Senate The Future of the Republican Party

The suburban rich/rural stupid Republican coalition cannot hold. So it will change and evolve. Pitting the middle class against the poor as a diversion to serve the interests of the rich will almost always be a winning strategy.

 

Do you think this is partly because Obama has pushed the "left" to the "right" somewhat meaning the "right" have had to effectively radicalise in order to be able to draw a clear distinction? What would constitute "radical" democrat political ideology? Are there any democrats calling for the abolition of private property and the creation of a worker's paradise?

 

The person who pushed American politics to the right was Reagan. The fact that Obama is treated like the second coming of Lenin is not reflective of Obama himself, but of the skewed American perception of what left wing and right wing actually mean.

 

I'm not American so I may be misinformed but I was under the impression that Obama is considered to be "republican lite" rather than the epitome of Marxism/Leninism.

 

By informed people, i.e. not your average voter.

 

Only by people who are very liberal.

Even moderates view him as very left-wing.

Conservatives still think he's a socialist.

 

It depends on your perception of politics, but he's somewhere between center-left and center-right historically speaking. I mean, his biggest piece of legislation is Obamacare, which was modeled after the GOP's two-decade-long plan. It was only after he picked it up as a compromise over single-payer did it suddenly because radical socialism.

 

I think Obama never even considered single-payer from the start. He only wanted a public option (which he did manage to sneak in administratively).

 

Which in UK terms, would make him, I dunno, to the right of the Tories?

 

Whoops, I meant to write public option and not single payer.

 

i think he still wants single-payer. i mean isn't that the endgame of the aca? to grind all the insurance companies into dust, leaving only the public option?

he's a single-paya playa.

 

Biden claims that he has a long history of shooting, so he claims that it's not from ignorance. Feinstein endorsed Biden's comments (which suggest actions that are both dangerous and illegal) on using shotguns for self defense just last week. Representative DeGette of Colorado made some extremely idiotic claims during the recent debates on gun control. Representative McCarthy of New York has repeatedly introduced bills to ban guns with a barrel shroud (a protective cover around the barrel so you don't accidentally touch the hot metal), despite the fact that she admitted not knowing what it was (she claimed it was a "shoulder thing that goes up"). The list goes on and on.

As for the difference between extremism and ignorance, how much does it really matter? Were Todd Akin's comments on rape out of extremism or ignorance? (From the way he gave them, I would lean heavily towards ignorance.) Does it make it any better? Biden was a US Senator for 36 years before being elected to be only a heartbeat away from the Presidency. Shouldn't we expect that he have a greater amount of knowledge (and therefore be less ignorant)? Shouldn't he be held to a higher standard?

How is this not a double standard? When a Republican says something like that, it's proof of their extremism, but with a Democrat he's just an "eccentric uncle"? I don't remember any of you shrugging off comments from Palin, or even Bush as just being "eccentric".

 

Because he's a lot more likable than Republicans as a group. And I'm okay with the double standard because it means less people will accept what a Republican says. I like that they're faltering on almost every front except gerrymandering, which means they'll forever be victims of demographics. I'm not saying that the Democratic party is some bastion of goodness, but I will say that they're more likely to live in reality than your average Republican.

 

KK, given that Bush has rarely said any of the out - there **** many of the others in the current Republican party have said (I don't recall Bush ever saying anything as asinine as "Legitimate Rape" or "Death Panels"), I have many a time chalked off what he's said in public as "Eccentric." And I was vocal when I did think he said something that crossed the line (such as his proposal of a Constitutional Ban on Same Sex Marriage). Yes, he said stupid things, but most of the time nothing that I would call 'offensive' 'radical' or 'extremist'

Let's face it, the stuff Palin, Bachman, Santorum, etc., say oftentimes makes Bush look like the smartist person in the room.

 

The two incidents are being treated differently because they are wildly different.

Biden was in ad libbing at a public rally, to make the general point that "You don't need an automatic weapon to defend yourself." His tone, facial expression, and the crowds reaction all convey a mood of playful hyperbole. Further, nothing in his legislative record to date suggests any serious commitment to the specific substance of the remarks. He's never authored a "You Shall Not Pass" Gandalf Amendment to Stand Your Ground laws that allows you to shoot your shotgun through closed doors if you feel scared. Thus, the worst assessment you could make of his comments is that distorting facts about current self defense laws to support his argument on gun control. Which is the sort of thing that earns mild wrist-slaps from Politifact and related entities all the time.

