A Problem of Shrinkage

Here's an article on a recent Pew survey:

Quote:

---

The results also suggest that the public recently has rejected the GOP for poor performance, not because it disagrees with the party's positions on key issues. That means beleaguered Republicans looking to rebound must convince voters they are still good stewards of those values while improving the GOP's image and morale.

---

To which I respond "DUH!". Again, America is a right-leaning country. Voters didn't reject conservatism, they rejected the GOPs failure to follow it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Again, America is a right-leaning country.

---

They were repeating this sentence nonstop on Fox for about a month. I think it depends entirely on how you choose to define "right," a nebulous term at best. Almost as bastardized and ill-defined as "conservative" and "liberal," words that have been twisted into pretzels in the last three decades.

I think Americans are more moderate and nuanced on the issues than either party would like to believe. From the article you linked:

This group hews more closely to Democrats than Republicans on social values, religion and national security. But it also is more conservative on several key issues including the economy, partly because of steady defections from the GOP, and more skeptical than two years ago of expanding government assistance, a typically Republican position. More in line with Democratic thinking, most independents support expanded government intervention and regulation in the private sector, albeit reluctantly.

Does that mean "center-right"? If so, why?

That said, the latest polls are not good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

They were repeating this sentence nonstop on Fox for about a month. I think it depends entirely on how you choose to define "right," a nebulous term at best. Almost as bastardized and ill-defined as "conservative" and "liberal," words that have been twisted into pretzels in the last three decades.

---

Finally someone who understands me.

The political language has been turned into nonsense. These shorthand terms for very complicated and nuanced political viewpoints have been abused beyond recognition. I refuse to identify as right or left wing, because those things no longer have any meaning that can't be twisted to mean its exact opposite. I know it's the same tired debate procedure "well first we have to define our terms..." but to be frank, we no longer have any terms I can relate to.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

As an aside; all I hear from Fox is attempts to define and re-define everyone and everything. Those aren't conservatives they are Neoconservatives. Those aren't Democratic party members, they are Democrat socialists. In spite of a recent election where the moderate/liberal gets elected by a good margin, we're a "right" leaning country. America is a "Christian" country even though we're officially secular. Obama is a "fascist" for returning the tax rate to Clinton-era levels. Everyone besides Christian conservative Republicans are "un-American".

I grow weary of the rhetoric, along with the abuse of language.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

That said, the latest polls are not good.

---

And with the RNC's continuing descent into madness, it's probably not going to be getting better any time soon. They need to fix themselves quick, I'm going to need someone sane I can vote for once the Dems get drunk with power (i.e. 2010).

In general, I do believe the US to be mainly center-right (in the classical sense). And Fox will continue to bang this drum to spin things. The problem is that the GOP doesn't represent the center-right, right, or even the far-right, they just have everyone thinking that they do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

In general, I do believe the US to be mainly center-right (in the classical sense).

---

But what does that mean? "Left" needs something to be left of, and "right" needs something to be right of. America is "center-right" in relationship to what? America? Does that even make sense?

Was Genghis Khan more "right" than Mussolini? Was Pol Pot more "left" than Castro? How can you even use such soft and nebulous descriptors and hope to express anything that has meaning?

I think saying "America is a center-right" country means this, precisely: "Yes, we lost the last election very badly, and our party is in eclipse, but more Americans agree with us than with anyone else, so everything's going to be okay."

Nothing more, nothing less.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

To which I respond "DUH!". Again, America is a right-leaning country. Voters didn't reject conservatism, they rejected the GOPs failure to follow it.

---

I disagree (As I can assume you knew I would :wink: ). Take a look at the following chart that shows American opinions on certain economic issues (Social issues will come later - but I have to leave soon):
https://i141.photobucket.com/albums/...rach/517-2.gif
There is still strong support of regulation of businesses and more people are beginning to believe it does more good than harm. There is HUGE support for the Government making health care affordable - showing a rejection of free-market values, while at the same time the voters making it clear that they do not want the government becoming *too* involved. However, the most telling quote comes from the Pew Survey results release statement:

The public continues to be of two minds in its opinions about both government and business. Business generally, as well as Wall Street specifically, is viewed as playing a vital role in American society, but both are viewed as excessively concerned with amassing profits. In addition, although support for government assistance to the poor has declined, opinions about the government itself – whether it is wasteful and inefficient, whether it is run for the benefit of all – have moved in a positive direction.

But anyway I really have to go now, I'll be back to look at the social issues - where there is no way someone can claim America has moved to the right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

But what does that mean? "Left" needs something to be left of, and "right" needs something to be right of. America is "center-right" in relationship to what? America? Does that even make sense?

---

In that more Americans self identify as conservative than liberal. It's really as simple as that. If you drew a line chart of it, the biggest lump would be right of center. :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

And Fox will continue to bang this drum to spin things.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

all I hear from Fox is attempts to define and re-define everyone and everything.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

They were repeating this sentence nonstop on Fox for about a month.

---

Ok, I've got to ask: What's with the Fox obsession? I didn't mention it or link it and yet the next three replies all attack it. Is this the new "Fox News" defense debate tactic I've heard about? Can I retaliate with the Chewbacca Defense ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

In that more Americans self identify as conservative than liberal. It's really as simple as that. If you drew a line chart of it, the biggest lump would be right of center. :yes:

---

What someone labels themselves as and what someone actually believes can be remarkably different. Look at the above table - note that 48% of Republicans want government regulation of the market in some way! How is that at all conservative?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

In that more Americans self identify as conservative than liberal. It's really as simple as that. If you drew a line chart of it, the biggest lump would be right of center. :yes:

---

Sounds plausible, but I haven't seen a poll that supports it.

