U.S. Politics 18

[Shryke]

That's just a labelling issue. You can toss around right and left all day, but the terms are meaningless without the context of where you view the center.

It's more about where the voters see the centre to be. Frum has been saying that the GOP is too far from it and losing the centre because of it. You can move left and still stay to the right of centre. I mean really, the GOP has become a party where Nixon would be a lefty.

And you completely missed Frum's point on Health Care.

He was talking about rhetoric and how it lost the GOP any chance at effecting the health care bill. If your rhetoric is too extreme, if you say "Health Care reform is 100% evil in any form and so are the Democrats that push for it!" then you make it impossible for you to negotiate and get some of what you want in the bill. And that this is especially important when the other guys can pass it without any help from you if they really want.

Basically, you can't negotiate with Hitler, so don't call your opponent Hitler.

And stop playing the "There's never been support in the GOP for Health Care Reform" crap since we've already shown multiple times that the bill they passed on it is very close to what the GOP itself proposed not long ago.

[The Progressive]

And stop playing the "There's never been support in the GOP for Health Care Reform" crap since we've already shown multiple times that the bill they passed on it is very close to what the GOP itself proposed not long ago.

Lol, I can't believe that disingenious hack keep bringing this up despite how many times he was owned on it. And like a broken record, he will insist that the GOP proposal from the 90's were not genuine, and/or it was not supported by the majority of Repubs, and was only a political ploy by the Repubs to foil the reform proposed by the Clintons.

Just watch. ;)

[Jon Sprunk]

I'm simply talking about the political realities of asking private sector employees who lost much of their own retirement to pay higher taxes to ensure that public sector employees get their full pensions.

First, public employees pay taxes, too. So everyone would be paying more, not just the thou-art-holy private sector.

Second, public employees typically work thankless jobs for less money than their private sector brothers and sisters. Many of them do it because of the benefits and pension plans. (If this doesn't tell you what's wrong with corporate America, you fail the course.) I can't speak for the entire nation, but here in rightward-leaning PA, the public benefits have been getting worse and worse for the last 10-20 years. On top of that, the state and some local govts have been cutting jobs and instituting wage freezes. Now you want to take away contractually-obligated pension benefits? (Funny how a conservative always chooses the most vulnerable segments of society to pay for mistakes made at the top of the food chain, but I digress.)

So, with low pay, mediocre (at best) benefits, and no guarantee of a pension after a lifetime of work, who do you think will be attracted to public sector jobs? (I know you have only contempt for the public sector, but play along for a minute, will you?) Only those who have no choice. The most vital parts of our society -- police, fire, social services, penal -- will be in the hands of the desperate, the under-educated, the drug-addicted, and the felonious.

You want a solution? I think elected officials had better eliminate their own pensions before they touch state or local employee pensions.

[Shryke]

Fiscal Conservatism at it's best:

The military's controversial "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which is set to be rolled back in the coming months, expelled 3,664 service members between 2004 and 2009, costing U.S. taxpayers roughly $193.3 million, according to a new report from the Government Accountability Office.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/20/dont-ask-dont-tell-gao-cost-2004-2009_n_811741.html

[Commodore]

Frum is the very definition of a stooge, the journalistic equivalent of an internet concern troll.

If we wasn't a "concerned conservative" ankle biter, no one would care what he has to say.

But I guess he makes a living at it, so there's that.

[Shryke]

:lol: Frum was a US Conservative golden boy for over a decade until he dared speak out against the GOP's strategy on Health Care. Then he suddenly became a stooge overnight.

Calling him a "concern troll" or "conservative ankle bitter" just shows an incredibly selective memory.

[Altherion]

Again, it may not be "the same". I'm simply talking about the political realities of asking private sector employees who lost much of their own retirement to pay higher taxes to ensure that public sector employees get their full pensions. The shortfalls we're talking about here are not minor -- they're well in excess of $1T and growing, and not distributed evenly by state. So regardless of how "right or wrong" it may be, the question is how that shortfall is going to be met.

I agree with you that something has to give, but I don't see why it has to be the pensions of the public sector employees. Money is fungible -- in fact, as your article says, the states consistently shortchanged the plans in times both good and bad which is what led to this situation in the first place. Again, if the state is going to confiscate the property of a minority of its citizens, there are other groups that can better afford it. Alternatively, it can play by the rules and either raise taxes or cut discretionary spending or both.

[The Progressive]

Frum is the very definition of a stooge, the journalistic equivalent of an internet concern troll.

If we wasn't a "concerned conservative" ankle biter, no one would care what he has to say.

But I guess he makes a living at it, so there's that.

:laugh:

Didn't you often cheered Frum for his support of the Iraq war and occupation under Bushie?

The tune sure has changed now that Frum is no longer towing the GOP line, lol.

[darkone]

I just wanted to ask about the elections. Who do you guys think will win the republican nomination for president? Will it be Huckabee? He seems to be the top pick thus far but I wanted to hear what others think.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

And you completely missed Frum's point on Health Care.

He was talking about rhetoric and how it lost the GOP any chance at effecting the health care bill.

And I'm having some serious deja vu right now.

I know that was Frum's point. He's just wrong in any meaningful sense. There was no need for Democrats to compromise with Republicans at all because they had enough votes within their own party. Liberals within Congress were pissed as it was that they had to give up the public option, etc. How would they have reacted if more compromises to appeal to conservatives had been made at the expense of the progressive agenda? And why should the President and Pelosi -- herself as liberal as it comes in the House -- piss off their own liberal base to appease conservatives? Frum's point only has some validity in a non-existent scenario where Democrats needed GOP votes. In the real world, it's nonsense.

Frum's smart enough to know that now, but he's arrogant enough not to want to admit that he was wrong to begin with. So, because that's the position he took initially, he keeps clinging to his ridiculous "they should have compromised" position when there is no rational reason to believe Democrats would have made the bill "better" from the GOP perspective in any significant way.

Opposition to the health care bill -- which would have looked substantially the same regardless of whether the GOP had signed on because the Democrats didn't need to compromise -- helped elect a GOP Senator from Massachusetts. It helped the GOP in November by drawing a distinction between the GOP and Obama. In fact, had the GOP followed Frum's advice and hopped on the bandwagon, I think it's pretty certain they'd have done much worse. The Tea Parties may not have existed in any meaningful sense because they wouldn't have had a core issue around which to rally. And certainly, they wouldn't have backed so many Republicans. In fact, had the GOP not opposed ObamaCare, I really can't think of a reason why Republican voters would have cared all that much about 2010.

And stop playing the "There's never been support in the GOP for Health Care Reform" crap since we've already shown multiple times that the bill they passed on it is very close to what the GOP itself proposed not long ago.

No, it's not. But seeing as I've already twice chased that particular myth back down into its hole, I'm not going to take the time to do it again.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I thought I did address this. His "policy loss" is based on the unsupportable assumption that the the Democrats would have made meaningful concessions and made the bill more conservative if only the GOP had cooperated. But as I said above, there's no reason to assume that because the Dems on the left, including the Speaker herself, had no reason to make the bill more conservative in any meaningful sense.

[peterbound]

But there's a huge question with Romney. I think most of the top brass in the GOP believe that he's the most "Presidential" and that he would have a good chance of beating Obama if he could face him. But he is going to have a Helluva time winning GOP primaries because their base believes that Obamacare is the worst thing ever. Well, Obamacare really is similar to "Romneycare" and he's going to get slammed by his GOP opponents for this. He's their likely best chance at winning the Presidency, but he may have one of the more difficult paths to getting the nomination.

Palin's donner than done. This whole Gifford debacle on her part has destroyed any shot she's had with the independents. The hard core 'tea party' loons may still stick their necks out for her, but i don't see her moving past that small pool.

As for Romney. The above mentioned is a great point, and i'm sure the DNC will hit it hard during the campaign season. I think you are missing the huge elephant in the room though. That which is going to hurt him with his own base. The fact that he is Mormon. The independents may not care (they are pretty open minded about such things), but many of his own party (the religious right) have some serious concerns about his faith, and they vote on such things. These people are going to make no distinction between him being a Mormon and Beck being a Scientologist. To them it is both a strange and 'un' christian cult.

