Dems aren't the only ones who have "problems with their base".
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/december_2009/tea_party_tops_gop_on_three_way_generic_ballot
Quote
Tea Party Tops GOP on Three-Way Generic Ballot
Monday, December 07, 2009
Running under the Tea Party brand may be better in congressional races than being a Republican.
In a three-way Generic Ballot test, the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds Democrats attracting 36% of the vote. The Tea Party candidate picks up 23%, and Republicans finish third at 18%. Another 22% are undecided.
Among voters not affiliated with either major party, the Tea Party comes out on top. Thirty-three percent (33%) prefer the Tea Party candidate, and 30% are undecided. Twenty-five percent (25%) would vote for a Democrat, and just 12% prefer the GOP.
Among Republican voters, 39% say they'd vote for the GOP candidate, but 33% favor the Tea Party option.
For this survey, the respondents were asked to assume that the Tea Party movement organized as a new political party. In practical terms, it is unlikely that a true third-party option would perform as well as the polling data indicates. The rules of the election process—written by Republicans and Democrats--provide substantial advantages for the two established major parties. The more conventional route in the United States is for a potential third-party force to overtake one of the existing parties.
(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.
The standard Generic Congressional Ballot shows Republicans holding a modest lead over Democrats. It appears that the policies of the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress are currently enough to unite both those who prefer Republicans and those who prefer the Tea Party route.
Data from the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll shows that just 55% of conservatives nationwide consider themselves Republicans. Recent polling shows that 73% of Republican voters believe their leaders in Washington are out of touch with the party base.
Republican voters are paying a lot more attention to the Tea Party movement than anyone else. Forty-three percent (43%) of GOP voters are following news about the movement Very Closely. Another 30% are following it Somewhat Closely. Just 12% of Democrats are following stories about the Tea Party movement Very Closely.
Seventy percent (70%) of Republican voters have a favorable opinion of the Tea Party movement while only seven percent (7%) offer an unfavorable view. Interestingly, 49% of Democrats have no opinion one way or the other.
Among unaffiliated voters, 43% have a favorable opinion of the Tea Party efforts while 20% say the opposite.
Forty-one percent (41%) of all voters nationwide say Republicans and Democrats are so much alike that a new party is needed to represent the American people. Republicans are evenly divided on this question, while Democrats overwhelmingly disagree. However, among those not affiliated with either major party, 60% agree that a new party is needed, and only 25% disagree. Men are far more likely than women to believe a new party is needed.
As for the voting preference, the Tea Party bests the GOP among both men and women and in all age groups except those over 65.
The Tea Party candidates are the first choice among political conservatives. Among moderates, the Tea Party candidates are more popular than Republicans. However, nearly half of all moderate voters prefer a Democrat.
Among the Political Class, not a single respondent picked the Tea Party candidate.
However, among those with populist or Mainstream views, 31% prefer the Tea Party, and 26% are undecided. Twenty-three percent (23%) pick a Republican candidate, and 19% are for the Democrat (See more on the Political Class-Mainstream divide).
One of my worries is that there seem to be a number of primary challengers in the GOP who are targeting moderates and running on a sort-of Glenn Beck-Tea Party platform. To use a British analogy I thought the Republicans were going to be like the Tories in 1997 and just take a while to realise that certain of their view are unpopular. If they do go Tea Party-Glenn Beck they'll be more like Labour in 1980 marching into stupid silliness and irrelevance.
Palin recently embraced the Birther movement during a radio talk show interview. I must go thank the lord for this string of right wing self destruction.
Believe it or not, there are a lot of people believing that Republicans can return to power only by embracing true conservatism, and by reversing the movement to the left on social and economic issues. This radicalization is baffling, and scary.
Gobama.
I foresee these Tea Party mavericks being swept away in a tide of general election defeats by Democrats.
Yeah it's a stretch. Hard to think of a good political metaphor for longhorns and a tide of red is kinda the opposite of what I wanted to say. -_-
Quote from: DGuller on December 07, 2009, 05:24:07 PM
Believe it or not, there are a lot of people believing that Republicans can return to power only by embracing true conservatism, and by reversing the movement to the left on social and economic issues. This radicalization is baffling, and scary.
Funny. Muslims believe the same thing.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 07, 2009, 05:43:27 PM
Funny. Muslims believe the same thing.
Muslims believe in free market economics?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 07, 2009, 05:47:04 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 07, 2009, 05:43:27 PM
Funny. Muslims believe the same thing.
Muslims believe in free market economics?
