As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options

The Continuing Self-Immolation of the GOP

Bionic MonkeyBionic Monkey Registered User, ClubPA regular
edited January 2010 in Debate and/or Discourse
I just came across this article, which lays out 10 reasons that the founder of Little Green Footballs has severed ties with the right-wing in this country.
Why I Parted Ways With The Right

1. Support for fascists, both in America (see: Pat Buchanan, Robert Stacy McCain, etc.) and in Europe (see: Vlaams Belang, BNP, SIOE, Pat Buchanan, etc.)

2. Support for bigotry, hatred, and white supremacism (see: Pat Buchanan, Ann Coulter, Robert Stacy McCain, Lew Rockwell, etc.)

3. Support for throwing women back into the Dark Ages, and general religious fanaticism (see: Operation Rescue, anti-abortion groups, James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Tony Perkins, the entire religious right, etc.)

4. Support for anti-science bad craziness (see: creationism, climate change denialism, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, James Inhofe, etc.)

5. Support for homophobic bigotry (see: Sarah Palin, Dobson, the entire religious right, etc.)

6. Support for anti-government lunacy (see: tea parties, militias, Fox News, Glenn Beck, etc.)

7. Support for conspiracy theories and hate speech (see: Alex Jones, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Birthers, creationists, climate deniers, etc.)

8. A right-wing blogosphere that is almost universally dominated by raging hate speech (see: Hot Air, Free Republic, Ace of Spades, etc.)

9. Anti-Islamic bigotry that goes far beyond simply criticizing radical Islam, into support for fascism, violence, and genocide (see: Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, etc.)

10. Hatred for President Obama that goes far beyond simply criticizing his policies, into racism, hate speech, and bizarre conspiracy theories (see: witch doctor pictures, tea parties, Birthers, Michelle Malkin, Fox News, World Net Daily, Newsmax, and every other right wing source)

And much, much more. The American right wing has gone off the rails, into the bushes, and off the cliff.

I won’t be going over the cliff with them.

This, combined with the litmus test I posted about in the Palin thread is painting a very bleak future for the GOP.
A GOP purity test?
Posted: Monday, November 23, 2009 1:42 PM by Domenico Montanaro
Filed Under: Republicans
From NBC's Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, and Domenico Montanaro
First Read has obtained a resoultion being e-mailed around to Republican National Committee members for comments that proposes a conservative litmus test of sorts.

This comes on the heels of a rift in the party that was exposed in the once-obscure special election in Upstate New York's 23rd Congressional District, in which national conservative leaders, including Sarah Palin, clashed with national establishment Republicans. The so-called GOP civil war threatens to derail moderate Republican candidacies in heated 2010 Republican primaries already underway. Florida's Senate race is perhaps the best and most prominent example.

The "Resolution on Reagan’s Unity Principle for Support of Candidates" outlines 10 conservative principles the group of signees wants potential candidates to abide by. The principles include support for:

(1) Smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill
(2) Market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare;
(3) Market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;
(4) Workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check
(5) Legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;
(6) Victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;
(7) Containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat
(8) Retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;
(9) Protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and
(10) The right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership


"President Ronald Reagan believed, as a result, that someone who agreed with him 8 out of 10 times was his friend, not his opponent," the resolution states.

But if a candidate disagrees with three of the above, then the group wants the RNC to withhold financial assistance and an endorsement from that candidate.

It's not yet clear that the resoultion will actually be formally introduced.

RNC Committeeman Jim Bopp, Jr., is the author of this resolution and general counsel to the National Right to Life.

He confirmed that he and others are considering proposing this resolution at the winter RNC meeting, which will take place in late January.

"The goal of the resolution is to take a position ... towards reclaiming the Republican Party's conservative bona fides," Bopp said, adding that there are some Republicans who favor the bailouts, spending, etc.

Another goal is to "demonstrate that we are open to diverse views," he said, "but you have to agree with us most of the time."