Just a quick search on the interweb produces a generally intolerant opinion of most christians about the Mormon faith:

http://www.contenderministries.org/mormonism/bomproblems.php

http://www.gotquestions.org/book-of-Mormon.html

http://www.religionfacts.com/mormonism/comparison.htm

http://www.catholic.com/library/Distinctive_Beliefs_of_Mormon.asp

These links should not be used as fact. Rather they just give a quick over view of some of the beliefs that christians have about the faith. The fact is that this will be a HUGE issue for Romney to overcome during the primaries and if he moves on to the actual election. Especially if he doesn't try to address the various issues people have with his faith. The 'there is no test of religion for the office of the president' line just isn't going to work.

He'll continue to refuse the questions, because answering them would prove how fucking loonly toons his faith is (although this same logic should apply to any other faith, but that's just me).

[Old Nan]

So that pompous blowhard Olbermann got axed. Too bad O'Reilly can't follow him.

And look what we have here:

This is war. (5+ / 0-)

[...]

I'm not giving up until I've exhausted every... (2+ / 0-)

And giving them once cent of my money is not using all my weapons.

Oh, I do declare I feel faint. How awful to use such violent language!

[Shryke]

Yeah, Peterbound has it right. Romney has both ObamaRomneycare and Mormonism hanging around his neck, along with the general sense (at least last time) that he was completely fake.

The thing to remember with the GOP primaries is they tend to really snowball FAST and they are winner-take-all. This means picking up an early lead can clinch you the title before most votes have been made.

And finally, Primaries are not for the general electorate. They are for the hardcore base, which could pose serious problems for the GOP. It's unknown at this point how this Gifford's tragedy and Palin's reaction to it has effected her view among the GOP hardcore base. If she runs and it hasn't dimmed their view of her, she could take it. And then very possibly get crushed in the general, which is why the GOP party leaders are scared shitless of her and were already preparing to counteract her months ago.

The end result is the GOP primary looks to be a fucking circus.

[Andriy Czarchenko]

I thought they changed the early primaries to proportional.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Mr. Broken Record reporting for duty.

Don't overlook Mitch Daniels when it comes to the GOP primary. If he chooses to run, he'd have a decent shot in the primary and might have the best shot of the lot in the general election.

[Commodore]

Right now my list is probably

Daniels

Cain

Pence

Pawlenty

Huckabee

Bachmann

[TrackerNeil]

I forgot to mention him. It's a good point. The Economist had a piece on him a few months ago entitled "Run Mitch, Run." The funny thing is it reminded me of an Economist piece in 2007 saying that the GOP should not discount McCain as a candidate (this was at a time when McCain was perceived to be "done").

Mitch Daniels reminds me of Fred Thompson and Wesley Clark: looks good on paper but doesn't really perform well as a candidate. Maybe he'll do well come the primary, but I have my doubts.

[Shryke]

I forgot to mention him. It's a good point. The Economist had a piece on him a few months ago entitled "Run Mitch, Run." The funny thing is it reminded me of an Economist piece in 2007 saying that the GOP should not discount McCain as a candidate (this was at a time when McCain was perceived to be "done").

The problem is that I don't see the Tea Party backing Daniels much, and I think the Tea Party is going to be a huge factor in these primaries. That is why it seems conceivable that a Palin or a Bachmann could actually win. As was pointed out, these primaries are only among 'Republicans, a huge % of which are showing up to rallies bashing the government while on government-funded oxygen tanks. It's really hard to predict what will happen.

Aye. Getting through the primaries looks, right now anyway, like it will be a game of who gets the Tea Party backing.

[Maltaran]

Query from an outsider - is there a chance that some of these presumed frontrunners might hold off until 2016, in order to avoid having to go up against an incumbent? I mean, losing to Obama in 2012 would probably be the kiss of death if they tried to run again 4 years later, and IIRC no-one's run for one of the two main parties in the general election for a second time after losing the first since Nixon.