Republicans believe in free market economics? (Tea Baggers would say no)
Quote from: Fate on December 07, 2009, 05:54:54 PM
Republicans believe in free market economics? (Tea Baggers would say no)
Ask DGuller. He was the one talking about reversing the move to the left.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 07, 2009, 05:47:04 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 07, 2009, 05:43:27 PM
Funny. Muslims believe the same thing.
Muslims believe in free market economics?
They don't? Ever heard of the Emirates? :huh:
Quote from: Martinus on December 07, 2009, 06:12:21 PM
They don't? Ever heard of the Emirates? :huh:
They have their own Sharia-friendly version if it though.
This sort of thing comes and goes.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 07, 2009, 05:57:37 PM
Quote from: Fate on December 07, 2009, 05:54:54 PM
Republicans believe in free market economics? (Tea Baggers would say no)
Ask DGuller. He was the one talking about reversing the move to the left.
On economics the buzz word is fiscal responsibility. For reasons no one can determine, this issue finally caused a massive awakening in 2009.
Heh, tea baggers.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 07, 2009, 06:15:42 PM
They have their own Sharia-friendly version if it though.
Well I like the principles of Islamic finance more than most commercial banks. But there's a bit of an issue. Because Sharia isn't a body of law like you have in a state what the 'law' is really depends on which Muslim jurist you ask. So Islamic finance in particular has come under attack.
The UK's the biggest centre of it outside of the Muslim world (it's worth billions) but a lot of the banks who operate under Islamic principles or investment or commercial banks who offer Sharia products are criticised for the jurists they choose. Basically if you shop around you can get a jurist who will offer Islamic justification for more or less anything (to use an Iranian example accepted, respected jurists range from someone who's issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons and supports female Ayatollahs to the most extreme millenarian views). So a lot of Sharia scholars moan because they get asked to deliver a report on Islamic finance products and those views promptly get ignored in favour of ones that are basically Western banking practices with a Muslim flavour.
The biggest residential property development in the UK is being funded by the Qataris and most of it is Sharia-acceptable. The differences are generally minimal because the financial sector still basically wants to make a big profit.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 07, 2009, 06:27:03 PM
Heh, tea baggers.
Who knew that one day the GOP would be the party of John Waters :mellow:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 07, 2009, 05:47:04 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 07, 2009, 05:43:27 PM
Funny. Muslims believe the same thing.
Muslims believe in free market economics?
Muslim and Republicans have the same desire to "get back to basics". Somehow being more backward will give them more power.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 07, 2009, 06:29:22 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 07, 2009, 06:27:03 PM
Heh, tea baggers.
Who knew that one day the GOP would be the party of John Waters :mellow:
We will not allow your juvenile antics to suppress the tea baggers right to dissent and protest. :angry:
A few years ago the democratic activists were trying to purge their moderate members like Lieberman. Now they run everything.
Quote from: alfred russel on December 07, 2009, 06:33:39 PM
A few years ago the democratic activists were trying to purge their moderate members like Lieberman. Now they run everything.
Not hardly. The second part t hat is. The first is still going on.
Quote from: alfred russel on December 07, 2009, 06:33:39 PM
A few years ago the democratic activists were trying to purge their moderate members like Lieberman. Now they run everything.
This is a selective reading of history. Rahm Emmanuel is widely reviled by the left wing because he recruited, funded, and supported candidates that were capable of winning elections rather than ones who passed their ideological bar.
Lieberman is not a moderate. He's a child throwing a temper tantrum.
Quote from: Fate on December 07, 2009, 06:37:25 PM
This is a selective reading of history. Rahm Emmanuel is widely reviled by the left wing because he recruited, funded, and supported candidates that were capable of winning elections rather than ones who passed their ideological bar.
Thanks for making my point.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 07, 2009, 06:27:03 PM
Heh, tea baggers.
I swear, the fucking GOP has nobody with a brain, or under the age of 50, within the top 10% of the GOP.
Quote from: alfred russel on December 07, 2009, 07:11:22 PM
Quote from: Fate on December 07, 2009, 06:37:25 PM
This is a selective reading of history. Rahm Emmanuel is widely reviled by the left wing because he recruited, funded, and supported candidates that were capable of winning elections rather than ones who passed their ideological bar.
Thanks for making my point.
That New Democrat is now Chief of Staff. :mellow:
Left wing ideologues are certainly not "running everything."
Quote from: Scipio on December 07, 2009, 07:24:39 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 07, 2009, 06:27:03 PM
Heh, tea baggers.
I swear, the fucking GOP has nobody with a brain, or under the age of 50, within the top 10% of the GOP.
