among R only politics. If Bernie Sanders running has any effect at all, it will be to make Koch funding even more of a liability in the general election.
User avatar
Waldo
 
Posts: 4985
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 3:01 am
Location: The ATL

Re: The Sad State of the Modern GOP

Postby Willink » Tue Mar 31, 2015 4:36 pm

Waldo wrote:R talking points like to maintain that the D economic position hasn't changed since the 70's, but that just isn't true. With the moderate D wave that Clinton was a part of, fiscal prudence has been the plan, and if anything its gotten stronger since then. Even at the state level, fiscal restraint is very much the D plan.


I don't really buy this notion. Speaking in particular about the dems in the 90s, a huge part of the "fiscal prudence" was sheer luck, e.g., the fact the Soviet Union collapsed, allowing the US to drastically slash its defense spending. The Clinton surplus was also an accounting gimmick (govt borrowed ~240 billion out of trusts, accounting for off-budget spending that pushed deficits in his most notable year [2000] to 17.9 billion dollars). I'd also add 90s economic growth wasn't sustainable in the least anyway given it was heavily dependent on huge increases in productivity (emergence of the internet, widespread practical use of personal computers), and Greenspan-era money printing exaggerating productivity and prices (Greenspan Boom) by pumping money into financial assets. This was especially the case in the late 90s after LTCM got bailed out and stocks went into the nosebleed section.

Plus its not like the Dems were out there fighting tooth and nail to fund things lol, thinking specifically of the 1995 Balanced Budget Amendment which failed one vote short of two thirds thanks to Dems:
http://www.civilrights.org/monitor/vol8_no1/art8.html


Most D's have the general rule that a budget can only increase at a rate slower than inflation, and upper income brackets bear the brunt of any tax increases (however only partially undoing the massive cuts to the upper income brackets R's were successful at achieving).


:dunno It's not as though Barry O proscribed to these notions of budget restraint.

The R fiscal position seems to be a random hodgepodge of nonsense. Whatever their talking points, they rarely follow them (aside from not raising taxes). There is the deficits don't matter faction (not so much power at the moment, but includes all R presidents since Nixon), the vote buyers (see Bush II and medicare), the arguably insane (whatever the heck they are attempting to do in Kansas), etc...., the R position seems to be one of ideology, however extreme, over rational decision making, when rational decision making is brought to bear, they get primaried strongly.


The R fiscal position is the religion of tax cutting, or as Stockman puts it "rank demagoguery":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XwSkeiDSEk

I don't disagree with you there, but, LIS, that is what happens when the GOP is run by the economically illiterate neocons who think massive deficits and unfunded wars don't impact the economy, and who simply handed over the Treasury to Goldman Sachs to run under Hank Paulson.





Oh come on now, this is a hardcore false equivalence and you know it. Every time there is an inkling that a war could be politically possible, R factions press the issue as does their blah, blah, blah class (Faux News et al).



lol, that's not false equivalence. I didn't say the Republicans weren't worse. Especially with the "weak America" angle they constantly prod out in support of expanding spending and troop deployment everywhere. Almost 40% of Dems voted for the Iraq resolution, even though the rationale was pathetically flimsy.


You have to understand though that Hillary while a strong national presidential candidate, isn't particularly thought of highly by D's, she's just better than the alternative, which is at this point, the R slate. Obama beat her for good reason. But I suspect the D nomination isn't nearly as settled as its made out to be. Any reasonably decent D candidate that actually gets something going will have strong support. I think if John Kerry would try to run again (which he is quite against), he'd clean Hillary's clock in the primaries.

I mean, I (and a fair number of people I know) vote D, but would vote for Rand over Hillary; because frankly he's more liberal than Hillary is on most issues, especially the ones that actually have some chance of movement (the whole privatizing social security thing, while a nice talking point, is at best a pipe dream politically). But Rand stands little chance of getting the R nomination since he's not the Koch approved candidate, the Koch's private party is a good bit more powerful nationally than the actual R party, especially among R only politics. If Bernie Sanders running has any effect at all, it will be to make Koch funding even more of a liability in the general election.


I don't know who the dems are going to run. Warren is a non-starter, noone else seems particularly enthusiastic after the hammering Obama/dems took with the new congress. What angle could they sell?

It's not like republicans are anything worthwhile anyway, only Rand really stands out.
User avatar
Willink
 
Posts: 770
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2012 5:03 am
Location: Rochester, New York

Next

Return to The Podium - PG13

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest