Senate The Future of the Republican Party

I have a sinking feeling that Santorum will bully his way into to slot, setting him up as the "next in line" should Romney win.

Peace,

V-03

 

Well, I didn't say Jan Brewer would be a wise choice

I don't see it being Santorum, though. The main question Romney has to obviously consider in choosing a running mate is where he is weak and what he wants to supplement. Obama choose Biden because he has strong blue collar roots and has a wealth of government experience to calm concerns over Obama's inexperience. Does he pick a minority to try and pander to those voters, or a populist, middle class Republican to make up for his wealth 'gaffes', or does he throw a bone to the far right that is uneasy about supporting him and pick a Santorum? Or does he play it safe and pick a Republican in his mold?

 

It's pretty obvious that there's still a problem with sexism and misogyny when women are the majority of the USian population but men are the only serious candidates for the Presidency and Vice-Presidency.

 

I doubt it, he has no connection to the GOP establishment.

 

Sexism is still a problem,but I think you are exaggerating in this case.

Four years ago, we had to women dominate the election season with Clinton and Palin. The problem this time around is there are no credible women in the GOP field (Democrat ticket doesn't count...) who can be consider for President or VP yet.

 

No. It's more like we need more women successfully running for Senator and Governor first. And from the ones we have, not many seem to have presidential ambitions.

List of female US governors: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_governors_in_the_United_States
List of female US senators: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_United_States_Senate
List of female US cabinet secretaries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_United_States_Cabinet_Secretaries

And did you not think that Hillary Clinton was a serious candidate for President?

Or Eleanor Roosevelt, if she had decided to run in 1948?

Do you think Condoleezza Rice wouldn't be taken seriously, if she were to run? Kathleen Sebelius? Janet Napolitano? Jeanne Shaheen? Jodi Rell? Linda Lingle? Kay Bailey Hutchison? Mary Landrieu? Lisa Murkowski? Maria Cantwell? Kirsten Gillibrand? Kelly Ayotte? Susan Collins? Amy Klobuchar? Maybe Susana Martinez, in 2016?

Not a chance. Rick Perry or Jon Huntsman would have a better chance at being set up as "next in line" by the establishment. The silence of endorsements for Santorum from his old colleagues, even when he was as his peak, is deafening.

 

Yes, the problem is moreso getting women into positions the positions they could then run for president from. And this is pervasive to society in general, I think, if you look at CEOs of Fortune 500 companies (I think 12 are women)?

Hillary was obviously as serious a candidate as any nominee...ever. Palin was successful and could have been a serious contender if she had decided to run. Condi Rice, Dianne Feinstein, and Kay Hutchison could all be strong candidates (in theory). Elizabeth Warren & Susana Martinez could be on the 2016 or 2020 ticket.

To echo Ghost, the problem seems to be more that there isn't enough in the position to run (Senator/Governor) and those that could be strong candidates don't run.

 

I also watched Game Change, and it was so cringe-worthy I had to flip away for a few moments. As to the accuracy of the book/film, Palin and McCain and their people all denounce it, while Steve Schmidt and Nicolle Wallace say it's pretty much accurate.

But yeah, Palin's problem was her ignorance of issues, not her lack of years in office. I've been saying for a while that Romney won't choose a "rising star" elected in 2010. But upon further reflection, he's probably already vetting Susana Martinez and a bunch of other top choices, and if a 2010er really shines in the vetting then he might decide to go that route. The best comparison would be Richard Nixon, who was elected to Congress in 1946, to Senate in 1950, and Vice President in 1952.

As I've said before, there are basically 3 choices:

1) A slate of white guys who are mostly boring or otherwise flawed. There's a high chance the Romney people will pin their hopes on the crappy economy and make the "safe" choice. Unlike in 2008, they won't view this as a certain road to defeat. The downside is that a guy like Rob Portman won't do much to inspire an already depressed GOP base. Bob McDonnell is a skilled member of this bracket but has some baggage.