All the Reaganauts are dead.
Quote from: Fate on December 07, 2009, 08:45:32 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on December 07, 2009, 07:11:22 PM
Quote from: Fate on December 07, 2009, 06:37:25 PM
This is a selective reading of history. Rahm Emmanuel is widely reviled by the left wing because he recruited, funded, and supported candidates that were capable of winning elections rather than ones who passed their ideological bar.
Thanks for making my point.
That New Democrat is now Chief of Staff. :mellow:
Left wing ideologues are certainly not "running everything."
You know what? I fucked up my pronoun reference. Sorry fate. I meant to write:
A few years ago the democratic activists were trying to purge their moderate members like Lieberman. Now democrats run everything.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 07, 2009, 05:14:52 PM
I thought the Republicans were going to be like the Tories in 1997
You mean, abandon conservatism? No thanks. I'd rather stay out of power a little longer than do that.
Quote from: derspiess on December 08, 2009, 09:50:35 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 07, 2009, 05:14:52 PM
I thought the Republicans were going to be like the Tories in 1997
You mean, abandon conservatism? No thanks. I'd rather stay out of power a little longer than do that.
I feel the same way.
Quote from: DGuller on December 07, 2009, 05:24:07 PM
Believe it or not, there are a lot of people believing that Republicans can return to power only by embracing true conservatism, and by reversing the movement to the left on social and economic issues. This radicalization is baffling, and scary.
The momentum seems to be much more economic than social (more than a few of the tea party types are libertarians).
Personally, I'd put the social issues to the side to focus on the one thing that *should* bind all Republicans together: fiscal conservatism. If the GOP can't even agree on that, then it doesn't deserve to return to power. In other words, if a GOP candidate can't at least keep to the right on economic issues, screw 'em.
Quote from: derspiess on December 08, 2009, 10:01:11 AM
Personally, I'd put the social issues to the side to focus on the one thing that *should* bind all Republicans together: fiscal conservatism.
.
If the Republicans did that I would support them. It is the social shit that makes them simply unpalatable. Well that and the Republicans come off as favoring aggressive radical solutions to problems which I hate, because aggressive and radical usually mean idiotic. I find that a very strange quality for a party that claims to be "conservative".
Quote from: derspiess on December 08, 2009, 10:01:11 AM
Personally, I'd put the social issues to the side to focus on the one thing that *should* bind all Republicans together: fiscal conservatism. If the GOP can't even agree on that, then it doesn't deserve to return to power. In other words, if a GOP candidate can't at least keep to the right on economic issues, screw 'em.
It won't, though, because a large percentage of the base the Republicans need to hang on to is too stupid to understand fiscal issues. Things like "OMG DONT KILL BABEIS" are easy for granny to understand. Things like credit default swaps... not so much.
Don't get me wrong, a large percentage of the Democratic base is too stupid to understand these issues as well.
Quote from: Caliga on December 08, 2009, 10:05:56 AM
Don't get me wrong, a large percentage of the Democratic base is too stupid to understand these issues as well.
A large percentage of voters period.
Quote from: Valmy on December 08, 2009, 10:03:54 AM
Well that and the Republicans come off as favoring aggressive radical solutions to problems which I hate, because aggressive and radical usually mean idiotic.
Is there anything you can think of that rises to the level of the Dems' healthcare legislation?
Quote from: Caliga on December 08, 2009, 10:05:56 AM
It won't, though, because a large percentage of the base the Republicans need to hang on to is too stupid to understand fiscal issues. Things like "OMG DONT KILL BABEIS" are easy for granny to understand. Things like credit default swaps... not so much.
It happened before (see: 1994, Contract with America), and it can happen again.
Quote from: Caliga on December 08, 2009, 10:05:56 AM
Quote from: derspiess on December 08, 2009, 10:01:11 AM
Personally, I'd put the social issues to the side to focus on the one thing that *should* bind all Republicans together: fiscal conservatism. If the GOP can't even agree on that, then it doesn't deserve to return to power. In other words, if a GOP candidate can't at least keep to the right on economic issues, screw 'em.
It won't, though, because a large percentage of the base the Republicans need to hang on to is too stupid to understand fiscal issues. Things like "OMG DONT KILL BABEIS" are easy for granny to understand. Things like credit default swaps... not so much.
Don't get me wrong, a large percentage of the Democratic base is too stupid to understand these issues as well.
There is another explanation as well. Fiscal conservatism is popular when it is an empty slogan. It's not so popular when you get around to actually slashing spending or raising taxes.