When asked if Ronald Reagan -- who raised taxes and increased the deficit during his presidency -- would be considered a conservative nowadays, Bopp responded, "I don't know any conservative who doesn't think that Reagan's presidency was a conservative presidency."

For some perspective, it's likely that Olympia Snowe (R-ME) would meet just seven of the 10 criteria, if she ends up voting for health care. The three exceptions: health care, immigration, and the stimulus.

Lindsey Graham (R-SC) meets eight of 10. The two exceptions: cap-and-trade, immigration.

Here's the text of the resolution:
Proposed RNC Resolution on Reagan’s Unity Principle for Support of Candidates

WHEREAS, President Ronald Reagan believed that the Republican Party should support and espouse conservative principles and public policies; and

WHEREAS, President Ronald Reagan also believed the Republican Party should welcome those with diverse views; and

WHEREAS, President Ronald Reagan believed, as a result, that someone who agreed with him 8 out of 10 times was his friend, not his opponent; and

WHEREAS, Republican faithfulness to its conservative principles and public policies and Republican solidarity in opposition to Obama’s socialist agenda is necessary to preserve the security of our country, our economic and political freedoms, and our way of life; and

WHEREAS, Republican faithfulness to its conservative principles and public policies is necessary to restore the trust of the American people in the Republican Party and to lead to Republican electoral victories; and

WHEREAS, the Republican National Committee shares President Ronald Reagan’s belief that the Republican Party should espouse conservative principles and public policies and welcome persons of diverse views; and

WHEREAS, the Republican National Committee desires to implement President Reagan’s Unity Principle for Support of Candidates; and

WHEREAS, in addition to supporting candidates, the Republican National Committee provides financial support for Republican state and local parties for party building and federal election activities, which benefit all candidates and is not affected by this resolution; and

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Republican National Committee identifies ten (10) key public policy positions for the 2010 election cycle, which the Republican National Committee expects its public officials and candidates to support:

(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill;

(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare;

(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;

(4) We support workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check;

(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;

(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;

(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;

(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;

(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and

(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership; and be further

RESOLVED, that a candidate who disagrees with three or more of the above stated public policy position of the Republican National Committee, as identified by the voting record, public statements and/or signed questionnaire of the candidate, shall not be eligible for financial support and endorsement by the Republican National Committee; and be further

RESOLVED, that upon the approval of this resolution the Republican National Committee shall deliver a copy of this resolution to each of Republican members of Congress, all Republican candidates for Congress, as they become known, and to each Republican state and territorial party office.

Chief Sponsor:
James Bopp, Jr. NCM IN

Sponsors:
Donna Cain NCW OR
Cindy Costa NCW SC
Demetra Demonte NCW IL
Peggy Lambert NCW TN
Carolyn McLarty NCW OK
Pete Rickets NCM NE
Steve Scheffler NCM IA
Helen Van Etten NCW KA
Solomon Yue NCM OR

The GOP isn't alienating it's members fast enough, so they've stepped it up to actively ban them from the party if they don't toe the line.

This thread is not for discussing Sarah Palin's book tour and how she's using a plane instead of a bus.

This thread is for discussing how Sarah Palin's excess of crazy is driving moderates away from the GOP, other ways the party is fracturing itself, and ways the GOP can put itself back together again. If you've got a great LOL GOP article, at least try to frame it in terms of the GOP's future so we don't get this locked.

sig_megas_armed.jpg
Bionic Monkey on
«13456758

Posts

  • Options
    Darkchampion3dDarkchampion3d Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Funny thing is these tools will still do well in 2010 because the american public is a bunch of retards that believe what the teevee says, assuming they even pay attention at all.

    Darkchampion3d on
    Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence --Thomas Jefferson
  • Options
    SyphonBlueSyphonBlue The studying beaver That beaver sure loves studying!Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    On the other hand, the Democratic party not being able to actually do anything and constantly being hamstrung by Republicans and Conservadems has begun to erode their base support.
    QUESTION: In the 2010 Congressional elections will you definitely vote, probably vote, not likely vote, or definitely will not vote?