2) Bobby Jindal, who a lot of people seem down on but I think would be an excellent choice. Upsides: young, Southern, a person of color, experienced, smart. Downsides: Like Romney, kind of a weird guy and an Ivy Leaguer. Career politician. Will turn off nativists/racists in some important states.

3) Various interesting people elected in 2010. Marco Rubio and Susana Martinez are mentioned most frequently, but there are a few others. This possibility is still really overhyped, but I do think there's a remote but real chance someone will impress the Romney people and get chosen. "Palin but without the ignorance and instability" is still a dream for a lot of Republicans, I would think.

 

You're not seriously suggesting that Palin had credibility are you?

 

Ugh, don't get me started on Bobby Jindal. He's gutting healthcare and education in Louisiana, and we're bottom five in the nation, but he refuses to consider raising taxes because that's political suicide. I've been busting my ass for four years now and consistently finish in the top quarter to top ten in my department, but due to budget cuts, there haven't been any raises (not even to keep up with inflation) since I arrived, and *further* cuts are coming. I only earn extra money by nearly doubling my workload (tenure track faculty have a 4/4 load plus research, publication, and University service; I'm teaching a 6/2/6 load plus research, publication, and University service). He's an empty suit more concerned with maintaining his political status and ideology than he is with effective governance.

 

Well, gutting services is kind of a strong point for a Republican. But it's always good to hear from the people within the state in question.

With regards to women in politics, I definitely admire Sarah Palin's efforts in 2010 to push more Republican women into elected office. Three of her endorsees became the first female governors of their states; two others lost by very narrow margins in their primaries. In a couple cases, she took heat from the right wing of the party for endorsing insufficiently conservative candidates.

 

Ugh, don't get me started on Bobby Jindal. He's gutting healthcare and education in Louisiana

Actually, according to the Louisiana Board of Regents, this isn't true, at least for education:

2013 (which begin July 1) higher education budgets, including those for LSU institutions, are being held steady by replacing lost state funding with tuition increases and self-generated funds. The Louisiana Board of Regents this week is scheduled to release its proposed distribution for higher education funding.

REGENT INFO HERE

The governor doesn't control the budget allocation for the Louisiana State University system, the Board of Regents does. Now, to be fair, all but one on the Board of Regents is appointed by the Governor for staggered year terms, so there would presumably be some shared views, but the Board of Regents itself is still an independent body. (The last member is appointed by the state legislature) At any rate, funding for the university system is being held at current levels. While that isn't an increase (is any budget being increased these days?), it's certainly not being gutted. But at any rate, the Governor's office doesn't have a direct say in it anyway. I don't expect you to discuss your salary on the forum, but the salary range for LSU professors is published as a matter of public policy:

HERE

Associate professors earn about 70,000 (some less, some more) Full Professors start there and go up to past $100,000. And professors who have an endowment earn about $160,000-$170,000.

 

44, I'm in the system, and those numbers (salaries) are not accurate - they only reflect LSU salaries, and I don't teach there (most don't; I'm in the ULS system). Additionally, I *guarantee* humanities professors at Louisiana state colleges do not make the same amount as business professors (at either public or private colleges - my salary as an assistant professor is $45,000/year) - I would *love* to be making that much. And the idea that 2013 $$$ being higher (which would be news to *all* of us in Louisiana education, considering your source explicitly stated LSU funding) is not proof that the past 4 years have not involved gutting public education at most other educational institutions, and *we've* been pushing for tuition increases constantly (where I teach has one of the lowest tuition rates nationally). Even a 25% increase in tuition is not going to significantly impact our funding - a majority comes through the state. I see your website and raise you actually living through the policy outcomes, which include many two and four year institutions having to conduct massive internal audits to see the number of degree completers and graduates, which have produced staff reductions (my University has been lucky so far in that faculty cuts have been avoided, but non-faculty haven't been so lucky), department consolidations, and degree program eliminations. My University alone has lost ~$10 million in funding over the past 4 years. And hey, fun fact, some universities have had to strip all faculty of tenure, making them able to be fired without cause (which some universities have done). And do not underestimate the amount of influence the governor has on the Regents - this is a corrupt state, and political appointments carry high degrees of influence. The mandatory ethics training on conflicts of interest we have to go through every year is pathetic.