Quote from: derspiess on December 08, 2009, 10:22:18 AM
It happened before (see: 1994, Contract with America), and it can happen again.
I see the Contract with America as a largely anti-Clinton thing, not so much as a fiscal conservatism thing. Notably it came about soon after Billary health care was demolished. :)
Quote from: derspiess on December 08, 2009, 10:17:10 AM
Quote from: Valmy on December 08, 2009, 10:03:54 AM
Well that and the Republicans come off as favoring aggressive radical solutions to problems which I hate, because aggressive and radical usually mean idiotic.
Is there anything you can think of that rises to the level of the Dems' healthcare legislation?
The fair tax (admittedly pushed by just a part of the party), invading Iraq, banning abortion.
Quote from: derspiess on December 08, 2009, 10:17:10 AM
Is there anything you can think of that rises to the level of the Dems' healthcare legislation?
Practically every thing Bush II wanted to do had a grandiose, delusional, moronic vision, even in (especially in?) foreign policy. Problem with Massachussets having gay marriage? I know! Lets change the Constitution! Problem with Democrats being annoying with filibusters? Nuclear option! Everything is a fucking 'kill a flea with a sledgehammer' kneejerk over-reaction or a radical reform. Oh and the various idiotic tax schemes their candidates trot out all the time 'OMG no taxes except sales tax LOL' or whatever.
The Democrats moronic ideas are tame and boring by comparison if not any less stupid. I would rather have boring stupid ideas than radical ones thanks.
Quote from: Caliga on December 08, 2009, 10:27:47 AM
I see the Contract with America as a largely anti-Clinton thing, not so much as a fiscal conservatism thing. Notably it came about soon after Billary health care was demolished. :)
How's that? The Contract with America program cuts were not in areas Clinton had championed.
I would love nothing better than if the Tea Baggers were a broad-based popular movement for fiscal discipline, but that is not my impression.
Another good example: the fucking brilliant idea that we should cut taxes and continue to spend anyway because, you know, cutting taxes will eventually raise revenues because it worked (sorta...ok it didn't) once before! We will just take it on faith everything is going to work out exactly as we planned it!
Come on guys can't you be a little more, oh I don't know, CONSERVATIVE in your political ideas.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 08, 2009, 10:33:53 AM
I would love nothing better than if the Tea Baggers were a broad-based popular movement for fiscal discipline, but that is not my impression.
Yep. It seems like the Ross Perot thing all over again...only crazier.
Quote from: Valmy on December 08, 2009, 10:36:26 AM
Yep. It seems like the Ross Perot thing all over again...only crazier.
I could live with that. Ross Perot was a loon but he put deficit reduction on the political map.
On a side note, I think it is interesting to remark that abortion and gay rights are actually two areas where Catholics and Josef Stalin would have been in a perfect agreement.
Quote from: Valmy on December 08, 2009, 10:29:15 AM
Practically every thing Bush II wanted to do had a grandiose, delusional, moronic vision, even in (especially in?) foreign policy.
:rolleyes: Okay.
QuoteProblem with Massachussets having gay marriage? I know! Lets change the Constitution!
Okay, that's an overreaction. But not as radical as HealthScare.
QuoteProblem with Democrats being annoying with filibusters? Nuclear option! Everything is a fucking 'kill a flea with a sledgehammer' kneejerk over-reaction or a radical reform.
Not as radical.
QuoteOh and the various idiotic tax schemes their candidates trot out all the time 'OMG no taxes except sales tax LOL' or whatever.
Okay, some of those ideas come close to being as radical as HealthScare, but it's not so much a mainstream GOP thing.
Quote from: Martinus on December 08, 2009, 10:43:12 AM
On a side note, I think it is interesting to remark that abortion and gay rights are actually two areas where Catholics and Josef Stalin would have been in a perfect agreement.
And you and Rush Limbaugh both agree that Macs are the coolest computers. Point?
Quote from: Valmy on December 08, 2009, 10:35:32 AM
Another good example: the fucking brilliant idea that we should cut taxes and continue to spend anyway because, you know, cutting taxes will eventually raise revenues because it worked (sorta...ok it didn't) once before! We will just take it on faith everything is going to work out exactly as we planned it!
Come on guys can't you be a little more, oh I don't know, CONSERVATIVE in your political ideas.
I don't disagree with your sentiment here, but I think now you're just spouting everything you hate about Republicans. I would say this is the opposite of a radical approach-- it's the path of least resistance in fact.
Quote from: derspiess on December 08, 2009, 11:16:07 AM
but I think now you're just spouting everything you hate about Republicans.