    The results were, to put it mildly, shocking:

    Voter Intensity: Definitely + Probably Voting/Not Likely + Not Voting

    Republican Voters: 81/14
    Independent Voters: 65/23
    DEMOCRATIC VOTERS: 56/40

    If the Democrats can't prove they can actually pass something as important as health care reform and tell the Republicans to go fuck themselves, then everything they built in the past 2 years will go to waste in 2010.

    SyphonBlue on
    LxX6eco.jpg
    PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
  • Options
    kildykildy Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    On the other hand, the Democratic party not being able to actually do anything and constantly being hamstrung by Republicans and Conservadems has begun to erode their base support.
    QUESTION: In the 2010 Congressional elections will you definitely vote, probably vote, not likely vote, or definitely will not vote?

    The results were, to put it mildly, shocking:

    Voter Intensity: Definitely + Probably Voting/Not Likely + Not Voting

    Republican Voters: 81/14
    Independent Voters: 65/23
    DEMOCRATIC VOTERS: 56/40

    If the Democrats can't prove they can actually pass something as important as health care reform and tell the Republicans to go fuck themselves, then everything they built in the past 2 years will go to waste in 2010.

    Pretty much. People see "____ party is in control!" followed by nothing changing, they assume the problem was the party in control, not the actual actions that happened. Because CSPAN is fucking boring and the news knows it.

    Unless the Dems get their act together and start playing hardball, they're going to be murdered by proceedure and false offers of bipartisanship until 2010 and then get rolled by low Dem turnout.

    kildy on
  • Options
    BarcardiBarcardi All the Wizards Under A Rock: AfganistanRegistered User regular
    edited December 2009
    fivethirtyeight seems to be under the impression that its gonna be a GOP win already in 2010, if only because after ever presidential election the house and senate switch a little. However he seems to think its not going to be the end of the world as we know it. Mainly because the pups dont have any coherent party line any longer other than "no."

    Barcardi on
  • Options
    SyphonBlueSyphonBlue The studying beaver That beaver sure loves studying!Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    kildy wrote: »
    Unless the Dems get their act together and start playing hardball

    And as long as Harry Reid is in power, that will never happen in the Senate. What the Dems should do is focus all their efforts on getting him challenged.

    Thank god for Alan Grayson in the House, at least.

    SyphonBlue on
    LxX6eco.jpg
    PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
  • Options
    Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited December 2009
    kildy wrote: »
    Pretty much. People see "____ party is in control!" followed by nothing changing, they assume the problem was the party in control, not the actual actions that happened. Because CSPAN is fucking boring and the news knows it.

    Unless the Dems get their act together and start playing hardball, they're going to be murdered by proceedure and false offers of bipartisanship until 2010 and then get rolled by low Dem turnout.

    This. I am a pretty hard-core and loyal Dem and I am getting pretty exhausted of standing behind and apologising for a hapless party who is being hung out to dry by its worst members. Somehow the GOP, when they had the presidency and a slight congressional majority or even a congressional minority, and while clearly negotiating in bad faith, got all kinds of crazy and objectionable shit through. The Dems can't get anything through even with a Senate supermajority.

    It is frustrating.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • Options
    The Crowing OneThe Crowing One Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    By no means is this a developed position, but I've always felt as if the main barrier to progress was the volatile nature of our governing body. Party-control shifts and POTUS swaps alternating every two years, with a large amount of effort going to reelection, just makes it rather impossible to write, debate and approve any sort of comprehensive progress.

    In a way I find the actions of the GOP rather lifting. While not commenting on the disgusting nature of their "purge", they are attempting to find stability and consistency, which has, of recent, been a huge strength of the party. We criticize Democrats for their "big tent" and I'm personally pretty disgusted with the blue dogs and Lieberman-types who ambush their own party's attempts at getting things done.

