Senate The Future of the Republican Party

Part of it is that the Republicans are simply more uniform in their ideology - iirc, something like 70 percent of their support self identifies as "conservative", whereas it is more like 11 percent with the Democrats and "liberal"

 

That may have something to do with the demonization of the word "liberal" and how conservatives love to throw it around like a slur.

 

There isn't any comparable behavior in the Democratic Party. If you can prove me wrong, then go for it 44. I'd love to see what examples you come up with. I don't, however, see Democratic Senators or local elected officials repeatedly engaging in radical behavior in the cases above.

Shinjo, you're still missing the point. I concede that you believe that there are simply no radical democrats. I don't know what to make of it, but I accept it. I will never be able to convince you that there are any democratic senators who engage in such behavior, (which was your phrase) because you're simply not aligned to accept any examples I could provide. If your response is to simply repeat over and over that you think "you are right," then you've won the debate. I don't know what you've won, but you have whatever it is. You could ask me to prove what you have in your pocket right now, and you would win that too. But those are silly debates without purpose. But it doesn't matter, because we both know that's not the reality. That there are plenty of extreme politicians who are come from either party, and in fact, there are politicians who have all sorts of individual views.

You can certainly continue to link to random stories that you think show how wacky republicans are, and you'll get the couple of predictable replies which e-back slap and chortle about how stupid they are. Great. If it brightens you're day, or makes you feel better, or something along those lines, go for it. It's just not really examining anything, nor does it lead to any kind of broader understanding.

 

I'll play ball. Who are these "Radical democrats" that we would be unwilling to accept as legitimate examples?

 

in the past he's pointed desperately to dennis kucinich when pressed. lol

 

Really, has that actually been the extent of what I've ever posted?

I'll put a list in alphabetical order of just the Senators so it's easy to follow:

Baldwin, Tammy
Baucus, Max
Begich, Mark
Bennet, Michael
Blumenthal, Richard
Boxer, Barbara
Brown, Sherrod
Cantwell, Maria
Cardin, Ben
Carper, Thomas
Casey, Robert P., Jr
Coons, Christopher
Durbin, Richard
Feinstein, Dianne
Franken, Al
Gillibrand, Kirsten
Hagan, Kay
Harkin, Tom
Johnson, Tim
Klobuchar, Amy
Lautenberg, Frank
Leahy, Patrick
Manchin III, Joe
McCaskill, Claire
Menendez, Robert
Mikulski, Barbara
Murray, Patty
Nelson, Bill
Pryor, Mark
Reed, Jack
Reid, Harry
Sanders, Bernie
Schumer, Charles
Shaheen, Jeanne
Stabenow, Debbie
Tester, Jon
Udall, Mark
Udall, Tom
Warner, Mark
Warren, Elizabeth
Whitehouse, Sheldon
Wyden, Ron

This is quite an extensive list of radical democrats. Why, the entire party must be full of crazies. And wouldn't you know it, representatives and other offices haven't even been mentioned. Man, is there even a single rational politician within government?

Maybe I'll just start providing random articles without commentary which describe how crazy everyone on this list is...Nah, I'd be linking to articles until next year, and that's a lot of work.

 

44, you don't simply get to shake your head and call me a partisan while refusing to provide examples because I will dismiss them. Your Pitzer example, if it was a real example or a red herring I don't know, was pathetic as it proved nothing. It's common behavior in politics.

My stance is that the current GOP is extreme and radical. They primary sitting members who are not conservative enough (Christ, Lugar, etc). Two of their Senate candidates made insane comments about rape. The above examples of torture, enemy combatant and burning of a UN flag. Their intransigence of no new revenues. Allen West claiming that a number of Democrats are secretly communists. Michelle Bachmann. Rick Santorum. "Death panels." Cruz's treatment of Hagel and Friends of Hamas.

You can sit there all you like and sigh and pretend I'm some naive partisan hack, but at least I will provide examples to back up my claims. Simply because X is happening in the GOP does not mean that there has to be an equivalent with the Democrats.

 

Wait, what did all those Senators do that make them so radical? The links are just to their websites.

 

How is Tammy Baldwin "radical?"

 

44, if nothing else, self-assessment and personal testimony ought to stand as evidence. A number of Republican Senators openly advertise how much more radically conservative they are than anyone else, and their disdain for the present system. That phenomenon just isn't as popular or prevalent among the Democrats. Who is the Democratic Rand Paul or Ted Cruz? There isn't one. The Republicans are more radical because they want to be more radical, and because they say they are more radical.

 

Meh. The better answer is that they are more radical because they can be.

 

I didn't "examine" the stories or "explore" the context because there wasn't really a need. The headlines typically spoke for themselves. Disagree? Okay, then prove me wrong and pick one of those where I was cherry picking a headline.

Do they represent the entire GOP? I don't know about every registered R, but when a good number of your elected officials are doing crazy things I think it speaks for the party as a whole. You don't get to have more than a few Senators, Representatives, and Governors saying utterly insane and radical things while pretending they're irrelevant.

And we can go over the Pritzker - or local poll worker - story again if you wish, but they're pathetic examples of an equally "radical" Democratic Party. And I definitely did not say "I might not agree with that maybe...One story doesn't apply....You have to look at the specifics." You cited Obama appointing a campaign donor as his Commerce Secretary to prove...something? That the Democrats are crazy I guess...

But, yes, it's all because I'm partisan and can't see the light 44.