No if I did that I would have to bring up their religious fundamentalist wing :P
I like the old school Republicans, the Bush I Republicans. So colorless, so boring, but so RIGHT for America.
Quote from: derspiess on December 08, 2009, 11:12:59 AM
Okay, some of those ideas come close to being as radical as HealthScare, but it's not so much a mainstream GOP thing.
I think one of the big reasons I am not so nervous about the HealthScare thing is that I have confidence in the Bluedogs (and the handful of Republicans who would actually consider voting for it) to water it down until it is only a small reform rather than a big shake-up. The Leftists seem really angry at how it has gone so I presume it must be going well but I have been trying to ignore political news until we get closer to the election next year. Plenty of time to catch up when I need the info.
I think it's a bit too simplistic to say that everything radical is wrong, and that incremental change is always preferable. Sometimes half-measures are the worst option of all. Not always, but sometimes. Unfortunately, there is no easy way out of having to think through the issues, and decided based on facts whether incremental or radical change is needed.
Quote from: DGuller on December 08, 2009, 11:38:07 AM
I think it's a bit too simplistic to say that everything radical is wrong, and that incremental change is always preferable. Sometimes half-measures are the worst option of all. Not always, but sometimes. Unfortunately, there is no easy way out of having to think through the issues, and decided based on facts whether incremental or radical change is needed.
The only time radical change is needed is when the situation is desperate so you might as well roll the dice. The United States, a great world power, should not be taking unnecessary risks and should always bet on sure things. Everytime we try some great experimental whatever it almost always turns out badly.
That is my view and I think history both recent and ancient back up my view.
Quote from: Valmy on December 08, 2009, 11:44:09 AM
The only time radical change is needed is when the situation is desperate so you might as well roll the dice. The United States, a great world power, should not be taking unnecessary risks and should always bet on sure things. Everytime we try some great experimental whatever it almost always turns out badly.
That is my view and I think history both recent and ancient back up my view.
Radical doesn't mean unknown outcome, it means a significant departure from current practice.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 08, 2009, 11:52:30 AM
Radical doesn't mean unknown outcome, it means a significant departure from current practice.
Right it means an expected outcome due to theory...some crackpot theory...and then unintended consequences come up.
Quote from: Valmy on December 08, 2009, 11:44:09 AM
... Everytime we try some great experimental whatever it almost always turns out badly.
That is my view and I think history both recent and ancient back up my view.
You guys put people on the moon and you can't manage to offer basic healthcare coverage for all your citizens?! :lol:
G.
Quote from: Valmy on December 08, 2009, 11:54:36 AM
Right it means an expected outcome due to theory...some crackpot theory...and then unintended consequences come up.
Uh, no. The New Deal introduced a lot of radical measures, such as Social Security. Giving money to old people so they have money is not based on a crackpot theory.
Quote from: Valmy on December 08, 2009, 11:54:36 AM
Right it means an expected outcome due to theory...some crackpot theory...and then unintended consequences come up.
Occasionally, it leaves us better off than before. If history were totally dominated by moderates, nothing would ever get done.
Quote from: Grallon on December 08, 2009, 11:58:06 AM
You guys put people on the moon and you can't manage to offer basic healthcare coverage for all your citizens?! :lol:
Putting people on the moon is based on science. Trying to get the money to offer expensive services to over 300 million people is based on faith.
Quote from: Grallon on December 08, 2009, 11:58:06 AM
You guys put people on the moon and you can't manage to offer basic healthcare coverage for all your citizens?! :lol:
Putting people on the moon is a far, far simpler project. :)
Quote from: derspiess on December 08, 2009, 11:59:42 AM
Occasionally, it leaves us better off than before. If history were totally dominated by moderates, nothing would ever get done.
Nonsense. Almost all real progress is incremental -_-
Quote from: Grallon on December 08, 2009, 11:58:06 AM
You guys put people on the moon and you can't manage to offer basic healthcare coverage for all your citizens?! :lol:
You're supposed to say we're the richest nation on earth, not the moon thing :angry:
Quote from: Caliga on December 08, 2009, 12:01:42 PM
Putting people on the moon is a far, far simpler project. :)
Of course it goes against the ingrained dominant ideology - not to mention it disturbs powerful interests who happens to be large contributors for the political circus. :yes:
G.
Quote from: Valmy on December 08, 2009, 12:02:45 PM
Nonsense. Almost all real progress is incremental -_-
Almost all change in human behavior and attitudes is incremental. What examples of government-initiated incremantal change can you think of?