By contrast, Todd Akin was in an interview, opinining sincerely on an issue that has direct and demonstrable impact on his legislative priorities. He questioned the existence of rape-related pregnancy while defending multiple bills of his that have operated on the premise that the existence of this phenomenon is fairly dubious. He proposed a framework that delineates rape into several subcategories of validity/victimhood after authoring bills which tried to make exactly such distinctions.

There was no double standard. Each speaker's comments were received in the spirit they were given. Biden, joking to support his position, had people laugh off the advice shotguns and understood him to be a proponent of gun control. Akin, talking seriously about policy issues that have been historically important to his political activities, was treated as if they would indeed inform his actions in office. Because that's what all the evidence pointed towards.

Likewise, this isn't some conspiracy. We aren't "calling" things extreme. The New York Times and Keith Olbermann didn't trick everyone into objecting to a statement they actually agreed with. His remarks were called extreme because they were, in point of fact, far outside the normal range of opinion. A full 64% of Missouri voters said his comment was important in determining their vote, and those people voted 3:1 for McCaskill. I should think that's pretty sound evidence for calling something extreme.

 

Biden claims that he has a long history of shooting, so he claims that it's not from ignorance. Feinstein endorsed Biden's comments (which suggest actions that are both dangerous and illegal) on using shotguns for self defense just last week.[/quote]

Feinstein simply said that one doesn't necessarily need a semi-automatic rifle for self-defense and that there are many other guns available, such as a shotgun. I don't really understand how that is an extreme position to hold.

I think there's a fine line that is often blurry, but I do think they are different and that it matters. Ignorant statements are those that a politician makes when they're really just misinformed on a policy or action. Extremism is where they stake out a fully cognizant stance on an issue.

Also, how is Biden's statement extremism but Akin's comment simply ignorance...yet you claim the other way around is a double standard? I mean, Akin was saying that he opposes abortion in cases of rape because women that get raped don't get pregnant because they have ways of shutting that down. Yes, it obviously ignorant because that's simply not true but he refused to backtrack afterward and it guided his abortion position, of which he had introduced bills prior under that belief.

 

I think one should give the benefit of the doubt to politicians and try to find a rational interpretation for their statements and actions.

I just watched a part of Akin's interview, and he doesn't seem extreme to me at all.

Obviously he was misinformed on this issue, but otherwise he seems like a normal, intelligent human being. It's not as if he was pounding his fist on the table, eyes bulging, shouting, "oh, the little slut must have wanted it then."

It seems like he was honestly reporting what he'd heard from doctors...

See what I did there? I gave him the benefit of the doubt and didn't read anything unsavory into his statement. You guys should try it some time. It feels great. Clean.

 

It seems like he was honestly reporting what he'd heard from doctors...

Which doctors are so misinformed about how the body works?

 

Shinjo, my point is how easily and inappropriately you seem to extrapolate your opinion, while at the same time, hold the other side to some sort of standard that you don't even apply to yourself.

My personal opinion, for example, is that Diane Feinstein is 100% more certifiably crazy than Rand Paul ever has been. Ditto for Harry Reid. Chuck Schumer. Patrick Leahy is perpetually one vein away from having a total aneurysm. Nancy Pelosi is supposed to be so "smart," but everything she says comes from a position of being misinformed. Al Franken represents the worst reasons to get into politics that there are. The list can go on and on. According to your arguments, these are the "standard bearers" for the democratic party, and as such, represent the leadership within. Is there discussion there? Absolutely. Is there value in simply providing a tit for tat list on who has the more crazy politicians? Not really. This is where KK's previous example is 100% correct. Because one will so easily dismiss " 'Ole crazy uncle Joe Biden" as being an anomaly within one party, but then make blanket statements about the other. But "ole crazy Uncle Joe" is the Vice President of the entire country.....That's quite a fluke. Or is he simply an example of failing upwards? Because if that's your standard, and blanket statements are the order of the day, then if the GOP is the party of extremism, then the democrats must be the party of mediocrity who cover for each other. I don't know which is worse.

If you saw any of the speeches given by all of the surviving Presidents at Bush's library opening, they all represented what I've been saying for years. All the Presidents came together, put their differences aside, and worked to uphold the office. Because they all recognized that every President has pride and humility, success and failure. If all of the living Presidents can come together and extoll the successes and failures of each other beyond politics, then regular schmoes on a message board should be able to.