This poll shows Independents, Dems and Repubs, in that order. As for "conservative" and "liberal," words you use as though they had a commonly accepted definition (they don't), let's see the data. You've made a straight factual assertion, so I'm assuming you have something to back it up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Ok, I've got to ask: What's with the Fox obsession? I didn't mention it or link it and yet the next three replies all attack it.

---

When you repeat a well-known Fox News talking point verbatim, people just might notice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Sounds plausible, but I haven't seen a poll that supports it.

This poll shows Independents, Dems and Repubs, in that order. As for "conservative" and "liberal," words you use as though they had a commonly accepted definition (they don't), let's see the data. You've made a straight factual assertion, so I'm assuming you have something to back it up.

---

I've posted it before, I'll post it again. Maybe one of these times you'll remember it. The Battleground Poll has been carried out since 1991. Question D3 asks respondents to self identify as either Very Conservative, Somewhat Conservative, Moderate, Somewhat Liberal, or Very Liberal. See for yourself.. 59% identify themselves as somewhat or very cosnervative, 36% identify as somewhat or very liberal. Very conservative vs Very liberal is 20% vs 10%.The entire point of my previous post was that the GOP is in decline because voters have lost all confidence in their ability to live up to their ideals. Presenting polls, as you have, that less Americans identify themselves as Republicans doesn't refute that- if anything it supports it.

Quote:

---

When you repeat a well-known Fox News talking point verbatim, people just might notice.

---

So it is the Fox News Defense. Good show. :laugh4:
My only response is: Why would a Wookie be on Endor?

It'll be interesting to see where both parties end up in 50 years... that is, if we're still a democracy (you can never be to sure about these things). Hopefully the repubs take notes from the Libertarians...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

I've posted it before, I'll post it again. Maybe one of these times you'll remember it. The Battleground Poll has been carried out since 1991. Question D3 asks respondents to self identify as either Very Conservative, Somewhat Conservative, Moderate, Somewhat Liberal, or Very Liberal. See for yourself..

---

Your link, she is broken. Here's the fixed version.

An interesting poll. They ask for liberal/conservative self-definition in relationship to government and politics, not on any other subjects (say, social issues or finance), which is interesting thing one. They also provide no definition of "conservative" or "liberal," which is interesting thing two.

Here's what I would like to see to make the "center-right" mantra believable: A breakdown of which issues represent "conservative" and "liberal," and then a broad-based poll of Americans seeing how they fall on the issues. Anything less is just poll-smoking. CA, can you whip a poll like that out of your posterior?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

I think saying "America is a center-right" country means this, precisely: "Yes, we lost the last election very badly, and our party is in eclipse, but more Americans agree with us than with anyone else, so everything's going to be okay."

Nothing more, nothing less.

---

Well, I said Fox would spin it that way. Americans are more religious than their Euro counterparts, and generally Americans don't want the government sticking their nose into their business. The GOP abandoned both the financial and social conservatives, but they still want people to believe that's what they stand for. Americans are waking up to the fact that they have been conned, and are abandoning the GOP.

If they had competent leadership, one of the larger third parties would be actively courting disenfranchised GOP moderates and conservative leaning indies. Unfortunately, most of the Libertarians are still wasted from 4/20 and haven't jumped at the unique opportunity being presented.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Ok, I've got to ask: What's with the Fox obsession? I didn't mention it or link it and yet the next three replies all attack it. Is this the new "Fox News" defense debate tactic I've heard about? Can I retaliate with the Chewbacca Defense ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

When you repeat a well-known Fox News talking point verbatim, people just might notice.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

So it is the Fox News Defense. Good show. :laugh4:
My only response is: Why would a Wookie be on Endor?

---

It's your typical and mindless demagoguery. Pick a symbol of hatred and whenever that symbol associates itself with something you disagree with, equate the two. It doesn't even matter if the person or idea is directly associated with the symbol (e.g. I don't watch Fox News, but hold many of the same views presented there). Rally 'round the flag boys! (BTW I call Godwin in two) Personally, I recommend one of these to remedy the problem.

I read an Air Force version of the Chewbacca defense and it's hilarious.

Vladimir, the cool thing about your posts is that they are entirely calorie-free, so I can consume as many as I like without worrying about my waistline.

Meanwhile, yet another take on the subject:

Since Bush's re-election in 2004, the GOP has lost ground electorally in the South and the rest of the nation. But the erosion has been much more severe outside the South. That dynamic has threatened Republicans with a spiral of concentration and contraction. Because the party has lost so much ground elsewhere, the South represents an increasing share of what remains -- both in Congress and in its electoral coalition. The party's increasing identification with staunch Southern economic and social conservatism, however, may be accelerating its decline in more-moderate-to-liberal areas of the country, including the Northeast and the West Coast. "Many of the things they have done to become the dominant party in the South have caused them to be less successful in other places," said veteran Democratic strategist Bill Carrick, a South Carolina native.

These intertwined trends -- the Republican Party's growing reliance on the South and the erosion of its strength elsewhere, particularly along the coasts -- have prompted some unusually public soul-searching within the GOP about whether the party has grown too defined by the unflinchingly conservative priorities of its most loyal region. Although the GOP congressional leadership includes more non-Southerners than it did in the 1990s, much of the party's most militant opposition to President Obama has come from Southern leaders, such as South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford and Texas Gov. Rick Perry. The Texan even raised the possibility of secession in response to Obama's initiatives.

In the view of former Rep. Charles Bass, R-N.H., who was defeated in 2006, "The current crisis of the Republican Party is whether it wants to be a regional party or whether it can try to expand ideologically and appeal to other regions."

I still don't buy that. As per the Pew study, the GOP has certainly shrank- but it hasn't grown significantly more conservative, which only serves to keep the party in flux. The Republican party needs to stand for something and until they figure that out, they won't get back in power.