The income tax dance?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 08, 2009, 12:20:48 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 08, 2009, 12:02:45 PM
Nonsense. Almost all real progress is incremental -_-
What examples of government-initiated incremantal change can you think of?
http://languish.org/forums/index.php?topic=3083.0
Look how much power the EPA has accumulated since Nixon.
Quote from: Fate on December 08, 2009, 12:23:28 PM
The income tax dance?
Sorry, not clear enough. What examples of government-initiated incremental progress can you think of?
Quote from: derspiess on December 08, 2009, 09:50:35 AM
You mean, abandon conservatism? No thanks. I'd rather stay out of power a little longer than do that.
The Tories haven't abandoned conservatism in any specific way. Let's not forget when Labour decided to be pure in 1979, in 1983 they may have received several million votes for socialism but they were also trounced.
But I think this is a difference between conservatism in the UK and in the US. In the UK conservatism is to some extent the absence of ideology. Against the principles of the Liberals and the ideology of Labour the Tories represent the pragmatism of good government; I think it's the source of their 'natural party of government' status. Which is why 1997 was so traumatic for them.
In the US I think conservatism is a very ideological term with a set ideological meaning - far moreso than liberalism - and I think there is a strand of American conservatism that basically disdains power. It's in their DNA that while the Tories are the 'natural party of government' modern-day American conservatism has 1964 as its year of conception: it emerged in one of the most crushing defeats of the post-war era. From the start it's had the idea that it's better to be right and pure than to be in power.
QuoteIs there anything you can think of that rises to the level of the Dems' healthcare legislation?
That's as aggressive and radical as Burke cuddling a kitten. What's the aggressively radical stuff in there?
Let's not forget that for all the talk about Reid and Pelosi the figures who the Republicans couldn't reach a deal with were people like Max Baucus. We're not talking barn-burning radicals here. Currently I believe there's suggestions that Lieberman and Collins are happier with the current bill and I suspect that Voinovich could go for it too.
QuoteI would love nothing better than if the Tea Baggers were a broad-based popular movement for fiscal discipline, but that is not my impression.
I think one problem with the tea baggers is that they seem to me quite Glenn Beckish. They give a worrying impression, to me, of sort of populist pitchfork waving.
Having said that I agree with DS and think the GOP should focus on fiscal conservatism. However they need to give the impression of seriousness. I don't think policy ideas are the solution to any opposition parties' problem. For example only 20% of people in 1994 had even heard of 'Contract with America', right now though everyone has an opinion on it under 30% of people actually understand what a public option is. What opposition parties need to do is present the image that they're sane, responsible, ready for government - a few policies will help but no need to go overboard.
I think one of the GOP's problems is that they don't seem attached to the reality of current political debate. Their proposal for stimulus was to cut capital gains tax which was ridiculous, despite the fact that conservative economists broadly thought a good right-wing stimulus would be to temporarily eliminate and permanently lower the payroll tax (I actually think this should have been the tax cut portion of the actual stimulus). So the GOP's policy doesn't seem connected to reality, rather it's a shibboleth of the conservative movement and Reagan revolution (I think the GOP need to start talking about 2009 rather than Reagan as well) - that then gets read by a few policy wonks and the image dissipates through the press that they're not being responsible or ready for government, which they worked.
Something similar happened when Sen. Bennett of Utah proposed a conservative healthcare bill and was promptly attacked by numerous PACs as advocating a government takeover. It's not good for the party, in my opinion.
I disagree with Valmy on a couple of points to do with radicalism because I live in a country with a Parliamentary system in which every government can basically change things and fulfill their promises: it's not all bad.
Sheilbh, just because conservatives put more emphasis on pragmatism does not mean that we have no ideology. <_<
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 08, 2009, 12:41:28 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 08, 2009, 09:50:35 AM
You mean, abandon conservatism? No thanks. I'd rather stay out of power a little longer than do that.
The Tories haven't abandoned conservatism in any specific way. Let's not forget when Labour decided to be pure in 1979, in 1983 they may have received several million votes for socialism but they were also trounced.
But I think this is a difference between conservatism in the UK and in the US. In the UK conservatism is to some extent the absence of ideology. Against the principles of the Liberals and the ideology of Labour the Tories represent the pragmatism of good government; I think it's the source of their 'natural party of government' status. Which is why 1997 was so traumatic for them.
In the US I think conservatism is a very ideological term with a set ideological meaning - far moreso than liberalism - and I think there is a strand of American conservatism that basically disdains power. It's in their DNA that while the Tories are the 'natural party of government' modern-day American conservatism has 1964 as its year of conception: it emerged in one of the most crushing defeats of the post-war era. From the start it's had the idea that it's better to be right and pure than to be in power.
