U.S. Politics XL--Double Down it

[Nymeria Sand]

I don't know much about Thune or Daniels, to be honest. I looked up Daniels and he seemed like a reasonable candidate based on his resume (not that I'd vote for him, of course, but he doesn't seem like a joke). But thinking about this a bit, I may have to walk back my agreement with your earlier post, and here's why.

If the 2012 election is going to have at least Romney, Huckabee, and Santorum, with perhaps Ron Paul and undoubtedly some sort of drama featuring Sarah Palin whether she chooses to run or not, I wonder what fund-raising opportunities and airtime will be available for an unspectacular second-tier candidate. All of the most prominent Republican candidates have prominent flaws that individually should probably keep them from winning the nomination. But together they could easily suffice to crowd out a more qualified but lesser known second-tier candidate. In that situation, I think it's hard to say which candidate who doesn't have a shot will get the nomination.

Oh, Good God, did you mention Rick Santorum? We voted him out for a reason. He makes Huckabee look like a liberal, for Christ's sakes. This is a man who thinks that the right to privacy doesn't apply to homosexuals--in his view, the right to privacy prevents the government from regulating consensual acts among adults.

And the GOP supposedly wants less government interference? Who are they kidding?

And here's what he said in 2005 about the Church's sex abuse scandal:

It is startling that those in the media and academia appear most disturbed by this aberrant behavior, since they have zealously promoted moral relativism by sanctioning "private" moral matters such as alternative lifestyles. Priests, like all of us, are affected by culture. When the culture is sick, every element in it becomes infected. While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm.

And his book "It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good" is pretty scary.

Conservatism and the common good. Now there's a contradiction in terms!

On second thought, run him and Sarah Palin on the same ticket. Guaranteed win for the Democrats.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Oh, Good God, did you mention Rick Santorum? We voted him out for a reason. He makes Huckabee look like a liberal, for Christ's sakes. This is a man who thinks that the right to privacy doesn't apply to homosexuals--in his view, the right to privacy prevents the government from regulating consensual acts among adults.

And the GOP supposedly wants less government interference? Who are they kidding?

And here's what he said in 2005 about the Church's sex abuse scandal:

And his book "It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good" is pretty scary.

Conservatism and the common good. Now there's a contradiction in terms!

On second thought, run him and Sarah Palin on the same ticket. Guaranteed win for the Democrats.

I believe I was the one who mentioned him first as a likely candidate, and said that he "can't win". Peter was just responding to my listing him as a candidate. Not as an endorsement -- by either of us -- but simply as a listing of people who likely will run for the GOP nomination.

[Lord Mord]

To what extent were those members of each major party "breaking ranks" to work for civil rights legislation when it was passed, in the examples being presently quoted? Or was breaking ranks not really a viable concept in that time, because the parties were not so insistent then on lockstep messaging?

[Nymeria Sand]

I believe I was the one who mentioned him first as a likely candidate, and said that he "can't win". Peter was just responding to my listing him as a candidate. Not as an endorsement -- by either of us -- but simply as a listing of people who likely will run for the GOP nomination.

No, I know. :) I wasn't taking issue with what either of you wrote at all. Just the mention of that man's name makes my blood boil, that's all.

[Commodore]

Why are you guys falling for the leftist race baiting on this board. They always characterize political opposition as racist, it's the worst thing you can accuse someone of and it's their m.o.

Just ignore it and realize it's indicative of a side losing the debate. Calling entire swaths of the electorate racist without evidence loses its effectiveness with every charge.

The TP movement has nothing to do with race or culture. It's about individual liberty, limited government, economic freedom.