Being the Democrat party Lite isn't a meaningful alternative for voters. They need to outline a contrasting platform, and more importantly, convince voters that they can deliver on it. Until they do that, the party will continue to flounder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

I read an Air Force version of the Chewbacca defense and it's hilarious.

---

I fixed my links. :sweatdrop:

An honest-to-goodness call to duty:

Powell has to accept that he is in a unique position to command attention and lead the Republican Party—or at least that part of it that isn’t consumed with defending the indefensible on torture or living in a fantasy world where the economy would be booming today if it just wasn’t for Obama’s budget deficits. It’s a pretty small constituency these days—most of those, like me, who share Powell’s views have left his party to become independents—but it may be enough to build a foundation on that can offer a meaningful challenge to the dominant Cheney-Limbaugh-Palin wing of the Republican Party that views all efforts to expand its membership as a sell-out to be resisted at all cost, even if it means further political losses. But at the end of the day, the job of a political party is to win elections and to win elections it must be inclusive, not exclusive.


Thus the ultimate message Powell has to offer Republicans is the most persuasive one of all—follow him and win or follow Cheney-Limbaugh-Palin and lose. Personally, I would like to see Powell follow in the steps of Dwight D. Eisenhower and run for president—I’ll sign up for his campaign today even if it means having to rejoin the Republican Party. But if he is serious about not wishing to do that, then Powell has a responsibility to help those who share his vision by lending his enormous credibility, popularity and fund-raising ability to their efforts. If he fails to do so he risks being seen by history as someone who walked away when the times demanded that those who share his beliefs stand and fight for what they believe.

What exactly does Powell stand for anyway? IIRC, one of his stated reasons for endorsing Obama over his long-time friend McCain, was that he didn't want to see any more conservative SCOTUS appointments.

Personally, I think Powell's endorsement was pretty much a shameless case of bandwagon jumping, but even taken at face value, I don't think the reasons he stated would be reasons many Republicans would want to be associated with.

I used to think very highly of Powell, but the more I hear from him the less I like. His character took several whacks during his tenure as Sec of State starting with his schizophrenic statements on Iraq and his involvement in "Plame-gate". Combined with his head-scratching Obama endorsement, he begins to come off as someone who is more interested in being a media darling than someone who actually wants to take hard stances. :shrug:

:laugh4:

I'm not laughing at you, Xiahou... I'm laughing at myself. It's like I am your twin from an evil parallel universe or something. I find myself appreciating Colin Powell and his defiant stance against the Cheney wing of the Republican Party... he's practically the only Republican I support at this point.

You probably mentioned somewhere before what your opinion of the previous administration was. Who among the current party leadership do you like? I'm wondering if we are really the exact opposite or not. And if so... it still puzzles me. Surely there is some kind of common ground, or set of basic principles we all agree on. But again and again I find that some people really do see the world from a totally different perspective and it changes almost everything.

I was reading the title "A Problem of Shrinkage" and at first thought, I thought it was about the over-medication of Ritalin and propagation of disorders through dodgy dealing in psychiatry.

Big, number-filled article about shrinkage (not the kind in your swim trunks, you perverts): The Ice Age Cometh

I've made a career out of counting votes, and the numbers tell a clear story; the demographics of America are changing in a way that is deadly for the Republican Party as it exists today. A GOP ice age is on the way.

Demographic change is irritating to politicos, since it works on elections much as rigged dice do on a Las Vegas craps table: it is a game changer. For years, Republicans won elections because the country was chock-full of white middle-class voters who mostly pulled the GOP lever on Election Day. Today, however, that formula is no longer enough.

It was a huge shock to the GOP when Barack Obama won Republican Indiana last year. The bigger news was how he did it. Latino voters delivered the state. Exit polls showed that they provided Obama with a margin of more than 58,000 votes in a state he carried by a slim 26,000 votes. That's right, GOP, you've entered a brave new world ruled by Latino Hoosiers, and you're losing.

In 1980, Latino voters cast about 2% of all votes. Last year it was 9%, and Obama won that Hispanic vote with a crushing 35-point margin. By 2030, the Latino share of the vote is likely to double. In Texas, the crucial buckle for the GOP's Electoral College belt, the No. 1 name for new male babies — many of whom will vote one day — is Jose. Young voters are another huge GOP problem. Obama won voters under 30 by a record 33 points. And the young voters of today, while certainly capable of changing their minds, do become all voters tomorrow.

Jose has been the #1 name since '97.

As Bush showed the right white man can still capture the "hispanic" vote. Not to mention many hispanics are social conservatives esp. in South Texas. People seem to think Hispanic=black and that's not really the case. Considering most of these articles are written by old white men whose connection with mexicans stem from there front yard it really does not surprise me.

I hate identity politics. It's all about- how can we pander to latinos or how can we pander to blacks, ect... as though each entire race has a hive mind and is in lockstep on the issues. I think that's so much of what is wrong with politics today....

Ah well, not like it's gonna change...

Republicans are the natural party of the current general Hispanic consensus. I like hispanics. I don't see them any differently from Italians, other than they tend to be more humble. Soon enough hispanics will stop being our modern day "Eyrish, Eyetalians" and we can get back into the process of adding them to Republican ranks.

Current Republican demographics? No. Demographics of tomorrow? Yep.

Identity politics are important. How else can 1 man or woman cater to whole massive segments of the population? The reality is that people tend to be attracted to those who remind them of themselves. When you can find a common denominator with Charisma, you've got the key to the castle. Obama is literally THE Identity politico and I think that is good. Would you want someone representing you who had absolutely no idea where you came from?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

I hate identity politics. It's all about- how can we pander to latinos or how can we pander to blacks, ect... as though each entire race has a hive mind and is in lockstep on the issues. I think that's so much of what is wrong with politics today....