QuoteIs there anything you can think of that rises to the level of the Dems' healthcare legislation?
That's as aggressive and radical as Burke cuddling a kitten. What's the aggressively radical stuff in there?
Let's not forget that for all the talk about Reid and Pelosi the figures who the Republicans couldn't reach a deal with were people like Max Baucus. We're not talking barn-burning radicals here. Currently I believe there's suggestions that Lieberman and Collins are happier with the current bill and I suspect that Voinovich could go for it too.
QuoteI would love nothing better than if the Tea Baggers were a broad-based popular movement for fiscal discipline, but that is not my impression.
I think one problem with the tea baggers is that they seem to me quite Glenn Beckish. They give a worrying impression, to me, of sort of populist pitchfork waving.
Having said that I agree with DS and think the GOP should focus on fiscal conservatism. However they need to give the impression of seriousness. I don't think policy ideas are the solution to any opposition parties' problem. For example only 20% of people in 1994 had even heard of 'Contract with America', right now though everyone has an opinion on it under 30% of people actually understand what a public option is. What opposition parties need to do is present the image that they're sane, responsible, ready for government - a few policies will help but no need to go overboard.
I think one of the GOP's problems is that they don't seem attached to the reality of current political debate. Their proposal for stimulus was to cut capital gains tax which was ridiculous, despite the fact that conservative economists broadly thought a good right-wing stimulus would be to temporarily eliminate and permanently lower the payroll tax (I actually think this should have been the tax cut portion of the actual stimulus). So the GOP's policy doesn't seem connected to reality, rather it's a shibboleth of the conservative movement and Reagan revolution (I think the GOP need to start talking about 2009 rather than Reagan as well) - that then gets read by a few policy wonks and the image dissipates through the press that they're not being responsible or ready for government, which they worked.
Something similar happened when Sen. Bennett of Utah proposed a conservative healthcare bill and was promptly attacked by numerous PACs as advocating a government takeover. It's not good for the party, in my opinion.
I disagree with Valmy on a couple of points to do with radicalism because I live in a country with a Parliamentary system in which every government can basically change things and fulfill their promises: it's not all bad.
Our system necessitates compromise. We don't elect "a government" in that the majority comes to power and puts their guys in charge of it all. We elect individuals and make them get along enough to get stuff done. It's unusual for a single party to have anything like the kind of power Labour or Tories would have once elected. Maybe FDR did. Obama is close. GOP has had some success electing Presidents, but had been basically out of power in the modern era until 1994.
So everybody goes into it knowing they are going to have to compromise in order get what they want. So they do the same thing you would do when haggling with a merchant. You overshoot your target price and haggle down to what you are actually willing to pay.
GOP had no input whatsoever in the stimulus, so we don't know what their ideas would have been whittled down to. Maybe that cap gains cut would have become a payroll cut via compromise.
Quote from: Caliga on December 08, 2009, 10:27:47 AM
Quote from: derspiess on December 08, 2009, 10:22:18 AM
It happened before (see: 1994, Contract with America), and it can happen again.
I see the Contract with America as a largely anti-Clinton thing, not so much as a fiscal conservatism thing. Notably it came about soon after Billary health care was demolished. :)
How many of those term limits fanatics are still in office?
Quote from: Grallon on December 08, 2009, 11:58:06 AM
Quote from: Valmy on December 08, 2009, 11:44:09 AM
... Everytime we try some great experimental whatever it almost always turns out badly.
That is my view and I think history both recent and ancient back up my view.
You guys put people on the moon and you can't manage to offer basic healthcare coverage for all your citizens?! :lol:
G.
Are you insinuating that we put our unisnured people on the moon!?1? :mad:
;)
Quote from: Valmy on December 08, 2009, 11:54:36 AM
Right it means an expected outcome due to theory...some crackpot theory...and then unintended consequences come up.
Public health care isn't an untried crackpot theory. Most of the civilized world has had some form of it for decades.
I haven't been paying close attention lately.
Are these Tea Party/"Teabagging" Republicans supposed to be some rebranding of the Log Cabin Republicans? I am just assuming based on the name.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 08, 2009, 06:18:50 PM
I haven't been paying close attention lately.
Are these Tea Party/"Teabagging" Republicans supposed to be some rebranding of the Log Cabin Republicans? I am just assuming based on the name.
Nope, although speaking of teabaggers, Stupak finally got shot down.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on December 08, 2009, 07:11:56 PM
Nope, although speaking of teabaggers, Stupak finally got shot down.
