GOP Primary Megathread!

[garbon]

Ron Paul is Mohammed, Rand Paul is Abu Bakr?

Is one allowed to make analogies about Mohammed and the first 4 caliphs?

[garbon]

Gee, Rick.  All these details of how we defeated the Brits.  DONT THANK THE FRENCH OR ANYTHING.

Yes, because the French are so beloved by the American people.

[HisMajestyBOB]

Ron Paul is Mohammed, Rand Paul is Abu Bakr?

Is one allowed to make analogies about Mohammed and the first 4 caliphs?

Yes, unless you're Shi'a.

[Razgovory]

I'm Shiite out of luck.

[Valmy]

Yes, because the French are so beloved by the American people.

I know.  It just doesn't make any sense.

[CountDeMoney]

Yes, because the French are so beloved by the American people.

I know.  It just doesn't make any sense.

I know;  maybe we should box up the Statue of Liberty and send her back, with her lamp replaced with a fistful of Freedom Fries(tm).

[garbon]

Yes, because the French are so beloved by the American people.

I know.  It just doesn't make any sense.

There's been a lot of attitude between our two countries in the last century or so.

[Berkut]

[Sheilbh]

Didn't him and Bob Dole worry about the state of the Republican Party (in the 90s) because suddenly they were on the liberal wing?

[Berkut]

One thing I've been thinking about in terms of the GOP is this entire Nordquist pledge insanity.

On the face of it, the basic idea is simply ridiculous - a politician pledging to NEVER raise taxes for any reason, period, everandeverandever? War? Famine? Asteroid strike? The idea is simply ludicrous that a politician should ever make such a blanket pledge.

It is so ludicrous, that I can't help but think that this isn't a rational position anymore, but one based on some kind of strange faith. Taxes cannot ever be raised, not even if they are lowered elsewhere! The pledge actually would be used to go after someone who voted for lowering taxes A, B, and C, and raising tax D. This is no longer a matter of policy, it is a matter of religion.

Which makes me kind of wonder at the connection between religious fundamentalism in the GOP, and the GOP willingness to embrace what seems like a completely irrational position on a matter of something as secular as taxation. Is there a connection there? Is the same kind of blind "faith" that leads to people becoming religious fundamentalists that same faith that lets them actually believe something as insane as "no raising taxes ever under any circumstances no matter what"?

[Eddie Teach]

Extremism in defense of God is not a vice. 

[Sheilbh]

Which makes me kind of wonder at the connection between religious fundamentalism in the GOP, and the GOP willingness to embrace what seems like a completely irrational position on a matter of something as secular as taxation. Is there a connection there? Is the same kind of blind "faith" that leads to people becoming religious fundamentalists that same faith that lets them actually believe something as insane as "no raising taxes ever under any circumstances no matter what"?

I think that's the Andrew Sullivan line.  The Republican Party has ceased to be a political party but is now effectively a religious movement:
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/02/the-nausea-of-santorum.html
http://www.amazon.com/Conservative-Soul-How-Lost-Back/dp/0060188774
He suggests that supply side economics, constant tax cuts, anti-environmentalism etc are now parts of the Republican credo and dogma.  They're closer to religious beliefs than political thoughts.  I'm not convinced personally.

What I find odd and dispiriting though is that everyone agrees with it.  The saddest moment in this campaign was in one of the debates when they were asked to raise their hands if they would agree to a deal eliminating the deficit if it was 90% cuts and 10% revenue.  No-one raised their hand, but what's worse is that the apparent moderates Huntsman and Romney were as staunch in rejecting it as Bachmann and Cain

[derspiess]

One thing I've been thinking about in terms of the GOP is this entire Nordquist pledge insanity.

On the face of it, the basic idea is simply ridiculous - a politician pledging to NEVER raise taxes for any reason, period, everandeverandever? War? Famine? Asteroid strike? The idea is simply ludicrous that a politician should ever make such a blanket pledge.

I think the pledge is worded ambiguously enough to give some wiggle room, and I'd wager that most who have signed it would view it as having some flexibility (they *are* politicians, after all).  I know what the ATF's intent of the pledge is, but the pledge itself is pretty ambiguous.

In immediate terms, I like the pledge-- IMO spending needs to be curtailed first, then later we can talk about adding some possible tax increases to the deficit/debt reduction strategy.

[Valmy]

In immediate terms, I like the pledge-- IMO spending needs to be curtailed first, then later we can talk about adding some possible tax increases to the deficit/debt reduction strategy.

Um surely we need to do both at the same time?  Granted I prefer it to the strategy of cutting taxes and then later promising (but doing the exact opposite) spending cuts strategy the Republicans usually love but um...wouldn't an actual real world solution have to be a package of both?  Just sounds like a strategy designed to create excuses for failure and inaction rather than one that will produce results this country needs.

[The Minsky Moment]

What happened after our grandparents generation is that the Warren Court was willing to use the 14th Amendment as a tool to impose these kinds of rulings on a nationwide basis on state-run school systems.

The Warren Court couldn't have existed in our grandparents generation because the political world wouldn't have created (or tolerated) it.

That is so, but not because of views about the proper role of religious teaching in the schools.