---

But don't you, yourself, based on your age, race and location, vote exactly how identity politics indicate you would? I think your lament is a little naive.

Another article about the (entirely unproved) demographic doom of the GOP:

For the past few months, political analysts and demographers have been poring over the results of the 2008 election and comparing them with presidential results from the last two decades. From whatever angle of their approach -- age, race, economic status, geography -- they have come to a remarkably similar conclusion. Almost all indicators are pressing the Republicans into minority status.

Republicans are still capable of winning individual elections, but until they find a way to reverse or at least minimize these broader changes in the country, their chances of returning to majority status will be severely reduced.

Lots of detail in the article itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

I hate identity politics. It's all about- how can we pander to latinos or how can we pander to blacks, ect... as though each entire race has a hive mind and is in lockstep on the issues. I think that's so much of what is wrong with politics today....

Ah well, not like it's gonna change...

---

On the other hand identity politics allows those with a shared race, class, gender, etc to band together and demand rights that they believe are theirs. That they believe they need. Identity politics is only natural and has been the norm since the birth of democracy (That is to say a democracy with an expanded suffrage, not the faux-democracy of the 18th and 19th centuries).

Further, as Lemur said, your own views on politics are to a large extent determined by your situation; by your social consciousness. It is simply that, as a member of the ruling class/race/gender, it is natural for you to also look down on identity politics because it is counter to your interests.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Further, as Lemur said, your own views on politics are to a large extent determined by your situation; by your social consciousness. It is simply that, as a member of the ruling class/race/gender, it is natural for you to also look down on identity politics because it is counter to your interests.

---

It's amazing that you and Lemur have such insight into my life- you two must be psychic. What ruling class am I a member of exactly?

And Lemur, you know my political views and say I fit into the demographic that represents those views- tell me about who I am then. You should have no trouble detailing what ethno-social stereotypes I fit into since you know my political views. :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

It's amazing that you and Lemur have such insight into my life- you two must be psychic. What ruling class am I a member of exactly?

---

You are most likely a member of the petit bourgeoisie who has bourgeois sympathies. By aligning with the bourgeoisie you are perpetuating their class' rule.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

And Lemur, you know my political views and say I fit into the demographic that represents those views- tell me about who I am then. You should have no trouble detailing what ethno-social stereotypes I fit into since you know my political views. :yes:

---

I'm not claiming any special insight into your life, Xiahou. You're a white middle-class suburban male in his late thirties or early forties. Maybe in your fifties, but I don't think so. What they would call a "skilled" worker. Your demo, while a tad young, is the bedrock of the Republican party.

You decry "identity politics," but mebbe it's not so obvious when you're the identity being pandered to. Just a thought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

You are most likely a member of the petit bourgeoisie who has bourgeois sympathies. By aligning with the bourgeoisie you are perpetuating their class' rule.

---

Guess again. You must be a proletariat by your views, huh? :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

I'm not claiming any special insight into your life, Xiahou. You're a white middle-class suburban male in his late thirties or early forties. Maybe in your fifties, but I don't think so. What they would call a "skilled" worker. Your demo, while a tad young, is the bedrock of the Republican party.

---

Are you describing me or yourself? If it's me, you're wrong. Either way, it's not particularly insightful. I mean, you "narrow" my age down to a range of about 25 yrs and still blow it- come on. White? Yes, along with 70% of the country last I checked. Male? Yes, but you already knew that. Suburban? Not really. I'm an apartment dweller and live in a city of about 50,000.

Quote:

---

You decry "identity politics," but mebbe it's not so obvious when you're the identity being pandered to. Just a thought.

---

Or maybe not, huh? Like I said, I'm guessing your above description probably fits you to a tee- does it not? Why aren't you a Republican? They're the party that panders to your demographic aren't you? I guess you're a sell-out. :laugh4

Yes, I decry identity politics. Can I take that to mean you like them? I find it repugnant that people are stereotyped into groups- racial groupings being most repugnant - and then are assigned a slate of political views that they all must support by virtue of belonging to said group. It's prejudiced and divisive as hell. Both parties do it to varying degrees- and it stinks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Guess again. You must be a proletariat by your views, huh? :yes:

---

Enlightened bourgeoisie.

Oooh I finally get to agree with Xiahou. :clown:

Yeah I don't like identity politics and stereotyping. Even if the stereotype fit the mold more than half of the time, it's still a mild form of prejudice to put people into boxes based on superficial data such as race, age, or social status. Plenty of wealthy types are interested in the poor; plenty of poor people who think excessive taxation is bad, whites who support affirmative action, minorities who do not... etc.

I take it Xiahou has plenty of conservative viewpoints, but even if that is the case I am doubtful I could still predict his stance on a given issue. Many people think independently.

In short; Pizza doesn't like the box. It is full of crumbs and crusts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Enlightened bourgeoisie.

---

So you're one of the one's exploiting me! :soapbox:
I own no property, no means of production, have never hired, fired or even supervised anyone. I sell my labor to those with means in return for wages- sounds like I'm a proletariat. Funny thing though... I don't feel exploited. :shrug:

I'm sure it's because I'm not "enlightened"- maybe one day I'll have my eyes opened and buy into all that marxist drivel. :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

Oooh I finally get to agree with Xiahou. :clown:

---

I'd better go to bed. Clearly I'm beginning to hallucinate. :drama1:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

So you're one of the one's exploiting me! :soapbox:
I own no property, no means of production, have never hired, fired or even supervised anyone. I sell my labor to those with means in return for wages- sounds like I'm a proletariat.