You don't work in the state educational system in Louisiana, 44. Looking at a website or two isn't giving you an accurate picture of what's going on down here. Jindal is focused on propping up LSU at the expense of other schools, and is gutting education and health care in the process - these aren't constitutionally protected, so they're the first on the chopping block.

 

Well, my point is that the Governor himself really doesn't have a direct role into those decisions. It's the Board of Regents which controls the allocation of the funding. You have a point in that it's true that the Governor appoints those who sit on the board. But each member has a staggered term(with the last member being appointed by the legislature removed from the Governor). According to the state Constitution, one regent has to be drawn from each of Louisiana's 7 Congressional Districts, to prevent one area from dominating over the others. So, by design, it's not like the Governor, any governor, can just appoint all of their friends or campaign contributors. So if the State Board of Regents is focusing on LSU to the determent of others, that's the focus they're giving, from across the entire state.

You don't work in the state educational system in Louisiana, 44. Looking at a website or two isn't giving you an accurate picture of what's going on down here. Jindal is focused on propping up LSU at the expense of other schools, and is gutting education and health care in the process - these aren't constitutionally protected, so they're the first on the chopping block.

This is true, I don't. But you shouldn't dismiss my knowledge either without knowing my connection to the issue. My family has been personally involved with at least one major Louisiana education lobby issue, and fought quite hard I might add, so it's not like I'm just blindly picking stuff off the internet, removed from the situation. Again, since we both know the procedure, I'm not sure how you're concluding that Jindal, and Jindal alone is "propping up LSU," since the governor doesn't have a direct say where that money goes. The state legislature even allocates the overall education funds, not the governor. It's true that the state has cut back on overall funding, to which the Regents then issue out and initiate alternatives. But there isn't a gutting going on to education in general.

My issue isn't with the situation in Louisiana, it's that you're taking the most minor piece (ie the Governor) and focusing on it for political reasons. When 1)- the Board of Regents allocates funding across the state, and therefore has the most influence. 2)-The state legislature determines the overall budget that is turned over to the Regents, so are second in influence. Finally, 3) there's the governor, who guides policy through things like appointments and vetoes and such, but who has the least amount of direct influence on the matter. There are many pieces involved in the puzzle, not just a single political point.

 

Believe me, 44, I know what the system is on paper. And I'm telling you that in practice, it is entirely possible to work within this system to affect ideological policy goals, as this administration has done. Responsibility goes up to those in power, like Jindal.

Jindal has more sway over state policy than any other individual, and this sway includes budgeting for healthcare and education (directly and indirectly), both by announced policy objectives and less public means. And you *cannot* ignore that public education has seen cuts every year for the past four that Jindal has either championed or approved. I have never claimed that he is acting unilaterally, but that has clearly been his policy objective.

But you don't know the situation in Louisiana, 44, by your own admission. Your family was involved in advocacy for an educational issue? Great, but that doesn't make you feel the brunt of four years of budget cuts, or knowledgeable about the influence that Jindal wields on this issue (directly and indirectly), or what impacts this has at a state level. Your opening post on this issue was about LSU funding, which suggests you didn't know that there are multiple higher education institutions in the state, or that you felt that what was true for one system was true for others. So, bottom line is, I appreciate your limited experience and can authoritatively say that the issue is much more complex, but Jindal is still the overall guide for this policy focus. He's hardly the "most minor piece" - he's the overall guide and architect for the future of Louisiana.

 

Quix, again though, you're basing everything on your own perception.