    The Crowing One on
    3rddocbottom.jpg
  • Options
    StarcrossStarcross Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    On the other hand, the Democratic party not being able to actually do anything and constantly being hamstrung by Republicans and Conservadems has begun to erode their base support.
    QUESTION: In the 2010 Congressional elections will you definitely vote, probably vote, not likely vote, or definitely will not vote?

    The results were, to put it mildly, shocking:

    Voter Intensity: Definitely + Probably Voting/Not Likely + Not Voting

    Republican Voters: 81/14
    Independent Voters: 65/23
    DEMOCRATIC VOTERS: 56/40

    If the Democrats can't prove they can actually pass something as important as health care reform and tell the Republicans to go fuck themselves, then everything they built in the past 2 years will go to waste in 2010.

    Another possible cause of this is that the only people willing to identify as republicans are the absolute die hard supporters(I think they're at ~20% of the country supporting them), whereas a majority of the country supports the dems.

    Starcross on
  • Options
    GoslingGosling Looking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, Probably Watertown, WIRegistered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Andrew Sullivan broke too, though he wasn't really too strong a tie to begin with.

    Gosling on
    I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
  • Options
    SyphonBlueSyphonBlue The studying beaver That beaver sure loves studying!Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    So did Balloon Juice, though that was a while ago at this point. I believe it was Teri Schiavo that did it.

    SyphonBlue on
    LxX6eco.jpg
    PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
  • Options
    Edith_Bagot-DixEdith_Bagot-Dix Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    What's hilarious is that a few years ago, when I was in university, LGF itself was blocked as a hate speech site.

    Edith_Bagot-Dix on


    Also on Steam and PSN: twobadcats
  • Options
    ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited December 2009
    Gosling wrote: »
    Andrew Sullivan broke too, though he wasn't really too strong a tie to begin with.

    I'm fairly shocked that it took him this long.

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • Options
    SyphonBlueSyphonBlue The studying beaver That beaver sure loves studying!Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Gosling wrote: »
    Andrew Sullivan broke too, though he wasn't really too strong a tie to begin with.

    I'm fairly shocked that it took him this long.

    He broke back in 2003, really. This is just his up-to-date notes on why.

    SyphonBlue on
    LxX6eco.jpg
    PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
  • Options
    OctoparrotOctoparrot Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    How likely is Huckabee to be ostracized for the Clemmons clemency thing going on?

    As Beck and other make jabs against him, news sources are saying his 2012 chances are probably over (only 3 years to go!). I'm more interested in the idea that it removes him as a runner for Arkansas' senate seat next year. But, not living in Arkansas, I don't know much about the field so far.

    Octoparrot on
  • Options
    enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Gosling wrote: »
    Andrew Sullivan broke too, though he wasn't really too strong a tie to begin with.

    I'm fairly shocked that it took him this long.

    He left the Republican Party a long time ago, but still thought the conservative movement could be salvaged.

    enlightenedbum on
    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • Options
    kildykildy Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Octoparrot wrote: »
    How likely is Huckabee to be ostracized for the Clemmons clemency thing going on?

    As Beck and other make jabs against him, news sources are saying his 2012 chances are probably over (only 3 years to go!). I'm more interested in the idea that it removes him as a runner for Arkansas' senate seat next year. But, not living in Arkansas, I don't know much about the field so far.

    I doubt it will keep him from being a player. The dude is just so likable that he's hard to take down with logic and reason. He's just freaking terrifying when you get past how friendly he is and listen to what he just said.

    kildy on
  • Options
    enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    By no means is this a developed position, but I've always felt as if the main barrier to progress was the volatile nature of our governing body. Party-control shifts and POTUS swaps alternating every two years, with a large amount of effort going to reelection, just makes it rather impossible to write, debate and approve any sort of comprehensive progress.