---

Nor do I, however by birth I am a part of the supervisory class (As that is what my dad does, much to my chagrin/distates). Personally though I fit into the proletarian paridigm, and sometimes I do feel exploited by the company I work for - the level of profits they earn is far too high for the wages I get paid. They also expect me to do things that I would normally have moral qualms about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Funny thing though... I don't feel exploited. :shrug:

---

I've heard several proletarians give speeches that disagree with you.

EDIT: But yeah, how about that GOP?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Or maybe not, huh? Like I said, I'm guessing your above description probably fits you to a tee- does it not?

---

Nope. I'm rural, not suburban or small-urban, as you appear to be. And I'm not a "skilled worker," I'm what would be referred to by the demo wonks as a "professional."

As a professional who's been to college, I fit into a different demo.

So I take it you're either radically younger or older than I thought. I'll just point out that if it's the latter, you fit into the Republican demo even better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

I'm sure it's because I'm not "enlightened"- maybe one day I'll have my eyes opened and buy into all that marxist drivel. :dizzy2:

---

"How do you tell a Communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin."

:book:

If you're going to quote Saint Ronald, EMFM, at least give the man attribution.

-- delete me please, problems with connection caused double-post --

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Enlightened bourgeoisie.

---

When you use outdated terms to describe the class system I can't take you seriously.

I imagine as an enlightend bourgeoisie your name will be on the protected scrolls as the uncouth masses come down and kill the white men and rape the white women?

Will you get a nice clerical position?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

If you're going to quote Saint Ronald, EMFM, at least give the man attribution.

---

It was in quotation marks, I figured that most people would know who it was from or Google it if they didn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

When you use outdated terms to describe the class system I can't take you seriously.

---

I find the Marxist terminology far more flexible and a system built around ownership vs wealth is IMO far more applicable to society. It's how most academics refer to the world, at least in history.

If your dad's a filthy rich capitalist pigdog, why do you work some place you have "moral qualms" about?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

If your dad's a filthy rich capitalist pigdog, why do you work some place you have "moral qualms" about?

---

Because they aren't going to fund my hobbies, etc. What does it matter anyway?

Poll: Politically conservative number up

Quote:

---

The number of Americans saying they are politically conservative rose slightly so far this year, aligning it to the 2004 level, Gallup Poll results indicate.

Forty percent of Americans polled described their political views as conservative, 35 percent as moderate and 21 percent as liberal, poll results released Monday indicated.

---

More evidence that the problem for Republicans isn't being too conservative, but rather voters don't believe (with good reason)that the GOP can apply it.

The respondents described their views as "conservative" rather than having a set of points which would determine their political positioning. This could mean that previous moderates, if they don't agree with a "liberal" president would then shift from moderate to a conservative position in a poll, but not by voting differently.

As far as i am concerned the only chance the GOP has to win in 2012 is to nominate Ron Paul as their candidate, or that other guy from New Mexico that was mentioned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AlexanderSextus

As far as i am concerned the only chance the GOP has to win in 2012 is to nominate Ron Paul as their candidate, or that other guy from New Mexico that was mentioned.

---

Ron Paul could not win a national election. Ever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AlexanderSextus

As far as i am concerned the only chance the GOP has to win in 2012 is to nominate Ron Paul as their candidate, or that other guy from New Mexico that was mentioned.

---

The fact that no one knows his name and instead refers to him as "that other guy from New Mexico" is a bad sign.

Romney has a shot if Obama continues to bungle it up. If the economy comes back to life, we don't have a shot in hell at the presidency. Congress IS within our grasp at any point in the future.

If you consider Romney your great white hope for a Republican rally...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Congress IS within our grasp at any point in the future.

---

Actually Republicans have been trailing on the generic house ballot all year. The Democrats have been polling really well recently from every polling company except Rasmussen, who generally have more Republicans in their samples and are the only ones to show the Republicans leading recently. In fact, if you take them out of the equation the Democrats have a 6-7 point lead.

Plus the Senate elections in 2010 really don't look promising for the Republicans at all.

The Republican rebirth seems like it's not going to emanate from South Carolina.

State Republican leaders said they do not think online racist jokes by party activists will have a long-term impact on the party’s ability to attract black voters and candidates. [...]

GOP activist Rusty DePass apologized for the Facebook remark that likened first lady Michelle Obama’s ancestors to an escaped Riverbanks Zoo gorilla. On Tuesday, Mike Green, an employee with Lexington GOP consulting firm Starboard Communications apologized for an online joke about President Barack Obama taxing aspirin “because it’s white and it works.” [...]

“I’ve heard he has done a lot of good things in this state, and it would be a tragedy to be remembered by this event,” said Howard, who Tuesday helped push a legislative resolution to express sympathy to Michelle Obama. The proposal was stopped when Rep. Wendy Nanney, R-Greenville, objected to suspending House rules to pass the bill without a committee hearing. Five House members joined her dissent.

The Republican bid to block the resolution also did not help the party’s image. Republican leaders acknowledge they have struggled with the race issue and are working to change the perception of their party.

A stupid move in Tennessee, as well, but that's neither here nor there.

Oh my God.

I hadn't actually seen any seriously racist stuff coming from any Republican leaders. That's pretty lame.

My question is, is this racist **** coming from official or unofficial Republican policy or is it just a handful of really, really stupid people? I'm inclined to not jump on that as being representative of all Republicans. Of far, far more concern to me was the concerted official campaign to label Obama a terrorist who wasn't even an American during the election. That kind of kiddie bull is what actually made me label the Republican party as broken and corrupt. I'm only really interested in official Republican party activities, and from my perspective they have done far more shameful things.