Using your example, Federal money given to Louisana's higher education has been flat for every year Obama has been President. (It seems this administration's priority is primary education assistance, which has actually been increased) Is one automatically caused by the other? Would it make sense for someone to come in and make a blanket statement which said "Obama is to blame for Louisiana's university teachers not getting a raise?" That's exactly what you're doing with the governor. There's only so much money that goes around. In a way, it's accurate, eh? Does that mean Obama is "gutting higher education?" Why or why not? Because it's is a completely partisan sentiment, and doesn't address the actual process.

Again, within Louisiana, the Regent's board assigns how funding is allocated across the state. Federal assistance, state financing, individual tuition, and everything else is allocated by the independent's Regent's board across the state. You're right in that I'm not aware of every level of the Louisiana state system. I kind of assumed that LSU was used as a guideline across the state. Could the 2 systems merge in order to streamline operations? I don't know. But if the board is focusing on LSU and its institutions, that's the priority at least one representative from every one of Louisiana's districts from across the state is focusing on right now. Because according to the board's own statement, even though a shortfall is being addressed, different methods are being used make up the difference. It's just that whatever finances are available are being more tightly divided up. If you look at this budget analysis (you may have to scroll down to the higher education section), it looks like 32 states have enacted differing proposals to cut and/or re-calculate the allocation for higher education. So Louisiana isn't alone in this regard:

Arizona, Florida, Kentucky, New York, Rhode Island, Indiana, New Mexico, Washington, Alabama, Maine, New Jersey, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virgina, California, Connecticut, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Utah, Vermont, Kansas, and Colorado.

In other words, it's hard to fault a state for cutting X amount out of a budget, if that budget is X amount in the red. If you really wanted to get partisan, this might be another time to suggest that back in the beginning of his term, the Obama administration probably should have focused its energy on coming up with a comprehensive economic stabilization package, instead of blunting the momentum by focusing on long term health care reform, which isn't taking effect until 2013, 14, 15 and beyond anyway. Things could be better in 2015, it's just that we all have to get there first. Maybe it's not even an either/or process, but you probably would have liked a $10,000 raise in salary, instead of free birth control pills...

 

This was the first google hit, take what you want from it: http://www.nola.com/education/index.ssf/2011/02/louisiana_universities_bracing.html

And remember this discussion should stay on the issues and not get personal.

 

Today is a busy day for me, so this will probably be the only response I can write, and I don't have time for a point-by-point addressing of 44's response (especially when he tries to deflect the reasoning away from Jindal's approach to higher ed and brings up irrelevancies about Obama and other states; Obama is on record seeking to increase attendance at 2-4 year colleges and technical schools; Jindal is actively cutting funding to higher ed *when he doesn't have to* - see below).

Some quick reading for those interested in what Jindal has been doing in Louisiana.

Higher Education and Health Care consistently cut

Highlights: Jindal doubled the tax cuts of the previous administration (killing revenue) and refused to access emergency funds designed for such short-falls.

$146 million in possible budget cuts to higher education.

Highlights: The legislature created the commission, and Jindal told them to look for nearly $150 million to cut from higher education.

This has been the pattern for him since he took the governorship. 44, give up on this one. I know you will do everything in your power to make the elephants look better, but your usual "See what I did there"-type nonsense is smoke and mirrors, and you know it. This guy ran on a platform of protecting higher education, but has consistently targeted higher education and health care (again, we're in the bottom five nationally for both) and refused to raise taxes to increase revenues because of partisan ideology.

 

Well, it was called the stimulus, the auto bailout, and several other pieces of legislation that proved to help stabilize the economy. And the jobs legislation, oh which Republicans blocked.

And the health care pill was about much more than "free birth control pills" which is so idiotic that even if it was meant as a joke it isn't even relevant enough to be funny.