    It has more to do with the fact that there are approximately 392043 veto points in the US. You need the majority of usually three committees in the House, 3 more in the Senate, the full House, the full Senate (with three or four cloture votes and final passage there), the conference committee, the second full votes in both houses, and then the President. Then there are all the poison pill amendments (Stupak)...

    Our government is a procedural nightmare.

    More on topic, yeah, the Republicans are insane, but I'm increasingly convinced the Democrats are retarded and Obama has lost his strategery genius in favor of believing his own magical unity pony (TM Balloon Juice) rhetoric.

    At some point they have to draw a line on the procedural horseshit and just pass things that are good for the country. (Nuke the filibuster entirely, it's a stupid rule made to coddle to segregationists)

    enlightenedbum on
    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • Options
    GoslingGosling Looking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, Probably Watertown, WIRegistered User regular
    edited December 2009
    At some point they have to draw a line on the procedural horseshit and just pass things that are good for the country.

    I'm increasingly wondering whether keeping the filibuster was worth it if this was what was going to happen.

    Gosling on
    I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
  • Options
    enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Gosling wrote: »
    At some point they have to draw a line on the procedural horseshit and just pass things that are good for the country.

    I'm increasingly wondering whether keeping the filibuster was worth it if this was what was going to happen.

    Leaving anti-Democratic measures around usually isn't worth it.

    enlightenedbum on
    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • Options
    SpeakerSpeaker Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    If they look stronger and stronger as we get toward the midterms I'm not sure if self-immolation is the right phrase.

    More like ominous gathering doom.

    Speaker on
  • Options
    enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Funny. Hey look, President McCain is on a Sunday show again.

    enlightenedbum on
    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • Options
    The Crowing OneThe Crowing One Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    By no means is this a developed position, but I've always felt as if the main barrier to progress was the volatile nature of our governing body. Party-control shifts and POTUS swaps alternating every two years, with a large amount of effort going to reelection, just makes it rather impossible to write, debate and approve any sort of comprehensive progress.

    It has more to do with the fact that there are approximately 392043 veto points in the US. You need the majority of usually three committees in the House, 3 more in the Senate, the full House, the full Senate (with three or four cloture votes and final passage there), the conference committee, the second full votes in both houses, and then the President. Then there are all the poison pill amendments (Stupak)...

    Our government is a procedural nightmare.

    More on topic, yeah, the Republicans are insane, but I'm increasingly convinced the Democrats are retarded and Obama has lost his strategery genius in favor of believing his own magical unity pony (TM Balloon Juice) rhetoric.

    At some point they have to draw a line on the procedural horseshit and just pass things that are good for the country. (Nuke the filibuster entirely, it's a stupid rule made to coddle to segregationists)

    Well, that develops my position a lot more.

    It just seems as if even those who are gung-ho about attempting to enact solutions to problems get so bogged down in the procedure and the need to appease members of the legislature that represent a minority of voters is downright against the idea of democracy.

    The Crowing One on
    3rddocbottom.jpg
  • Options
    SpawnbrokerSpawnbroker Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    kildy wrote: »
    Octoparrot wrote: »
    How likely is Huckabee to be ostracized for the Clemmons clemency thing going on?

    As Beck and other make jabs against him, news sources are saying his 2012 chances are probably over (only 3 years to go!). I'm more interested in the idea that it removes him as a runner for Arkansas' senate seat next year. But, not living in Arkansas, I don't know much about the field so far.

    I doubt it will keep him from being a player. The dude is just so likable that he's hard to take down with logic and reason. He's just freaking terrifying when you get past how friendly he is and listen to what he just said.

    Nothing scares me more than a man who believes he is doing God's will. A person like that can't be argued or reasoned with logically, and they are perfectly fine with oppressing you using their beliefs because "God said so."