A handful of racists doesn't surprise me anymore. And besides, I honestly think that there are plenty of Democratic racists. Al Sharpton needs to shut his big fat mouth as far as I'm concerned. Not a fan of Jesse Jackson. And Sonia Sotomayor may not realize it, but some of her comments do strike me as perhaps not racist, but certainly coming from a standpoint of racial pride and/or ignorance. There is no reason to think that a "wise Latina" is better than all white males. That's discriminatory as well.

There are plenty of idiots all across the political spectrum. I won't bang the drum of war over a few screw-ups in one party. I'm concerned about official party policy; let the individuals hang themselves with their own words.

I actually had to look the gorilla story up- it seemed so absurd. But yeah, he said it. I think it may have been intended as a evolution vs creationism quip that was also frighteningly ignorant of the racist implications of such a statement. Not that it makes it much better, I was just trying to determine what would motivate him to make such a stupid comment.

I see what you're referring to:

DePass told WIS-TV in Columbia, "I am as sorry as I can be if I offended anyone. The comment was clearly in jest."

Then he added, "The comment was hers, not mine," claiming that Michelle Obama made a recent remark about humans descending from apes. The Daily News could find no such comment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

I actually had to look the gorilla story up- it seemed so absurd. But yeah, he said it. I think it may have been intended as a evolution vs creationism quip that was also frighteningly ignorant of the racist implications of such a statement. Not that it makes it much better, I was just trying to determine what would motivate him to make such a stupid comment.

---

Yeah I took it to be a Evolutionist comment - but as you said that doesn't make it any less stupid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Because they aren't going to fund my hobbies, etc. What does it matter anyway?

---

You're not a very good Marxist if you're going to betray your principles so quickly and without cause...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

You're not a very good Marxist if you're going to betray your principles so quickly and without cause...

---

If I have no choice but to betray my principles in order to get by in our current society then I'm afraid I am forced to betray my principles. I'm opposed to working in retail for anti-consumerist reasons and management is now making me work to upsell products and sell inferior stuff that have higher profit margins. I oppose both of these but given that I haven't got the qualifications for anything else I haven't got a choice. I could not work, but then I wouldn't be able to get to University without living at my parent's expense... which I am also opposed to.

But anyway, that's straying way too far from the topic and I don't feel I have to answer questions about my morality to you.

American Conservative examines why, exactly, some Republicans have decided that Iran is the greatest attack issue evar:

One reason why Cantor and Pence have been demanding that the President take a stronger public line in support of the protesters in Iran is that supporting Mousavi’s voters openly is the emotionally satisfying, easy, almost mindless thing to do, so it is very appealing for opposition figures who have no ideas. But there is more to it than that. All of this comes back to the problem of Republican denial about why they lost power. They are supremely confident about their views on national security and foreign policy, and they cannot conceive that a majority of the country would reject them because of the policies they advocated and enacted. Worse still, they remain wedded to the hectoring, moralistic and aggressive approach of the last administration, in which sanctions and condemnation are the only “soft” tools they understand. They are so wedded to this approach that that they think this is not only the best kind of foreign policy, but that anything other than this is fecklessness and surrender. To a disturbingly great extent, replacing the current leadership may not have much of an effect on shoddy foreign policy thinking on the right, because the rot is so deep and widespread, but it is particularly important that Republicans in positions of responsibility at least attempt to play the role of credible, informed opposition, which may sometimes mean acknowledging that the President has handled an issue correctly. It will also mean building up the credibility and knowledge to challenge and resist the President if he embarks on misguided or irresponsible courses in the years to come. Cantor and Pence have shown this week that they do not have either one.

Quote:

---

Ron Paul could not win a national election. Ever.

---

why not?

and if this is actually true, then i'd be completely content with the fact that the GOP has no chance in hell of being a major party anymore.

i'd like to see a DP vs LP ticket in the future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AlexanderSextus

why not?

---

He earned more money than most of the Republican candidates and yet he did not even come close to winning a single state in the primary. His policies just aren't popular at all - there are very few Americans who would willingly have his economic policies - such as the gold standard.

Further, the number of libertarians (Who one would naturaly assume would dominate the Ron Paul campaign) in the country are incredibly low:

Libertarian voters make up 4% of the nation’s likely voters and they favor Barack Obama over John McCain by a 53% to 38% margin. Three percent (3%) would vote for some other candidate and 5% are not sure. These results, from an analysis of 15,000 Likely Voter interviews conducted by Rasmussen Reports, challenges the conventional wisdom which assumes that strong support for a Libertarian candidate would hurt John McCain.

Some people beleive that Americans are generally stupid and emotional. Those same people now believe that The Republican party "Doesn't have a chance in hell of becoming a majority party". That doesn't really equate.

As long as there are stupid constituencies, they will elect stupid representatives. Hopefully, the GOP can return the Democrats to that status and start coming up with ideas of their own. They won't be able to do it using emotion and lazy patriotism.

One of the GOP's biggest problems is that they set themselves up to fail by always claiming the moral/ethical/family values/uncorruptible/small unintrusive government/I'm more patriotic than thou
high ground, and then inevitibly not delivering on it. The ratio of moral/ethic/policy failures is comparable to Democrats, but the high horse hypocracy and bald use of said "values" for purely political gains doesn't fool too many people. They need to stop listening to the radical/rabid dog neo-con fringe like Gingrich & Company and instead provide reasonable,logical,fiscally responsible opposition where it should be applied; the massive increase in budget spending and increase in federal government. Leading by example would be a nice start.

I doubt the GOP will disappear.

The present crisis will not go away quickly or easily; 2 terms of Bush illustrated that you can fool most of the ppl some of the time, and that the politics of fear is still effective.

The Dem's greatest strength was a platform of inclusion and empowerment; if they fail to deliver the fall will be spectacular.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny

I doubt the GOP will disappear.