1. Protect the Constitution

Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does. (82.03%)

2. Reject Cap & Trade

Stop costly new regulations that would increase unemployment, raise consumer prices, and weaken the nations global competitiveness with virtually no impact on global temperatures. (72.20%)

3. Demand a Balanced Budget

Begin the Constitutional amendment process to require a balanced budget with a two-thirds majority needed for any tax hike. (69.69%)

4. Enact Fundamental Tax Reform

Adopt a simple and fair single-rate tax system by scrapping the internal revenue code and replacing it with one that is no longer than 4,543 wordsthe length of the original Constitution. (64.90%)

5. Restore Fiscal Responsibility & Constitutionally Limited Government in Washington

Create a Blue Ribbon taskforce that engages in a complete audit of federal agencies and programs, assessing their Constitutionality, and identifying duplication, waste, ineffectiveness, and agencies and programs better left for the states or local authorities, or ripe for wholesale reform or elimination due to our efforts to restore limited government consistent with the US Constitutions meaning. (63.37%)

6. End Runaway Government Spending

Impose a statutory cap limiting the annual growth in total federal spending to the sum of the inflation rate plus the percentage of population growth. (56.57%)

7. Defund, Repeal, & Replace Government-run Health Care

Defund, repeal and replace the recently passed government-run health care with a system that actually makes health care and insurance more affordable by enabling a competitive, open, and transparent free-market health care and health insurance system that isnt restricted by state boundaries. (56.39%)

8. Pass an All-of-the-Above Energy Policy

Authorize the exploration of proven energy reserves to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources from unstable countries and reduce regulatory barriers to all other forms of energy creation, lowering prices and creating competition and jobs. (55.51%)

9. Stop the Pork

Place a moratorium on all earmarks until the budget is balanced, and then require a 2/3 majority to pass any earmark. (55.47%)

10. Stop the Tax Hikes

Permanently repeal all tax hikes, including those to the income, capital gains, and death taxes, currently scheduled to begin in 2011. (53.38%)

I was at the Tea Party in Tucson, AZ. There were no signs about abortion nor gay marriage or affirmative action or any other cultural issue. It was AZ so there were some "close the border" types, but half the people with those signs were hispanic. The coworker I went with was Vietnamese. The keynote speaker was black.

What's interesting was how philisophical many of the signs were. Alot of them had quotes from the founding fathers on the role of the state. Alot of them quoted portions of the constitution. Some people had signs with graphs of the deficit or entitlement spending.

This movement is a grass roots protest about the relationship between the individual and the state. To try and characterize it as something else is dishonest.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

More stuff out on the Tea Party: - a whopping 80% of TP supporters have done nothing to support the movement. No rallies, no money donated.

So the overwhelming majority of Tea Party "supporters" haven't been to a Tea Party at all? If that's the case, then a poll that measures that attitudes of "Tea Party supporters" really isn't getting at the people who actually attend the Tea Parties, is it?

Just ignore it and realize it's indicative of a side losing the debate. Calling entire swaths of the electorate racist without evidence loses its effectiveness with every charge.

Well, there were a ton of Tea Parties yesterday due to it being tax day, so I'm sure people will soon be posting tons of video, photo, and audio of the racist, homophobic things that occured.

ETA:

There was a controversy a couple of weeks ago because some big companies announced large write-downs based on certain provisions in the health care bill. Dem. Henry Waxman scheduled hearings at which those CEO's were going to be called on the carpet and forced to prove their outrageous claims.

Looks like he rather quietly cancelled those hearings, though. Apparently, it finally sunk in that the companies were correct. As this article points out, it was pretty disingenuous of Waxman to claim that that the companies were lying about the tax implications of the bill given that the elimination of the tax credit was specifically intended to raise that tax revenue.

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/04/14/video-barton-blasts-waxman-for-intimidation-attempts-on-obamacare-cap-and-trade/

[TrackerNeil]

Just show me some mainstream Republican politician that is against equal rights for blacks. Republican offcial political ideology is in fact remarkably consistent on this matter - equal rights for everyone. I don't recall any prominent todays Republican advocating return to Jim Crow laws.

Many Republicans, however, oppose marriage rights for homosexuals, and oftentimes they oppose laws that don't go quite so far as marriage but guarantee inheritance and hospital visitation rights. Many also oppose adoption rights for gays as well. That's not Jim Crow, but it ain't equality, either.