    Spawnbroker on
    Steam: Spawnbroker
  • Options
    SpeakerSpeaker Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    The problem with nuking the filibuster is that you have to mentally travel back in time to 2005 when the Democrats were in the minority and the Republicans were at their most insane and ask "would I still be okay with there being no filibuster?"

    Speaker on
  • Options
    enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Speaker wrote: »
    The problem with nuking the filibuster is that you have to mentally travel back in time to 2005 when the Democrats were in the minority and the Republicans were at their most insane and ask "would I still be okay with there being no filibuster?"

    Yup! It's undemocratic bullshit.

    In particular, it's undemocratic bullshit that was never meant to be used as a de facto supermajority requirement.

    Theoretically, people representing 10% of the population (the least populated 20 states + 1 of Iowa's Senators) can block all legislation.

    That's insane.

    enlightenedbum on
    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • Options
    Bionic MonkeyBionic Monkey Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited December 2009
    Funny. Hey look, President McCain is on a Sunday show again.

    Meh. Senators go on these shows all the damn time. I don't think the fact that he ran for President has anything to do with why he's a media whore all of a sudden.

    Bionic Monkey on
    sig_megas_armed.jpg
  • Options
    enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Funny. Hey look, President McCain is on a Sunday show again.

    Meh. Senators go on these shows all the damn time. I don't think the fact that he ran for President has anything to do with why he's a media whore all of a sudden.

    He's been on every 3 weeks since the election. Nobody else is even close. It's the bookers I have a problem with.

    enlightenedbum on
    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • Options
    TaramoorTaramoor Storyteller Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Speaker wrote: »
    The problem with nuking the filibuster is that you have to mentally travel back in time to 2005 when the Democrats were in the minority and the Republicans were at their most insane and ask "would I still be okay with there being no filibuster?"

    Yup! It's undemocratic bullshit.

    In particular, it's undemocratic bullshit that was never meant to be used as a de facto supermajority requirement.

    Theoretically, people representing 10% of the population (the least populated 20 states + 1 of Iowa's Senators) can block all legislation.

    That's insane.

    Supermajority is not a requirement for getting whatever you want shoved through congress and Cleveland Steamer'd onto the American population.

    It's only a requirement if you're the Democrats, and even then it's not guaranteed.

    Republicans never seem to have any problems getting whatever they want even when they're the minority party.

    Taramoor on
  • Options
    enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Taramoor wrote: »
    Speaker wrote: »
    The problem with nuking the filibuster is that you have to mentally travel back in time to 2005 when the Democrats were in the minority and the Republicans were at their most insane and ask "would I still be okay with there being no filibuster?"

    Yup! It's undemocratic bullshit.

    In particular, it's undemocratic bullshit that was never meant to be used as a de facto supermajority requirement.

    Theoretically, people representing 10% of the population (the least populated 20 states + 1 of Iowa's Senators) can block all legislation.

    That's insane.

    Supermajority is not a requirement for getting whatever you want shoved through congress and Cleveland Steamer'd onto the American population.

    It's only a requirement if you're the Democrats, and even then it's not guaranteed.

    Republicans never seem to have any problems getting whatever they want even when they're the minority party.

    Judges are the exception. Democrats did hold up/block some of the worst Bush Federal/Circuit Court Judges.

    enlightenedbum on
    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • Options
    GoslingGosling Looking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, Probably Watertown, WIRegistered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Speaker wrote: »
    The problem with nuking the filibuster is that you have to mentally travel back in time to 2005 when the Democrats were in the minority and the Republicans were at their most insane and ask "would I still be okay with there being no filibuster?"

    I'd argue they're a hell of a lot more insane now and getting worse by the day. I mean, my God, you can't even get a straight answer out of Coburn when you ask him about a Ugandan proposal to execute gay people and jail those who refuse to identify gay people.

    Gosling on
    I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
  • Options
    VeritasVRVeritasVR Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Taramoor wrote: »
    Speaker wrote: »
    The problem with nuking the filibuster is that you have to mentally travel back in time to 2005 when the Democrats were in the minority and the Republicans were at their most insane and ask "would I still be okay with there being no filibuster?"