And Merck, your observation is completely inaccurate. This is what you and KW can't seem to accept. You guys aren't recognizing that there is a difference between actually having an opinion and being completely partisan. KW will come in and say nothing but "just do whatever the democratic party choice is and it will be fine.." That's being partisan. Shinjo will say "all republicans are radical, but I can't find one democrat who is." That's being partisan. Those type of statements don't start a discussion.That's not a debate. Those are just binary statements formed out of party politics. At no time during my decade here will you ever dig a post of mine that just says "do whatever the GOP position is no matter what, and that's final." Because I've never been beholden to the party.

Let's see, I don't care about same sex marriage, and the GOP should let it be a state issue. I don't care about abortion. I think that everyone should have equal civil rights, but that government programs dealing with the issue have lost focus. I do favor 2nd Amendment issues, especially related to how the anti-gun side has framed their points while being completely ignorant about how guns work. I generally support a stronger military, but not an unlimited one. I support reducing government spending as opposed to endless spending, as I think most spending should occur at the lowest level of government possible. My list goes on and on depending on what the issue is. Some of those issues match up to the GOP, some match up to the democratic party, because I promote the idea that every issue is nuanced. So when you say something like "44, you only seem to defend republican issues," that's only because it seems like most of those people here who call themselves "democrats" engage in blanket statements. So when someone makes a statement like "all republicans are radical, but I can't find one democrat who is..." the reply back to me after I point out how absurd that statement is isn't "44, you're just being a party hack." Because I don't believe the opposite. I will never say that the democrats are full of radicals while there are none in the GOP. I think that both parties have strong politicians, and both parties have weak politicians.

It comes down to the fact that the problem with politicians is that they only have a single pool to recruit from... The human race.

 

There you go again...

As I said, you continuously moan that I don't give enough analysis for my statements, take quotes out of context or refuse to really have a thoughtful discussion. When I try, you just complain about it some more. Take my examples for what you will, but at least I provided articles with my statements and examples for positions I find GOPers to hold as crazy. You act indignant at my criticism of the Republicans about how I don't analyze the context of the quote yet come in and make absolute statements that Feinstein is 100% crazier than Rand Paul (I mean, at least DiFei doesn't base her economic theories off of a fiction novel). This is how our conversations usually turn out, so I expected it.

You complain I don't give enough analysis or thoughtful commentary to my examples, that I'm a hopeless partisan, and that I'm blocking any meaningful discussion while you continually allude any real examples but instead resorting to criticism of my partisanship or lack of context.

 

Shinjo, I made a comparison about Paul vs Feinstein as an example based on those specific people being mentioned. The discussion part is what I would personally like to see, but no discussion has actually occurred yet. I'm not indignant about your criticism about republicans at all. In fact, it's the opposite. I would welcome honest debate. It's just that you haven't given any criticism about republicans beyond blanket statements. Simply saying "all republicans are radical" isn't criticism...it's about the opposite of analysis, and it doesn't provide any basis for discussion.

My opinion that Feinstein is 100% more crazy than Paul shouldn't be considered the final word, no different than anything else. I did that to highlight the example. I mentioned these two because they were brought up before. But it highlights that there can be a difference of opinion. You can't say that Rand Paul is a radical and let it stand as some sort of final word on the issue, but then in the same breath conclude that you can't find anything about Feinstein that is radical at all. You have to realize that there are those who may think the opposite, that there are those who disagree, and every variation in between. It's like you treat statements like this as the final conclusion for the issue.

I think one the barriers to communication here is that you seem to view such statements in the final sense, were I look at them as the beginning of any discussion.

 

Then I'll reply at greater length, but until then, I'll just post this for no reason as well.

 

The "discussion" never seems to occur because rather than deconstructing my arguments or providing your own examples (as KK has done and there was a slight break for something close to a real conversation) you simply yell that I refuse to analyze the examples, take them out of context, and make blanket statements.

I mean, your only real example was the Pritzker case and after I explained my opinion on it to you, rather than offer a real reply, you yell that I justify it away because I refuse to except anything that makes the Democrats look bad when that was not my stance on that story at all. After I explained why I think that story is bullcrap, you just complain some more about my partisanship. When I ask you to provide real examples of crazy Democrats, you do make absolute statements with nothing to back it up. I may make them too, but I at least provide examples and articles to my claims.

If you spent the amount of time rebutting my claims and providing counter examples as you do complaining that I don't analyze or flesh a story out enough, we'd have something close to a real discussion. But I can't help but note that you seem to fall awfully short of what you are criticizing me for.