I must say that quoting Republican sentiment from 1964 is...well, a bit outdated in terms of where the party is today regarding race. Michael Steele admitted the simple truth that black officeholders often have a slimmer margin of error, and from the Republican response you'd have thought he proposed...well, legalizing same sex marriage.

[TrackerNeil]

This movement is a grass roots protest about the relationship between the individual and the state. To try and characterize it as something else is dishonest.

I am certain it's a sheer coincidence that the teabaggers were silent when George Bush and the Republicans were expanding entitlement programs and funding war and tax cuts through deficit spending, but flipped their lids when Barack Obama pushed through an entitlement program that will actually cut the deficit.

Edited to add: Where were these teabaggers when our government started torturing people and warrantlessly wiretapping and detaining people indefinitely? Hell, our government still does these things under Obama, yet the only thing these fools can complain about is health insurance reform. The tone of the tea parties is decidedly anti-Democratic and pro-Republican, and as such can be reasonably - and honestly - characterized as something other than a philosophical movement about the relationship of the individual to the state.

[TrackerNeil]

On second thought, run him and Sarah Palin on the same ticket. Guaranteed win for the Democrats.

Oh, I quite agree. I would love to see a candidate with negatives higher than Hillary Clinton's team up with a former senator who lost his last election by eighteen points to take on Barack Obama. In fact, I'd buy tickets to that show.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

I am certain it's a sheer coincidence that the teabaggers were silent when George Bush and the Republicans were expanding entitlement programs and funding war and tax cuts through deficit spending, but flipped their lids when Barack Obama pushed through an entitlement program that will actually cut the deficit.

Of course it isn't coincidence. Obama is a democrat. They did the same thing when Clinton was in office. They are anti-democrat.

[Horza]

Apropos of which - I sat in on a rightwing (it was naturally American, but that's another story) IRC channel back in early 09 - it was fucking funny watching all the the sane right wingers bitch at all the lunatics fucking with their shooting sessions by buying up all the ammo in anticipation of the Looming Obama Massive Gun Ban

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Apropos of which - I sat in on a rightwing (it was naturally American, but that's another story) IRC channel back in early 09 - it was fucking funny watching all the the sane right wingers bitch at all the lunatics fucking with their shooting sessions by buying up all the ammo in anticipation of the Looming Obama Massive Gun Ban

I know a lot of people who wouldn't vote for a republican if you put a gun to their head that started buying up guns and ammo 6 months before the election when it looked like the dems had it locked.

I love republicans because whenever a republican is in office, they chant USA USA and whenever a democrat is in the office they predict the end of the Consitutional Republic This Country Was Founded On, when really, the republic that they think they want died under a republican administration. That of Abraham Lincoln (instituted the income tax, suspended habeas corpus, domestic spying, prosecution of political opponents, etc etc.).

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

"Justice" under Obama: Torture captives, spy on citizens, engage in rampant waste? No problem, we "look forward not back". Tell people about it? The full weight of the law comes down on you!

Aside from the indefensible fact that only crimes committed by high-level Bush officials -- but nobody else -- enjoy the benefits of Obama's "Look Forward, Not Backward" decree, think about the interests being served by this prosecution.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I love republicans because whenever a republican is in office, they chant USA USA and whenever a democrat is in the office they predict the end of the Consitutional Republic This Country Was Founded....

Purely for the sake of historical accuracy, the "U-S-A" chant was popularized during the Administration of Jimmy Carter, during the 1980 Winter Olympics in Lake Placid.

Republicans are accused of being more supportive of military aggression overseas, more likely to view the U.S. as superior to other countries, more likely to support a more unilateral foreign policy, and more jingoistic in general. So of course you're more likely to hear that chant by Republicans about other Republicans because they're the more nationalistic party.

Just as an example, a story like the one about President Obama's recent trip to Kazakhstan doesn't exactly inspire "USA" chants:

....President Obama said Sunday that the United States is still "working on" democracy and a top aide said he has taken "historic steps" to improve democracy in the United States during his time in office....