The present crisis will not go away quickly or easily; 2 terms of Bush illustrated that you can fool most of the ppl some of the time, and that the politics of fear is still effective.

The Dem's greatest strength was a platform of inclusion and empowerment; if they fail to deliver the fall will be spectacular.

---

Republicans will succeed if they promote good change rather than simply oppose bad change.

The funny thing is that the Republicans will become the party of change when the current echelons in the younger generation become middle agers. The two party system encourages a balancing act. One party is the party of stagnancy and the other of change. As constituencies age for the larger party, the smaller party goes after the young because it can afford to gamble a bit more. The situation becomes inverse.

I'm a Republican now because there is room for change. When the GOP dinosaurs die out, guys like Ryan and Paul will have a bigger voice in our party and attract younger and brighter voters - all while the geriatric democrats defend their failed policies that sounded progressive 20 years prior, scaring off the youth. Sure the politics will change,That's my take.

I've tried, reading through the 5 pages of this thread, to generate interest in the outcome of the Republican Party.

But I've failed. I just don't care (enough) to have an opinion or a prediction about their resurrection or demise. "But, Kukri, why say anything then?", you ask.

Because:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Seems to me that the only hope for the Repubs to regroup and recoup is for the Dems to make a series of grievous mistakes. And while I have supreme faith in the Democrats' ability to lose a winning hand, I don't see President 44 as a typical Dem in this respect. That means we may face four to eight years of continuing Republican decline.

This would be a Bad Thing. We cannot become a one-party nation.

---

Lemur was correct there, in my opinion. Someone (a significantly large minority) needs to play the loyal opposition, to keep the current majority honest (or as honest as a political body can be).

They had their opportunity: in what everyone perceived as an emergency, we gave them the white house and both parts of congress - a move unprecedented in recent history, because we prefer a balance, despite "gridlock" - to see us through that emergency. They stumbled through that time, and a 9-11 attack didn't recur. Fine. But they went too far, piling authority onto the Executive to the point where the only thing stopping GWB being coronated was the Constitutional provision of presidential term-limits. I half-expected there to be a move in 2006 to suspend that provision "temporarily" during the by then never-ending "emergency".

But it didn't happen. Instead, we took away his congressional majority. I remember his face the day after that election. He was stunned. Surprised. One more thing he "never saw coming".

Lesson for future Presidents: America will give you whatever you need to solve an emergency, but you only get about 5 years to resolve that emergency, no longer. After that, if unresolved, we're gonna start taking away some of those tools, thinking you can't handle the job.

I think Pres. Obama gets that, hence his push to get as much done as possible as soon as possible, since we've given him the same tools GW got given. He shouldn't count on being given a congressional majority forever. His second term, if he gets one, will be more difficult than his first.

I just don't know if his opposition will be from the almost-extinct Republican Party, a wing of his own party, or some up-and-coming new group. I sense that many americans are beyond disappointment with the folks in the parties, and are more at the sick-and-tired stage. That's good for the country, I think, but not so hot for any incumbents, of either party.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

American Conservative examines why, exactly, some Republicans have decided that Iran is the greatest attack issue evar [..]

---

I hold a different view. Mousavi's unexpected success in the Iranian elections and the enthusiasm of his followers is in many ways a result of Obama's new policy of reconciliation toward Iran. If Obama succeeds in breaking up the hard-liners' hold on Iran by continuing this policy, the whole Republican outlook on today's world and the Middle East in particular will crumble. And I won't shed a single tear if they shrink beyond recognition. They've done enough damage.

Quote:

---

The Republican rebirth seems like it's not going to emanate from South Carolina.

---

That's most unfortunate, considering the governor there, Mark Sanford. He's a guy who leans libertarian and is probably one of the great hopes for revitalizing the GOP with a platform based around the present and not a rehash of Reagan (that the GOP failed to follow through on anyways).

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

I hold a different view. Mousavi's unexpected success in the Iranian elections and the enthusiasm of his followers is in many ways a result of Obama's new policy of reconciliation toward Iran. If Obama succeeds in breaking up the hard-liners' hold on Iran by continuing this policy, the whole Republican outlook on today's world and the Middle East in particular will crumble. And I won't shed a single tear if they shrink beyond recognition. They've done enough damage.

---

I agree to some extent. Youths are obsessed with not feeling left out when other youths do something percieved as cool. Iranian youth is no different. Americans elected a "cool" candidate that wanted a reconciliation - Iran is stuck with a dumber and more hostile version of Bush. The youth is tired of being a repressed laughing stock to other youths and became uppity.

The outstretched hand is just a symbol of the change, imo.

Republican hostile strategy of war had nothing to do with Iran, or for that matter North Korea. I never wanted war with either of them. I have always hoped that this type of activity was inevitable. I support war in Iraq because the conventional part was going to be a cakewalk (it was) and good practice - Plus eventually they will be better off. Human beings have a problem with altitute - especially fighting wars in high altitude - especially fighting second world nations who are accustomed to it. Iran is the one of the last small nations that we would want to confront. There is simply no political or temporal payoff and the people have more freedoms there than they did in Iraq, anyway.

I don't dislike Obama's policy toward Iran - it is just a new way to acheive a collapse of the theocracy without war which is a shared goal, lets try it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Republicans will succeed if they promote good change rather than simply oppose bad change.

---

I agree. I think any renewal will come from clearly articulated policy that lines up with Americans' needs and desires.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

I've tried, reading through the 5 pages of this thread, to generate interest in the outcome of the Republican Party.

But I've failed. I just don't care (enough) to have an opinion or a prediction about their resurrection or demise. "But, Kukri, why say anything then?", you ask.