    Yup! It's undemocratic bullshit.

    In particular, it's undemocratic bullshit that was never meant to be used as a de facto supermajority requirement.

    Theoretically, people representing 10% of the population (the least populated 20 states + 1 of Iowa's Senators) can block all legislation.

    That's insane.

    Supermajority is not a requirement for getting whatever you want shoved through congress and Cleveland Steamer'd onto the American population.

    It's only a requirement if you're the Democrats, and even then it's not guaranteed.

    Republicans never seem to have any problems getting whatever they want even when they're the minority party.

    How come the Democrats did not utilize the 'Buster to this effect when they were the minority to prevent the (arguably) more drastic changes during the Bush administration?

    Does the answer involve the word "spineless"? And if so, are they not aware of the polarizations in administration between then and now? And if so, what the fuck?

    Can you answer all my questions with a question?

    VeritasVR on
    CoH_infantry.jpg
    Let 'em eat fucking pineapples!
  • Options
    SageinaRageSageinaRage Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Probably because the Democrats are not as unified a party as the republicans are. This is good in terms of allowing for a wide variety of opinions and rational thought, it's bad for getting all your members to vote a single way.

    edit:: Also, even though everyone can see the Republicans losing members, where are they going? Someone earlier on says that over 50% of the people identify as democrats, but I thought that seemed high - I thought most people were moving towards just calling themselves independents. And for former pubbies, independents who will still probably vote largely republican.

    SageinaRage on
    sig.gif
  • Options
    SyphonBlueSyphonBlue The studying beaver That beaver sure loves studying!Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Probably because the Democrats are not as unified a party as the republicans are. This is good in terms of allowing for a wide variety of opinions and rational thought, it's bad for getting all your members to vote a single way.

    edit:: Also, even though everyone can see the Republicans losing members, where are they going? Someone earlier on says that over 50% of the people identify as democrats, but I thought that seemed high - I thought most people were moving towards just calling themselves independents. And for former pubbies, independents who will still probably vote largely republican.

    Most are trending Independent and will just vote solely on which candidate most appeals to them and not by party line; they're probably just waiting for the current Republican party to die and they will probably start re-identifying themselves as Republican again.

    SyphonBlue on
    LxX6eco.jpg
    PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
  • Options
    The Crowing OneThe Crowing One Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Probably because the Democrats are not as unified a party as the republicans are. This is good in terms of allowing for a wide variety of opinions and rational thought, it's bad for getting all your members to vote a single way.

    edit:: Also, even though everyone can see the Republicans losing members, where are they going? Someone earlier on says that over 50% of the people identify as democrats, but I thought that seemed high - I thought most people were moving towards just calling themselves independents. And for former pubbies, independents who will still probably vote largely republican.

    Most are trending Independent and will just vote solely on which candidate most appeals to them and not by party line; they're probably just waiting for the current Republican party to die and they will probably start re-identifying themselves as Republican again.

    I maintain that the entirety of the American political spectrum shifted to the left with the 2008 election. The anger and terror of the teabaggers is the last scream for hard-core GOP conservatives. I suspect that while party affiliation won't change too drastically past this GOP crisis, both parties are going to be forced to reevaluate the needs of their "base". As always, the first signs are the screams. It'll probably take years, but I think we'll see some real shift once we get out of the recession and the wingnuts have been silenced.

    The Crowing One on
    3rddocbottom.jpg
  • Options
    GoslingGosling Looking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, Probably Watertown, WIRegistered User regular
    edited December 2009
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Probably because the Democrats are not as unified a party as the republicans are. This is good in terms of allowing for a wide variety of opinions and rational thought, it's bad for getting all your members to vote a single way.

    edit:: Also, even though everyone can see the Republicans losing members, where are they going? Someone earlier on says that over 50% of the people identify as democrats, but I thought that seemed high - I thought most people were moving towards just calling themselves independents. And for former pubbies, independents who will still probably vote largely republican.