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/04/11/obama_were_still_working_on_our_democracy

I'm not quite sure what "historic steps" he's taken, but he pretty clearly thinks democracy had a long way to go in this country before his election. Not exactly an attitude that will inspire the "U.S.A" chant, I would think.

[Zelgrath]

Skimmed the last few posts and didn't see this.

In a move hailed as a step toward fairness for same-sex couples, President Barack Obama is ordering that nearly all hospitals allow patients to say who has visitation rights and who can help make medical decisions, including gay and lesbian partners.

The White House on Thursday released a statement by Obama instructing his Health and Human Services secretary to draft rules requiring hospitals that receive Medicare and Medicaid payments to grant all patients the right to designate people who can visit and consult with them at crucial moments.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Skimmed the last few posts and didn't see this.

My question. How does the president have the authority to do this? Hell how does congress or even the hospital have the authority? How does anyone with the exception of the patients themselves (or their immediate executor) get the authority to regulate who can visit them? What a retarded law.

[Shryke]

:rofl: Wow. Man, I know Modern History is terribly covered in pretty much all schools, but this is pathetic. I expect better of you guys. (Ok, maybe not. Some of you are pathetic shills, divorced from reality and history)

Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

READ IT. LEARN.

Shit, just read this quote from Nixon political strategist Kevin Phillips:

From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that... but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.

Jesus people, the Southern Strategy isn't a theory. They didn't even fucking try and HIDE what they were doing. (It's hilarious seeing you try and turn around the Atwater quote btw)

Bringing up the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as refutation just shows your monstrous ignorance. 1964 was what CAUSED the shift. It exists BEFORE that realignment.

Or really, it might be more accurate to attibute it to the Goldwater campaign, which saw the rise of the South as a GOP power-centre and "States Rights/anti-Civil Rights" began it's rise to power in the GOP.

The GOP's actions in the wake of that is when the real party of Lincoln died. Since then, they've been using racism and bigotry to round up votes.

[Alcibiades]

To be fair, there was more going on in realignment than racism. At the end of the day, the south traded conservative democrats for conservative republicans. To pretend race didn't play a strong role in this is a whitewash of history and more than a little bit naive.

[Shryke]

So the overwhelming majority of Tea Party "supporters" haven't been to a Tea Party at all? If that's the case, then a poll that measures that attitudes of "Tea Party supporters" really isn't getting at the people who actually attend the Tea Parties, is it?

Except those people are, as you pointed out, a minority. Which is pretty much true for any group.

You still aren't contradicting the fact that those people who support the Tea Parties agenda are .... well, I've already shown enough polls about what they are. You just don't like to hear it because it pops your little bubble.

[Mad Monkey]

Great. Now Big Government is telling hospitals who they can and cannot allow in to gawk at patients.

I'm not quite sure what "historic steps" he's taken, but he pretty clearly thinks democracy had a long way to go in this country before his election. Not exactly an attitude that will inspire the "U.S.A" chant, I would think.

How do you get that from that article? All he said was that "we are still working on our democracy". And is he wrong? We've had Bush v. Vera, McCain-Feingold, bilingual ballots controversy, the pre-clearances issue related to the Voting Rights Act, and Citizens United v. FEC among many others. To imply that the democratic process hasn't faced significant controversy or hasn't changed significantly even in the past 15 years would be ridiculous, and I don't think that anyone who is personally interested in this issue would ever make that argument, on either side of the political spectrum. Yes, the media doesn't cover voting rights stuff (unless they can make it look like corruption, such as alleging that Bush stole the election in 2000 or that Obama is some kind of secret Muslim non-citizen) but that doesn't mean that this stuff isn't as important as the stuff that does get coverage.

Now, obviously the U.S. isn't even in the same category as Kazakhstan, but I think we all know that.

My question. How does the president have the authority to do this? Hell how does congress or even the hospital have the authority? How does anyone with the exception of the patients themselves (or their immediate executor) get the authority to regulate who can visit them? What a retarded law.

What are you talking about? I think the federal government has at least some authority over Medicaid and especially Medicare.