 

Also the Democrats seem to distance themselves, even to the point of harming their party's electorial chances at times, if there's even a whiff of scandal or if it reflects on the party in a bad light, (Clinton, Carter, and Ted Kennedy were all ostrasized at various points by their party - in Clinton's case, I do believe that holding him at arms length for as long as they did after he left the Presidency did play a role in Bush and the GOP holding power for as long as they did in the early 2000's.). And if their candidates wash out in the primaries or the general Presidential election, oftentimes they don't get another chance to get back into the game. Kerry, for example was never seen again as a viable Presidential candidate after the swiftboating (Hilary though, will likely be the exception to that rule in 2016).

This current GOP seems to embrace it's crazy as well as the idea of making the 'runner - up' the heir apparent to the Presidency. Also when we point to who represents the Democratic Party, we all naturally point to Obama, Reid, and Pelosi. Lately the representatives of the Republicans seem to be Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck.

 

Just because you disagree with someone, doesn't make them radical. When people say that Republicans are radicals these days, that's because what they're espousing, ironically in the name of preserving the Constitution, is actually antithetical the framer's intentions.

 

44, you are a total partisan, as am I. The difference between us, among other things, is that I am completely open about my partisanship, while you still pretend, even after a decade, (and no doubt longer in real life) to be some kind of objective spirit, comparatively free of partisanship. You are a Republican to the core, and your posts reflect this. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, of course. It's just that you try to act otherwise, and this informs your posts because you try to sigh in disapproval about the partisanship of others. It is nonsense and always has been. DS77 gave a terrific critique of this back in October, when he dismantled your posts about me.

 

Guys, what you're all still not getting is that I'm screwing around with you. Yeah, for that list, all I did was copy and paste the Senate Congressional leadership roll call. Are some of those Senators radical democrats? Are some not? I have no idea. Some I like, some I don't... But what no one has done is actually define what it means to be a "radical politician" and that's my point.

Because using the standard you guys are so adamantly defending, I shouldn't have to prove any of my claims, it falls to you guys to "unprove" whatever I say. What you've been saying up until this point is that just because something is posted by you means it gets to stand on its own. So yeah, I shouldn't have to provide discussion, or analysis, or examination either, right? None of you should be as defensive as your posts seem to indicate. But it's annoying eh? How can Billy Bob post a statement like "70% of one group is this, while only 11% is another way, without providing any kind of actual poll, knowing that 50% of all stats are made up, and even pretend that it represents any kind of rebuttal, knowing his reaction to other things posted? Or Shinjo, what makes my example a "red herring," while you treat all your other examples like they're some sort of truth even though both are lacking any definition?

What would be so wrong with simply providing a story, examining what the facts are surrounding said story, and coming up with some sort of understanding about what is going on in it? The controlling factor, not even posted by me is that "just because you disagree with someone doesn't make them radical." Yeah, I would say that about sums it up.

 

It all depends on what subjects you want to focus on.

For example, Joe Biden has repeatedly given "advice" on firearms and self defense that isn't just ineffective, but downright dangerous (to both you and others) and illegal. (Comments like how you should step on your porch and fire both barrels of a shotgun in the air to scare off intruders, or shoot a shotgun through the door.) Dianne Feinstein's comments on the subject aren't that much better. (I can list a lot more elected representatives who happen to be Democrats on this subject, if you like.) On that subject, their advice shows that they are completely clueless, and yet those comments get ignored and they are treated like experts.

The fact is that there are ignorant people on both sides who haven't let that ignorance get in the way of pushing their ideology.

 

44, your problem is - and always has been - that you are indignant over any criticism of the Republican Party while pretending to be some thoughtful, independent critic. You complain and whine that I and others do not give enough context or analysis for our statements, but you continually allude giving any evidence of your claims. I've repeatedly told you why I think the Pritzker story was bullcrap, and rather than counter my explanation you whine that I "justify it away" after I explain again you question why I called it a red herring.

You act offended and scream "partisan" when I say the GOP is overflowing with crazies and shout how I'm blind to all of the crazy Democrats but when I ask who they are you simply say I won't believe you anyway.

You simply continue to reiterate the same criticism over, and over, and over again without any real new argument. I get it - you think I'm a naive, staunch Democrat who can't see the crazies in my own party but jump over anything a GOPer says and that it is really just out of context. Fine, then give examples or deconstruct my own statements. But you continue to whine about how I don't provide enough context or analysis (when I believe the articles I posted typically speak for themselves) but yet refuse to dismantle my claim (I explained repeatedly how the Pritzker story is taken out of context) without providing a shard of evidence on your behalf.

KK provided examples, so thank you.

 

I must confess that I'm unaware of any Feinstein comments on gun control that I would deem radical. Left-wing, yes, but nothing that I'm aware of that is completely outside the mainstream or crazy talk.

As for Biden's comments, are those statements out of radicalism / extremism or are they out of ignorance? I'm not defending them, as I think they're stupid, but there's a fine line between extremism and ignorance. For example, I would label Romney's "47%" statement as ignorant and distorted but not radical.

 

Also, it's Biden. He's like that gregorious, eccentric uncle who tends to say off the wall things from time to time.

 

The current republicans are the ruination of this country.. They vote down things that the vast majority of americans want to have happen. The voice of the people must mean doing the exact opposite of what the overwhelming majority wants.

 

Untrue. I offered the standard of the elected officials' own self-branding.