    Most are trending Independent and will just vote solely on which candidate most appeals to them and not by party line; they're probably just waiting for the current Republican party to die and they will probably start re-identifying themselves as Republican again.

    Could end up in several more Scozzafava situations. GOP still gains overall, but the effects are mitigated.

    As for silencing the wingnuts, remember that by and large the wingnuts are the older ones. It's partly a matter of waiting for Father Time to do his job. 2010 will have 2 years more of young voters and 2 years less of old voters than there were in 2008.

    Gosling on
    I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
  • Options
    SyphonBlueSyphonBlue The studying beaver That beaver sure loves studying!Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    Gosling wrote: »
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    Probably because the Democrats are not as unified a party as the republicans are. This is good in terms of allowing for a wide variety of opinions and rational thought, it's bad for getting all your members to vote a single way.

    edit:: Also, even though everyone can see the Republicans losing members, where are they going? Someone earlier on says that over 50% of the people identify as democrats, but I thought that seemed high - I thought most people were moving towards just calling themselves independents. And for former pubbies, independents who will still probably vote largely republican.

    Most are trending Independent and will just vote solely on which candidate most appeals to them and not by party line; they're probably just waiting for the current Republican party to die and they will probably start re-identifying themselves as Republican again.

    Could end up in several more Scozzafava situations. GOP still gains overall, but the effects are mitigated.

    As for silencing the wingnuts, remember that by and large the wingnuts are the older ones. It's partly a matter of waiting for Father Time to do his job. 2010 will have 2 years more of young voters and 2 years less of old voters than there were in 2008.

    It would be just lovely if 2010 turned into a Scozzafava election.

    SyphonBlue on
    LxX6eco.jpg
    PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
  • Options
    OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    For all the dire predictions, 2010 still doesn't look too bad for Dems.

    It's traditionally a year where the new incumbent party takes a hit, but even with the traditional issues Dems are likely to pick up seats overall. Especially if GOP self-ID stays in the low twenties.

    OptimusZed on
    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • Options
    enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    For all the dire predictions, 2010 still doesn't look too bad for Dems.

    It's traditionally a year where the new incumbent party takes a hit, but even with the traditional issues Dems are likely to pick up seats overall. Especially if GOP self-ID stays in the low twenties.

    Except the Democratic Party is depressed right now and aren't planning on showing up.

    enlightenedbum on
    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • Options
    GoslingGosling Looking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, Probably Watertown, WIRegistered User regular
    edited December 2009
    No. I don't see a Democratic gain unless the healthcare bill passes and everybody's reading this whole thing wrong and fucks up 538's models in the process AND Scozzafava situations become an epidemic instead of the flu that just gets passed around the office.

    Gosling on
    I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
  • Options
    OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited December 2009
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    For all the dire predictions, 2010 still doesn't look too bad for Dems.

    It's traditionally a year where the new incumbent party takes a hit, but even with the traditional issues Dems are likely to pick up seats overall. Especially if GOP self-ID stays in the low twenties.

    Except the Democratic Party is depressed right now and aren't planning on showing up.
    50% turnout at 45% self-ID is roughly the same as 80% turnout at 25% self-ID.
    Gosling wrote: »
    No. I don't see a Democratic gain unless the healthcare bill passes and everybody's reading this whole thing wrong and fucks up 538's models in the process AND Scozzafava situations become an epidemic instead of the flu that just gets passed around the office.
    Last I checked, the individual races were a lot more favorable for Dems than the national climate is being feared to be. There are some that slant strongly Rep, and some that are tossups that will probably feel the sting of "those jackasses in power" syndrome, but there are others that were looking very strong and they weren't a tiny minority.

    I have admittedly been busy with school for the last month or so, though.

    OptimusZed on
    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
This discussion has been closed.