And it's not "hard to fault a state for cutting X amount of a budget when that budget is X amount in the red" because raising taxes should always be on the table. The money has to come from somewhere, but Republicans refuse to acknowledge it's a possibility because they're held to some idiotic pledge by Grover Norquist that makes that impossible. Raising taxes should never be the automatic answer, but it's, in fact, sometimes times less harmful than other options. I live in Pennsylvania, and Corbett is ruining our education system - he's cut federal funding to our state schools (Pitt, PSU, Temple) by almost half and is gutting primary education systems as well. There is a school district in PA where teachers are going without pay. My younger brother lost a $3,000 grant from the state for private school, which meant my parents had to pay out of pocket to make up the difference. My mother works at a college and she sees students that aren't able to come back because they can't afford the difference in loans after they lost state assistance or public university's had to raise tuition prices. And this is all because Corbett refuses to raise taxes. Taxes aren't inherently evil despite what Grover Norquist says...

 

This has been the pattern for him since he took the governorship. 44, give up on this one. I know you will do everything in your power to make the elephants look better, but your usual "See what I did there"-type nonsense is smoke and mirrors, and you know it. This guy ran on a platform of protecting higher education, but has consistently targeted higher education and health care (again, we're in the bottom five nationally for both) and refused to raise taxes to increase revenues because of partisan ideology.

It's not making the elephants look good, it's simply acknowledging the system as it exists. Well, I guess from your viewpoint, it would seem that I'm making the elephants look good, but that's only as a single response to the "the governor sucks" point. There are 3 layers of government that you've even mentioned yourself, across the entire state, but for some reason, the sum total of your argument seems to be "the governor is "gutting" education," while ignoring the other 2 branches. The legislature could attempt to override the cuts if that's what it wanted. The Regents could also allocate the finances differently.

The complaint here seems to be that Louisiana State is getting the lion's share of limited resources divided out by the education board. But it seems like Louisiana has 2 competing state university systems. I don't think that's typical, but I'm not completely sure. Did ULS used to be a group of private institutions that grouped together under a state system in 1974? If in fact, LSU and ULS are competing for state funds, that complicates matters even more. Maybe what Louisiana needs is to reform its state run higher education system? I mean one can see immediately that LSU has a stronger nursing, health sciences, and biomedical focus, but yet these are duplicated under the ULS schools as well. ULS has a stronger business and education focus, and so on. Does it make sense from a financial standpoint to have 2 competing state supported nursing schools, for example? But the bottom line is still that the Board of Regents allocates the funds.

 

Under the direction of the governor (via appointment and political direction), and apportioned by the legislature (which receives direction by the governor - e.g., the instruction to find $150 million to cut because the governor has ruled out higher taxes to generate revenue). I'm not ignoring the branches of government, 44, I'm accounting for them in the larger system overseen by the governor, who has decided to gut higher education (see the linked articles). Fixating on the last paragraph and ignoring the supporting evidence demonstrates that your argument doesn't have merit, 44. Everything you've produced to try to justify your position has been shown to be fallacious or misleading, but you are suggesting that the critics are suffering from perceptual biases? Publicly available documents and statements demonstrate that this isn't "just my perception". Be honest and acknowledge that.

EDIT:

Clarity.

 

Under the direction of the governor (via appointment and political direction), and apportioned by the legislature (which receives direction by the governor - e.g., the instruction to find $150 million to cut because the governor has ruled out higher taxes to generate revenue). I'm not ignoring the branches of government, 44, I'm accounting for them in the larger system overseen by the governor, who has decided to gut higher education (see the linked articles). Fixating on the last paragraph and ignoring the supporting evidence demonstrates that your argument doesn't have merit, 44. Everything you've produced to try to justify your position has been shown to be fallacious or misleading, but you are suggesting that the critics are suffering from perceptual biases? Publicly available documents and statements demonstrate that this isn't "just my perception". Be honest and acknowledge that.