Because:


Lemur was correct there, in my opinion. Someone (a significantly large minority) needs to play the loyal opposition, to keep the current majority honest (or as honest as a political body can be).

They had their opportunity: in what everyone perceived as an emergency, we gave them the white house and both parts of congress - a move unprecedented in recent history, because we prefer a balance, despite "gridlock" - to see us through that emergency. They stumbled through that time, and a 9-11 attack didn't recur. Fine. But they went too far, piling authority onto the Executive to the point where the only thing stopping GWB being coronated was the Constitutional provision of presidential term-limits. I half-expected there to be a move in 2006 to suspend that provision "temporarily" during the by then never-ending "emergency".

But it didn't happen. Instead, we took away his congressional majority. I remember his face the day after that election. He was stunned. Surprised. One more thing he "never saw coming".

Lesson for future Presidents: America will give you whatever you need to solve an emergency, but you only get about 5 years to resolve that emergency, no longer. After that, if unresolved, we're gonna start taking away some of those tools, thinking you can't handle the job.

I think Pres. Obama gets that, hence his push to get as much done as possible as soon as possible, since we've given him the same tools GW got given. He shouldn't count on being given a congressional majority forever. His second term, if he gets one, will be more difficult than his first.

I just don't know if his opposition will be from the almost-extinct Republican Party, a wing of his own party, or some up-and-coming new group. I sense that many americans are beyond disappointment with the folks in the parties, and are more at the sick-and-tired stage. That's good for the country, I think, but not so hot for any incumbents, of either party.

---

New York & California are prime examples of one party dominated government entities that have and continue to spend way above their means, and then try to tax themselves back to prosperity. Ain't gonna work and the only reason both have not been bankrupted yet is the one-shot federal largess both received this year. We need an effective opposition party, I don't care who or what they call themselves, that can offer more than just rhetoric to this massive debt without even including this proposed healthcare boondoggle put forth by the Democrats.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

I don't dislike Obama's policy toward Iran - it is just a new way to acheive a collapse of the theocracy without war which is a shared goal, lets try it.

---

As usual you and I find common ground in international concerns, in the larger picture so to speak. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

As usual you and I find common ground in international concerns, in the larger picture so to speak. :bow:

---

Weird! hehe:yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

When the GOP dinosaurs die out, guys like Ryan and Paul will have a bigger voice in our party and attract younger and brighter voters - all while the geriatric democrats defend their failed policies that sounded progressive 20 years prior, scaring off the youth.

---

A long, detailed essay that correlates with what you're saying, TuffStuff:

We know what happens when movements or parties continue to stagger forward after running out of ideas: They become zombies. Zombie parties are a recurrent feature of electoral democracies. Unable to articulate any coherent or workable governing philosophy, they mindlessly jab at cultural hot buttons, mechanically repeat hardwired tropes ("cut taxes, cut taxes, cut taxes"), nurse tribal resentments, ostracize independent thinkers. Above all, they feel positively proud of their doggedness. You can’t talk them out of it. Think of the Republicans in the FDR years, the Democrats in the Reagan years, the British Labour Party in the Thatcher period, and the British Conservative Party in the Blair period. Think of Japan’s Liberal Democratic Party for most of the past half-century, or France’s Socialists today. To get a new brain, zombie parties usually need to spend years out of power or wait until a new generation rises to leadership.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

A long, detailed essay that correlates with what you're saying, TuffStuff:

We know what happens when movements or parties continue to stagger forward after running out of ideas: They become zombies. Zombie parties are a recurrent feature of electoral democracies. Unable to articulate any coherent or workable governing philosophy, they mindlessly jab at cultural hot buttons, mechanically repeat hardwired tropes ("cut taxes, cut taxes, cut taxes"), nurse tribal resentments, ostracize independent thinkers. Above all, they feel positively proud of their doggedness. You can’t talk them out of it. Think of the Republicans in the FDR years, the Democrats in the Reagan years, the British Labour Party in the Thatcher period, and the British Conservative Party in the Blair period. Think of Japan’s Liberal Democratic Party for most of the past half-century, or France’s Socialists today. To get a new brain, zombie parties usually need to spend years out of power or wait until a new generation rises to leadership.

---

Right. That's what tends to happen over time. An investment of time and ideas into the GOP is an investment in the future even though it might be an embarrassment in the present. Our consolation is that no matter the look and smell of a fish now, it all starts to stink over time, so Democrats shouldn't get too used to it. The smart democrats who arn't die hards would be well served to join the GOP because there is more room for you - the Dems are going to become top-heavy and static over the next few years. You like Ron Paul? Do you think that voice can be amplified with the Democrats? Come on over and make the GOP what it will be, don't be afraid of being "out of step with progress". You know it's relative. Get ahead of the curve.

Quote:

---

the Republicans in the FDR years

---

Yeah, those guys totally had it wrong. :rolleyes:

I really hope the Republicans get their act together. If the Democrats really start to mess things up on a Bushian level, I really need an alternative party to vote for. The threat of losing power is the only way to keep those in power even SLIGHTLY honest.

They must, absolutely must, flush Rush. Or at least not follow his terrible, terrible lead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

I really hope the Republicans get their act together. If the Democrats really start to mess things up on a Bushian level, I really need an alternative party to vote for. The threat of losing power is the only way to keep those in power even SLIGHTLY honest.

They must, absolutely must, flush Rush. Or at least not follow his terrible, terrible lead.

---

It may be a surprise, but they don't control him. I don't know how much they're following his lead, but they shouldn't.

CR

I'd be interested to know which Republican leaders don't have to apologize for saying a critical word about him or his politics.

Most of them? As far as I know only Steele has apologized in a way.

What worries me more is South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford turning out to be in Argentina for a week instead of hiking in the Appalachians. :sweatdrop:

CR