No shit, how'd they manage that?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 08, 2009, 07:29:34 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on December 08, 2009, 07:11:56 PM
Nope, although speaking of teabaggers, Stupak finally got shot down.
No shit, how'd they manage that?
Stinger missile.
Quote from: Maximus on December 08, 2009, 06:16:52 PM
Public health care isn't an untried crackpot theory. Most of the civilized world has had some form of it for decades.
If what the US was doing was looking around the world for the most efficient, most innovative, and most effective health care strategy and implemented it that would be different. But we are not doing that. Why I have no idea...maybe we are too proud to borrow anything from foreigners? Not sure. Maybe there are no public health care strategy out there that works well...though I heard the Dutch one is something others should look at.
Quote from: Valmy on December 08, 2009, 08:09:47 PM
Quote from: Maximus on December 08, 2009, 06:16:52 PM
Public health care isn't an untried crackpot theory. Most of the civilized world has had some form of it for decades.
If what the US was doing was looking around the world for the most efficient, most innovative, and most effective health care strategy and implemented it that would be different. But we are not doing that. Why I have no idea...maybe we are too proud to borrow anything from foreigners? Not sure. Maybe there are no public health care strategy out there that works well...though I heard the Dutch one is something others should look at.
I think looking around is a good idea, but I doubt most countries have the demographics and structure similar to the US. Whatever we borrowed, we'd have to adapt to the federal structure and find a good way to drastically decentralize it without giving up the advantages of economy of scale. Unless the EU decided to build a single health care system that was run at the EU level and served every citizen in every euro state. We could copy that then, but I don't see that happening soon.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 08, 2009, 06:18:50 PM
I haven't been paying close attention lately.
Are these Tea Party/"Teabagging" Republicans supposed to be some rebranding of the Log Cabin Republicans? I am just assuming based on the name.
You should leave your dark, dingy cave more often! Come into the light! ;)
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 08, 2009, 08:18:11 PM
I think looking around is a good idea, but I doubt most countries have the demographics and structure similar to the US. Whatever we borrowed, we'd have to adapt to the federal structure and find a good way to drastically decentralize it without giving up the advantages of economy of scale. Unless the EU decided to build a single health care system that was run at the EU level and served every citizen in every euro state. We could copy that then, but I don't see that happening soon.
So we can only borrow ideas from a country identical to ours? Well no such thing exists.
Actually that goes against centuries of American practice. We have always used the states as the lab for these things and no one state has demographics and population identical to the entire country. We would essentially just be doing the same damn thing we have always done but looking at other countries instead of the states.
Quote from: Valmy on December 08, 2009, 10:40:02 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 08, 2009, 08:18:11 PM
I think looking around is a good idea, but I doubt most countries have the demographics and structure similar to the US. Whatever we borrowed, we'd have to adapt to the federal structure and find a good way to drastically decentralize it without giving up the advantages of economy of scale. Unless the EU decided to build a single health care system that was run at the EU level and served every citizen in every euro state. We could copy that then, but I don't see that happening soon.
So we can only borrow ideas from a country identical to ours? Well no such thing exists.
Actually that goes against centuries of American practice. We have always used the states as the lab for these things and no one state has demographics and population identical to the entire country. We would essentially just be doing the same damn thing we have always done but looking at other countries instead of the states.
Nah I just meant that it would take a lot of adaptation and tweaking.
Quote from: Barrister on December 08, 2009, 12:58:50 PM
Sheilbh, just because conservatives put more emphasis on pragmatism does not mean that we have no ideology. <_<
I meant that as a complement :P
QuoteGOP had no input whatsoever in the stimulus, so we don't know what their ideas would have been whittled down to. Maybe that cap gains cut would have become a payroll cut via compromise.
I understand that you don't have a government in the way that a parliamentary system. Though I think the GOP behave more like a parliamentary party than the Democrats.
I don't buy that cap gains tax cut would then be whittled down because when you're dealing with what looks like a serious recession the idea that cutting cap gains tax is really going to help is just preposterous. It showed a party stuck in 1988.
From afar, the impression of the New Labour has always been one of lack of ideology and high level of pragmatism. Perhaps it's just a feature of the British society and not any political movement.
Quote from: Martinus on December 09, 2009, 06:02:03 AM
From afar, the impression of the New Labour has always been one of lack of ideology and high level of pragmatism. Perhaps it's just a feature of the British society and not any political movement.
Yeah but New Labour's been 12 years of the Labour movement's history (I'd also argue it was ideological). Whereas the Tories' ideological period was 11 years in their entire history :P