No, because neither of your own links indicated this is the case. Your first link, which by the way, isn't a news article, but even lists itself as a self-described opinion column, marginally supports your claim, but does so in a non-causal way..ie "When Jindal first entered office in 2008...." Yeah, then the country...and the world.. experienced a recession, and all sorts of financial decisions had to be made. Again, I'm not arguing that Louisiana isn't being subject to budget cuts. All sorts of states are experiencing budget cuts. I'm saying that the system in Louisiana is set up so that the overall state board allocates the funds which are given to it by the legislature, after as you said, is given a focus by the governor. Each piece fits into the puzzle. You can't take one out in isolation, as it's the state's version of checks and balances. The legislature doesn't have to follow the governor's recommendations, and it can recommend cuts in other places. It didn't. The Regents board can prioritize whatever funding it wants within the state system. It gave the focus to what it choose to. I think what it comes down to is that Louisiana might not be able to afford 2 competing state higher education systems, but you didn't address that at all.

You second link simply lists an opinion by the executive director of the Louisiana Workforce Commission, and it doesn't mention the governor at all except to say that he's identified the shortfall, and turned it to the board to decide. (which is the way the system is set up) In fact, the chairman of the commission is listed as Ben Nevers, (Democrat-Bogalusa), who is also chairman of the state Senate Education Committee. I don't personally know Senator Nevers, but if he's a prominent democrat and chairman of both the workforce commission and the Senate education committee, I don't know how much credence to place into your claim that "everyone is beholden to the governor." If both democrats and republicans are coming together to address the shortfall, I'm still not sure how your blanket statement of "the governor is gutting education" is accurate?

 

Hey, I have some time before I hit the gym.

Except that I pointed out that *on paper* the Regents is an independent entity, but *in practice* it reflects political appointments and the governor's interests. The Regents have been *very* hesitant to approve tuition hikes for my system, and they have been *very* in line with Jindal's philosophy about how higher education is to be pursued in Louisiana. Again, 44, you're an outsider with very limited exposure to how these decisions are *actually* being made, so your *theoretical* objections are meaningless when they hit *real world* politics. You keep saying "The model says X,", and when I point out that the reality is Y, you are falling back on the defense that "But the model says X." That's not a defense or a rebuttal.

The budget cuts to higher education could have been off-set by funds available for this type of emergency. They weren't. Jindal could have raised the tax rate to off-set the cuts. He refused. Well over $600 million in tax cuts for the rich preceded this budgetary shortfall, more than half of which came from Jindal, which could easily have covered the budget shortfalls in higher education and healthcare. He refuses to restore taxes to the original level.

These are publicly available, real world facts. You need to deal with them, rather than point to the way things are *supposed to* work.

 

Ok, Quix, now I'm confused. You're highlighted portion, well, highlights exactly what I've been saying, and which illustrates how each branch of the system works...

Gov. Bobby Jindal has directed the group to identify $146 million in possible budget cuts as the state prepares for years of likely budget shortfalls resulting from stagnant revenues and rising costs.

The legislature appointed the panel.

Yes, exactly. The legislature appointed the panel as the system is set up. check and balance #1.

Jindal then told the panel to find him nearly $150 million he could cut from it.

Yes, exactly. Because of budget shortfalls and such. The governor proposes the amount based on what the state has available. The panel can go along with the governor...Cut more, cut less...Allocate where the remaining money goes. check and balance #2.

The legislature can direct the cuts somewhere else or attempt to override the governor (assuming he issues a veto). Check #3.

Your very own post details how each branch operates with the other to produce the final outcome. It's a multi-branch, multi-party system, which is almost the exact opposite of you simply repeating "it's the governor's fault...it's the governor's fault..." over and over again... I don't know what else to say.

 

I haven't followed this debate in detail, but I do see some of what Quix is saying in one respect. Principally, part of Quix's original criticism was the refusal to consider tax increases as part of a budget solution. So it's not as if he's refusing to acknowledge the realities of state finances. Instead, at least some of the time, he is criticizing Jindal's priorities. In that those are Jindal's personal preferences, I don't see what's unfair about such an attack.